Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NISSAN MOTORS PHILS. v. VICTORINO ANGELO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 208908 2015-03-11	COFFEE BEAN v. ROLLY P. ARENAS BRION, J.
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of, or failure to exercise even a slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[18] There is habitual neglect if based on the circumstances, there is a repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time.[19]
	GR No. 208890 2014-12-08	JOEL N. MONTALLANA v. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE MANILA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work" is one of the just causes to terminate an employee under Article 296 (a) (formerly Article 282 [a]) of the Labor Code.[64] In order for this ground to be properly invoked as a just cause for dismissal, the conduct must be willful or intentional, willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude.[65] In Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc.,[66] "willfulness" was described as "attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination."[67]
	GR No. 157633 2014-09-10	NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. MA. CONCEPCION M. DEL ROSARIO BERSAMIN, J.
Northwest argues that Del Rosario was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct and willful disobedience. Misconduct refers to the improper or wrong conduct that transgresses some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. But misconduct or improper behavior, to be a just cause for termination of employment, must: (a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[9]
	GR No. 182957 2013-06-13	ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION -FUR CHAPTER-TUCP v. VS.ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA REYES, J.
Nevertheless, the Court, in exceptional cases, has granted financial assistance to legally dismissed employees as an act of "social justice" or based on "equity" so long as the dismissal was not for serious misconduct, does not reflect on the employee's moral character, or would involve moral turpitude.[28] In Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc. v. Angelo,[29] the Court ruled that, inspired by compassionate and social justice, it has in the past awarded financial assistance to dismissed employees when circumstances warranted such an award. Meanwhile, in Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc. v. Albayda, Jr.,[30] the Court held that an award to the employee of separation pay by way of financial assistance, equivalent to one-half (1/2) month's pay for every year of service, is equitable. The Court, in Pharmacia, noted, among others, that although the employee's actions constituted a valid ground to terminate his services, the same is not so reprehensible as to warrant complete disregard of his long years of service.