Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSARIO MANEJA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 202805 2015-03-23	ROSARIO BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT v. WENIFREDA BALCOM-TAMBUYAT DEL CASTILLO, J.
The trial court in LRC Case No. P-443-99 was not precluded from resolving the objections raised by Banguis in her opposition to the petition for cancellation; a separate action need not be filed in a different court exercising general jurisdiction. Banguis should be considered to have acquiesced and freely submitted the case to the trial court for complete determination on her opposition, when she went to trial and adduced and submitted all her relevant evidence to the court. "The active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction."[43]
	GR No. 196142 2014-03-26	VENUS B. CASTILLO v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS DEL CASTILLO, J.
For their dishonesty, the penalty of dismissal is justified pursuant to Section 2.6 (i) of the Prudentialife Personnel Manual which prescribes the penalty of dismissal for acts of padding receipts for reimbursement or liquidation of advances or expenses. Dishonesty is a serious offense, and "no employer will take to its bosom a dishonest employee."[38] Dishonesty implies a "[d]isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity[; l]ack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[39] Acts of dishonesty have been held to be sufficient grounds for dismissal as a measure of self-protection on the part of the employer.[40]
	GR Nos. 182978-79 2009-04-07	BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER v. SPS. SIMPLICIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The grant of moral damages to the employee by reason of misconduct on the part of the employer is sanctioned by Article 2219 (10)[35] of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of such damages in actions referred to in Article 21.[36]
	GR NO. 165995 2007-08-14	SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, on the matter of due process, well-settled is the dictum that the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. It is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing, on the other hand, is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.[19]
	GR No. 121948 2001-10-08	PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Procedural due process requires that the employer serve the employees to be dismissed two (2) written notices before the termination of their employment is effected: (a) the first, to apprise them of the particular acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought and (b) the second, to inform them of the decision of the employer that they are being dismissed.[7] In this case, only one notice was served upon private respondents by petitioner. It was in the form of a Memorandum signed by the Manager of the Cooperative dated January 2, 1990 terminating their services effective December 29, 1989. Clearly, petitioner failed to comply with the twin requisites of a valid notice.