Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIA LOURDES C. DE JESUS v. RAUL T. AQUINO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194686 2015-09-23	TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO PERALTA, J.
The conflicting factual findings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA are not binding on us, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court would re-evaluate and re-examine the relevant findings.[29]
	GR No. 199554 2015-02-18	ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO. LEONEN, J.
Agabon focused on the fourth situation when dismissal was for just or authorized cause, but due process was not observed.[71] Agabon involved a dismissal for just cause, and this court awarded P30,000.00 as nominal damages for the employer's non-compliance with statutory due process.[72] Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[73] involved a dismissal for authorized cause, and this court awarded P50,000.00 as nominal damages for the employer's non-compliance with statutory due process.[74] The difference in amounts is based on the difference in dismissal ground.[75] Nevertheless, this court has sound discretion in determining the amount based on the relevant circumstances.[76] In De Jesus v. Aquino,[77] this court awarded P50,000.00 as nominal damages albeit the dismissal was for just cause.[78]
	GR No. 192011 2014-06-30	LIBCAP MARKETING CORP. v. LANNY JEAN B. BAQUIAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners claim that respondent is not entitled to financial assistance given that she is guilty of theft or embezzlement. The law and jurisprudence, on the other hand, allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee.[40] Financial assistance is granted as a measure of equity or social justice, and is in the nature or takes the place of severance compensation.[41]
	GR No. 187232 2013-04-17	ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA v. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION SERENO, C.J.
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that although there was a just cause for terminating the services of Mendoza, respondents were amiss in complying with the two-notice requirement. Following the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter, if the dismissal is based on a just cause, then the non-compliance with procedural due process should not render the termination from employment illegal or ineffectual.[46] Instead, the employer must indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages.[47] Therefore, the dismissal of Mendoza should be upheld, and respondents cannot be held liable for the payment of either backwages or separation pay. Considering all the circumstances surrounding this case, this Courts finds the award of nominal damages in the amount of P30,000[48] to be in order.