Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

R.B. MICHAEL PRESS and ANNALENE REYES ESCOBIA v. NICASIO C. GALIT

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 192190 2012-04-25	BILLY M. REALDA v. NEW AGE GRAPHICS REYES, J.
This particular issue is far from being novel as this Court had the opportunity in R.B. Michael Press v. Galit[8] to categorically state that an employer has the right to require the performance of overtime service in any of the situations contemplated under Article 89 of the Labor Code and an employee's non-compliance is willful disobedience. Thus: For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these two elements must concur: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
	GR No. 168317 2011-11-21	DUP SOUND PHILS. v. CA PERALTA, J.
Petitioners further claim that private respondent's absence caused interruption in the workflow which caused damages to the company. It is, thus, logical that petitioners would have wanted private respondent to return to work in order to prevent further loss on their part. In such a case, they could have immediately sent private respondent a notice or show-cause letter at his last known address requiring him to report for work, or to explain his absence with a warning that his failure to do so would be construed as abandonment of his work. However, petitioners failed to do so. Moreover, if private respondent indeed abandoned his job, petitioners should have afforded him due process by serving him written notices, as well as a chance to explain his side, as required by law. It is settled that, procedurally, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282[16] of the Labor Code, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought, a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and, after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss.[17] Again, petitioners failed to do these. Thus, the foregoing bolsters private respondent's claim that he did not abandon his work but was, in fact, dismissed.
	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period.[16] "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense.[17] This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint.[18] Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees.[19] A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, were violated and/or which among the grounds under Article 282 is being charged against the employees.[20]
	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In R.B. Michael Press v. Galit,[35] the Court had occasion to reiterate that under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two notices before their employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated. To this, the Court added: Not to be taken lightly, of course, is the hearing or opportunity for the employee to defend himself personally or by counsel of his choice.
	GR No. 152048 2009-04-07	FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CORONA, J.
The omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code, on the other hand, require a hearing and conference during which the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him:[17]
	GR No. 152048 2009-04-07	FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CORONA, J.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its January 29, 2002 decision,[7] the CA affirmed the NLRC decision insofar as petitioners' illegal suspension for 15 days and dismissal for just cause were concerned. However, it found that petitioners were dismissed without due process.
	GR No. 157680 2008-10-08	EQUIPMENT TECHNICAL SERVICES OR JOSEPH JAMES DEQUITO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Parenthetically, petitioners' assertion that there can be no illegal dismissal of project employees inasmuch as they are not entitled to security of tenure is inaccurate. The constitutionally-protected right of labor to security of tenure covers both regular and project workers.[16] Their termination must be for lawful cause and must be done in a way which affords them proper notice and hearing.[17]
	GR No. 164850 2008-09-25	REYNALDO Q. AGULLANO v. CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING NACHURA, J.
In R.B. Michael Press v. Nicanor C. Galit,[12] this Court had occasion to reiterate that under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before their employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated. To this, we added:Not to be taken lightly, of course, is the hearing or opportunity for the employee to defend himself personally or by counsel of his choice.