Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERIC ALVAREZ v. GOLDEN TRI BLOC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183735 2015-07-06	SEGIFREDO T. VILCHEZ v. FREE PORT SERVICE CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal only upon compliance with certain requirements, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[15] And in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related such as would show employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[16]
	GR No. 196249 2014-07-21	ROSE HANA ANGELES v. FERDINAND M. BUCAD DEL CASTILLO, J.
x x x The punching of time card is undoubtedly work related. It signifies and records the commencement of one's work for the day. It is from that moment that an employee dons the cape of duties and responsibilities attached to his position in the workplace. It is the reckoning point of the employer's corresponding obligation to him to pay his salary and provide his occupational and welfare protection or benefits. x x x[34] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 192582 2014-04-07	BLUER THAN BLUE JOINT VENTURES COMPANY v. GLYZA ESTEBAN REYES, J.
Among the fiduciary rank-and-file employees are cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.[20] These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.[21]
	GR No. 181492 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS Y ORETA TINGA, J.
In its 4 September 2007 Decision,[23] the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court's decision. Appellant's Notice of Appeal[24] was approved, and the records of the case were elevated to this Court. This Court's 24 March 2008 Resolution[25] allowed the parties to file their supplemental briefs, but only appellant complied; the OSG manifested instead that there was no need for its part to file a supplemental brief as the merits of the case had already been extensively discussed in its brief before the appellate court.[26]