Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLANDO APARENTE v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 123294 2010-10-20	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the case at bar, the transgressions imputed to private respondent have never been firmly established as deliberate and willful acts clearly directed at making petitioner lose millions of pesos. At the very most, they can only be characterized as unintentional, albeit major, lapses in professional judgment. Likewise, the same cannot be described as morally reprehensible actions. Thus, private respondent may be granted separation pay on the ground of equity which this Court had defined as "justice outside law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for application where there is law."[38]
	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.[61] The only condition is that the exercise of management prerogatives should not be done in bad faith[62] or with abuse of discretion.[63] Truly, while the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject to the regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.[64]
	GR No. 168081 2008-10-17	ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
Exceptionally, separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed employee as an act "social justice,"[101] or based on "equity."[102] In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of the employee.[103]
	GR No. 169914 2008-04-18	ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equity is defined as justice outside law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law.[150] It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law.[151] Hence, equity finds no room for application where there is law.[152] It cannot prevail over an express provision of the law. However, it is
	GR NO. 156994 2005-08-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. RAMON A. UY CALLEJO, SR., J.
Invariably, a company's management prerogatives are upheld so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.[24]
	GR No. 149610 2004-08-20	ROSENDO PIÑERO v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally not entitled to any financial assistance. Equity considerations, however, provide an exception. Equity has been defined as justice outside law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for application where there is law.[26]