Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORTHWEST TOURISM CORP. v. FORMER SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION OF CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180123 2010-02-18	KULAS IDEAS v. JULIET ALCOSEBA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Article 282 (b) and (c) [29] of the Labor Code provide that an employer may terminate an employee for "gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties" and for "fraud." In both instances, substantial evidence is necessary for an employer to effectuate any dismissal. Uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer do not suffice, otherwise the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure of the employee[30] would be jeopardized.
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respecting the dismissal on November 15, 1992[34] of Auxtero, a regular employee of petitioner who had been working as utility man/helper since November 1988, it is not legally justified for want of just or authorized cause therefor and for non-compliance with procedural due process. Petitioner's claim that he abandoned his work does not persuade.[35] The elements of abandonment being (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts,[36] the onus probandi lies with petitioner which, however, failed to discharge the same.
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Auxtero, having been declared to be a regular employee of petitioner, and found to be illegally dismissed from employment, should be entitled to salary differential[37] from the time he rendered one year of service until his dismissal, reinstatement plus backwages until the finality of this decision.[38] In view, however, of the long period of time[39] that had elapsed since his dismissal on November 15, 1992, it would be appropriate to award separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service, in lieu of reinstatement.[40]
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On petitioners' claim of abandonment by private respondent, well-settled is the rule that to constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act. The employer has the burden of proof to show the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment.[55]
	GR NO. 150134 2007-10-31	ERNESTO C. DEL ROSARIO v. FAR EAST BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
On May 22, 1998, the CA rendered a decision[13] in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591, holding that petitioners' outstanding obligation, which this Court had determined in G.R. No. 73198 to be P1.4 million, could not be increased or decreased by any act of the creditor PDCP.
	GR NO. 150134 2007-10-31	ERNESTO C. DEL ROSARIO v. FAR EAST BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
In its Answer,[19] FEBTC denied responsibility, it submitting that nowhere in the dispositive portion of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591 was it held liable to return the whole amount of P5.435 million representing the consideration for the assignment to it of the receivables, and since petitioners failed to claim the said whole amount in their original complaint in Civil Case No. 94-1610 as they were merely claiming the amount of P965,000 from it, they were barred from claiming it.
	GR NO. 139159 2006-01-31	PHILIPPINE MILITARY VETERANS SECURITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Northwest Tourism Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Former Special Third Division,[17] we held:Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct. However, the evidence must be substantial and must establish clearly and convincingly the facts on which the loss of confidence in the employee rests. To be a valid reason for dismissal, loss of confidence must be genuine. Uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice, otherwise it will jeopardize the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure of the employee. In this case, petitioners failed to prove the acts and misconduct imputed upon private respondents which would justify their dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence.