This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The aforequoted NLRC ruling also explains why there is no merit in Commissioner Enerlan's contention that the incomplete financial statements as of and for the year ended June 30, 2000 and 1999 are inconclusive to establish that PCPPI incurred serious business losses. Given that the financial statements are incomplete, the independent auditing firm, SGV & Co., aptly explained nonetheless that they were derived from the PCPPI's accounting records, and were subject to further adjustments upon the completion of the audit of financial statements of the company taken as a whole, which was then in progress. The Court thus agrees with the CA and the NLRC that the letter of SGV & Co., accompanied by a consolidated Statement of Income and Deficit showing a net loss of P29,167,000. in the company's Tanauan Operations as of June 30, 1999, and P22,328,000 as of June 2000,[36] is sufficient and convincing proof of serious business losses which justified PCPPI's retrenchment program. After all, the settled rule in quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary, as substantial evidence is considered sufficient.[37] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[38] | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA uniformly declared that petitioners were not dismissed from employment but merely suspended pending payment of their arrears. Findings of fact of the CA, particularly where they are in absolute agreement with those of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, are accorded not only respect but even finality, and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. [17] | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The decision to suspend petitioner was rendered after investigation and a finding by respondent that petitioner has indeed made malicious statements against a co-employee. The suspension was imposed due to a repeated infraction within a deactivation period set by the company relating to a previous similar offense committed. It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition.[36] What should not be overlooked is the prerogative of an employer company to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business and to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules to assure that the same would be complied with.[37] Respondent then acted within its rights as an employer when it decided to exercise its management prerogative to impose disciplinary measure on its erring employee. | |||||