This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-17 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The CA reliance on Caltex is misplaced. A closer examination of the two cases reveals that the facts are different. The only similarity is that both respondent and Clarete had no prior violations. However, unlike Clarete, respondent qualifies as a confidential employee. It bears emphasis that there is a well-settled distinction between the treatment of a confidential employee and rank-and-file personnel, insofar as the application of the doctrine of trust and confidence is concerned.[28] There was also no finding that the value of the goods was minimal compared to respondent's salary. Another glaring difference between the two cases is that respondent had people under his supervision and he engaged them to help commit his infraction.[29] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[27] The instant case falls squarely within the first of the enumerated exceptions because the NLRC decision dated March 12, 2003 is a patent nullity considering that the LA and the NLRC were devoid of any jurisdiction to alter or modify the NLRC Decision dated October 24, 2000, which already attained finality. | |||||