Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELICISIMO CARILLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.[21] This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and elaborated in the Labor Code.[22] A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[23] The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[24]
	GR No. 176040 2009-09-04	CASA CEBUANA INCORPORADA v. IRENEO P. LEUTERIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In view of the lack of proper investigation into the charges against respondent, petitioners failed to show that they have a just cause for terminating his employment. Respondents' alleged infractions amount to nothing more than bare accusations and unilateral conclusions that do not provide legal justification for his termination from employment. Although petitioners have wider latitude of discretion in terminating respondent, who was a managerial employee, it is nonetheless settled that confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation. Such employees, too, are entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws. Managerial employees, no less than rank-and-file laborers are entitled to due process.[23]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
et al.[103] 12 months 4 months 8 months 8 months Philippine Transmarine v. Carilla[104] 12 months 6 months and 22 days 5 months and
	GR No. 165389 2008-10-17	NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent the first requisite, it is a basic principle that in the dismissal of employees, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified.[25] This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and in the Labor Code. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[26] The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[27]