Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 174893 2012-07-11	FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES RAYEL v. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner, in the present case, was L&T's CHR Director for Manufacturing. As such, she was directly responsible for managing her own departmental staff. It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great responsibility. Because of this, petitioner must enjoy the full trust and confidence of her superiors. Not only that, she ought to know that she is "bound by more exacting work ethics"[37] and should live up to this high standard of responsibility. However, petitioner delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Respondents also impute upon petitioner gross negligence and incompetence which are likewise justifiable grounds for dismissal.[38] The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid cause lies on the employer.[39] Here, respondents were able to overcome this burden as the evidence presented clearly support the validity of petitioner's dismissal.
	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
This burden of proof was clarified in Community Rural Bank of San Isidro (N.E.), Inc. v. Paez[21] to mean substantial evidence: The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just cause and this must be supported by substantial evidence. The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just cause and this must be supported by substantial evidence. The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[29]
	GR No. 157376 2007-10-02	CORAZON C. SIM v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner does not deny having withdrawn the amount of P3,000,000.00 lire from the bank's account. What petitioner submits is that she used said amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the company. Respondent, however, countered that at the time she withdrew said amount, the radio program was already off the air. Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal.[14] The mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached the trust of the employer would suffice for his/her dismissal.[15] [w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A company's resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.[16] The Court notes, however, a palpable error in the Labor Arbiter's disposition of the case, which was affirmed by the NLRC, with regard to the issue on jurisdiction. It was wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that "labor relations system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction."[17]