This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| True, the promotion and choice of personnel is an exercise of management prerogative. In fact, this Court has upheld management prerogatives, so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest, and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.[18] However, there are limitations on the exercise of management prerogatives, such as existing laws and the principle of equity and substantial justice.[19] | |||||
|
2014-08-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work.[58] They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that the employees comply with these standards.[59] Failure to comply may be a just cause for their dismissal.[60] Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an employee who is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the employer.[61] While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it does not "authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer."[62] Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On August 28, 2002, VA Diamonon dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit, but without prejudice to the payment of separation pay to the affected employees. In supporting his factual findings, the cases of Catatista v. NLRC,[17] Dangan v. NLRC (2nd Div.), et al.,[18] Phil. Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corp. v. NLRC,[19] Special Events & Central Shipping Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corp,[20] and San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo[21] were relied upon. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a just cause for dismissal of an employee under Article 282[41] of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, i.e., characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[42] Both requisites are present in the instant case. It is noteworthy that upon receipt of the notice of suspension, petitioner did not question such order at the first instance. He immediately defied the order by reporting on the first day of his suspension. Deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules by the employee cannot be countenanced. It may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe.[43] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The contract provision means that the fixed overtime pay of 30% would be the basis for computing the overtime pay if and when overtime work would be rendered. Simply stated, the rendition of overtime work and the submission of sufficient proof that said work was actually performed are conditions to be satisfied before a seaman could be entitled to overtime pay which should be computed on the basis of 30% of the basic monthly salary. In short, the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be established. Realistically speaking, a seaman, by the very nature of his job, stays on board a ship or vessel beyond the regular eight-hour work schedule. For the employer to give him overtime pay for the extra hours when he might be sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even just lulling away his time would be extremely unfair and unreasonable.[30] The Court also holds that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees in the concept of damages and expenses of litigation. Attorney's fees are recoverable when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest.[31] We note that respondent's basis for not deploying petitioner is the belief that he will jump ship just like his brother, a mere suspicion that is based on alleged phone calls of several persons whose identities were not even confirmed. Time and again, this Court has upheld management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.[32] Respondent's failure to deploy petitioner is unfounded and unreasonable, forcing petitioner to institute the suit below. The award of attorney's fees is thus warranted. | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The acts of Complainant, in repeatedly refusing to comply with the lawful and reasonable orders of the School, cannot be considered simply as acts of simple disobedience. Considering the circumstances and the sequence of refusals, they cannot but be willful and intentional. A willful refusal to comply with the superior's lawful and reasonable orders is a serious misconduct that strikes at the very root of supervisory authority, which should not be tolerated if organizations are to maintain order and discipline, both essential to organizational stability and survival. This dictum finds support in a long line of cases decided by our Supreme Court. Moreover, respondent's absence without leave for almost a month aggravated his infractions. He did not deny petitioner's allegation that he merely loitered outside the company's premises and did not request permission to go on leave. While in some cases, the length of service of the employee is considered to mitigate the imposable penalty, we cannot apply the same ruling in the instant case. Respondent had worked with petitioner for almost seven years yet he did not give the courtesy, if not gratitude due it by complying with its directives and explaining his conduct either verbally or in writing. Indeed, to hold that there is no just cause to terminate respondent would demoralize the rank and file employees who religiously comply with the lawful orders of their employer. It may encourage respondent to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. In protecting the rights of the laborer, courts cannot authorize the oppression or self- destruction of the employer.[22] | |||||
|
2005-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Concededly, employers are allowed, under the broad concept of management prerogative, to regulate all aspects of personnel administration including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the dismissal and recall of workers.[12] | |||||