This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.[15] For misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[16] To be serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant.[17] It requires a wrongful intent,[18] which is apparently absent in respondent Briones' case. | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, it (a) must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. [25] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition.[37] Thus, in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively. Consequently, management has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its erring employees. Of course, this prerogative must be exercised free of grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the requirements of justice and fair play. Indeed, we have previously stated:Management also has its own rights, which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with [fewer] privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.[38] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's allegation that uttering slanderous remarks is not related to her tasks as a staff nurse deserves scant consideration. SLMC is engaged in a business whose survival is dependent on the reputation of its medical practitioners. To impute unethical behavior and lack of professionalism to a medical professional, to one who is also a hospital official, would be inimical to the interests of SLMC. This would also show tremendous disloyalty on the part of the employee who makes such derogatory statements. Moreover, the petitioner's bad faith became evident when, instead of addressing these disparaging remarks to the proper hospital officers, she addressed them to a former patient, whose child was at that time a patient in SLMC and entrusted to the care of the medical professional in question. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer. A company has the right to dismiss employees guilty of acts of dishonesty and disloyalty, if only as a measure of self-protection.[34] Dismissal of an employee guilty of such a serious infraction would be reasonable. | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, we have consistently defined misconduct as an improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.[19] To be a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines,[20] the misconduct must be serious,[21] that is, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.[22] However serious, such misconduct must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work;[23] the act complained of must be related to the performance of the employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[24] Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and, (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[25] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, we have consistently defined misconduct as an improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.[19] To be a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines,[20] the misconduct must be serious,[21] that is, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.[22] However serious, such misconduct must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work;[23] the act complained of must be related to the performance of the employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[24] Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and, (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[25] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, we have consistently defined misconduct as an improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.[19] To be a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines,[20] the misconduct must be serious,[21] that is, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.[22] However serious, such misconduct must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work;[23] the act complained of must be related to the performance of the employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[24] Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and, (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[25] | |||||
|
2007-02-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| That the [employer] suffered no damage resulting from the acts of [the employee] is inconsequential. In Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Empleyado ng Wellcome-DFA (NEW-DFA), we held that deliberate disregard or disobedience of company rules could not be countenanced, and any justification that the disobedient employee might put forth would be deemed inconsequential. The lack of resulting damage was unimportant, because "the heart of the charge is the crooked and anarchic attitude of the employee towards his employer. Damage aggravates the charge but its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee's liability." x x x[20] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) The transaction with Josefina aside, there was this case of misappropriation by petitioner of the amounts given to her by Evelia representing payment for the lapsed plan of Corazon Lintag. While a settlement of the case between the two may have eventually been forged, that did not obliterate the misappropriation committed by petitioner against a client of respondent. | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In St. Michael's Institute v. Santos,[80] this Court held that the employer's right to conduct the affairs of his business, according to its own discretion and judgment, is well-recognized. An employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative, where the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose takes form.[81] The law, in protecting the rights of workers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[82] | |||||