Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164681 2009-04-24	BERNARDINO V. NAVARRO v. P.V. PAJARILLO LINER AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The CA found that while an award of backwages presupposes a finding of illegal dismissal, not every case of illegal dismissal deserves an award of backwages, citing Manila Electric Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] Cathedral School of Technology v. National Labor Relations Commission, [12] and Durabuilt Recapping and Plant Company v. National Labor Relations Commission.[13] The CA further held that petitioner was the holder of the confiscated driver's license; thus, it was his duty to redeem his license; that while respondent previously took care of retrieving a confiscated driver's license, it was only a matter of accommodation, as there is no law or regulation making it an obligation of the employer to undertake retrieval of its erring driver's license; that when respondent failed to heed petitioner's request to redeem his license, a personal privilege and non-transferable, petitioner should have personally redeemed the same, which he did not; thus, he was not entitled to backwages.
	GR No. 159302 2008-02-06	CITIBANK v. NLRC and ROSITA TAN PARAGAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Finally, even the NLRC, its later ruling that respondent was not guilty of misconduct notwithstanding, was aware that the problem with respondent was not merely her poor work output, but her unreasonable behavior and unpleasant deportment. Thus, as its Resolution of October 24, 2000 drew to a close, it stated that petitioner was "correct" in invoking Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC,[25] specifically the following portion of this Court's decision therein:An evaluative review of the records of this case nonetheless supports a finding of a just cause for termination. The reason for which private respondent's services were terminated, namely, her unreasonable behavior and unpleasant deportment in dealing with the people she closely works with in the course of her employment, is analogous to the other "just causes" enumerated under the Labor Code. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 165881 2006-04-19	OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Citing the cases of Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC[11] and Canlubang Security Agency Corporation v. NLRC,[12] the spouses Villamaria argued that Bustamante was not illegally dismissed since the Kasunduan executed on August 7, 1997 transformed the employer-employee relationship into that of vendor-vendee. Hence, the spouses concluded, there was no legal basis to hold them liable for illegal dismissal. They prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and patent lack of merit.