Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NOS. 178085 - 178086 2015-09-14	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF LABOR JARDELEZA, J.
Nonetheless, employers do not have unbridled authority to dismiss employees by simply invoking Article 282(c). The loss of confidence must be genuine and cannot be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper and unjust.[51] "Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse by the employer of its prerogative, as it can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature.[52]
	GR No. 172854 2009-04-16	ADAM B. GARCIA v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Loss of trust and confidence, as a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. 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.[29] 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.[30] A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicion spawned by speculative inferences.[31]
	GR No. 182570 2009-01-27	ROMEO N. VENTURA v. CA NACHURA, J.
It is well settled that the basic requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases is for the employer to inform the employee of the specific charges against him and to hear his side and defenses. This does not, however, mean a full adversarial proceeding. The parties may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memorandum or oral argument. In all of these instances, the employer plays an active role by providing the employee with the opportunity to present his side and answer the charges in substantial compliance with due process.[17]
	GR No. 167449 2008-12-17	BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB v. RICHARD NIXON A. BABAN REYES, R.T., J.
Questioning the validity of his dismissal, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with a claim for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. 10 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against petitioner. Likewise impleaded were the company's General Manager, Medical Sales Director, HR Director, Personnel Manager, Auditor and Finance Director.[4]
	GR No. 167345 2007-11-23	E PACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER v. MA. LOURDES CABANSAY NACHURA, J.
Let it be stressed that insofar as the application of the doctrine of trust and confidence is concerned, jurisprudence has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees or employees occupying positions of trust and confidence from that of rank-and-file personnel. With respect to the latter, loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, but as regards managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his or her dismissal.[46] For this purpose, there is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[47] Respondent's conduct, in this case, is sufficient basis for the company to lose its trust and confidence in her. Under the circumstances, the company cannot be expected to retain its trust and confidence in and continue to employ a manager whose attitude is perceived to be inimical to its interests. Unlike other just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible to regain.[48]
	GR No. 143688 2007-08-17	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. BELINDA D. BUNA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[21] None of these exceptions are present in the instant case. As such, respondent's failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC rendered such decision final and executory. Consequently, recourse to the Court of Appeals was no longer feasible or available.
	GR NO. 149013 2006-08-31	HOUSE OF SARA LEE v. CYNTHIA F. REY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The degree of proof required in labor cases is not as stringent as in other types of cases.[35] It must be noted, however, that recent decisions of this Court have distinguished the treatment of managerial employees from that of rank-and-file personnel in the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence.[36] With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as to a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; it is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of confidence, as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[37]