Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONRADO TIU v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 198699 2013-10-09	REXIE A. HORMILLOSA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
In Tiu and/or Conti Pawnshop v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Court ruled that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code requires that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by the employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently.
	GR No. 149433 2011-06-22	COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION v. VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Verily, in Tiu and/or Conti Pawnshop v. National Labor Relations Commission, [11] we held that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by the employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. [12] And in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, like respondent Gacayan, the loss of trust and confidence must spring from the voluntary or willful act of the employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the part of the employee. [13]
	GR No. 166096 2008-09-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO REYES, R.T., J.
In Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna,[64] Tiu v. National Labor Relations Commission,[65] Five J Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission,[66] and Falguera v. Linsangan,[67] among other cases, this Court consistently held that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, which have acquired expertise in matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, are accorded not only respect but also finality if they are supported by substantial evidence.[68] Thus, in the absence of proof that the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC had gravely abused their discretion, this Court shall deem conclusive and will not overturn their particular factual findings.[69]
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, we have held[31] that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Elsewise stated, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[32] A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicion spawned by speculative inferences.[33]
	GR NO. 158758 2005-04-29	P.J. LHUILLIER INC. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, in the case of Tiu and/or Conti Pawnshop v. NLRC and Ancheta,[31] we held that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Elsewise stated, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.