This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Taking all these circumstances collectively, the Court is convinced that respondents have sufficient and valid reasons in terminating the services of petitioner as her continued employment would be patently inimical to respondents' interest. An employer "has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers."[47] "[S]o long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements,"[48] the exercise of this management prerogative must be upheld. | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In many cases, it has been held that in termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and therefore illegal.[40] Taking into account the character of the charges and the penalty meted to an employee, the employer is bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal.[41] This is consistent with the principle of security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.[42] | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Now, to validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, the following requisites must be established: (a) the loss of confidence must not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper or unjustified; (c) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith; and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, but substantial evidence is vital and the burden rests on the employer to establish such evidence. Any other rule would place the employee absolutely at the mercy of the employer. Moreover, the term trust and confidence is restricted to managerial employees only.[21] | |||||