Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARMELITA V. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 196597 2015-10-21	MODESTO W. RIVERA v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The discretion conferred upon him under OM 03-367 requires utmost prudence on his part and demands that he exercises judgment for the protection of the Bank's interest above all other considerations. Despite awareness of the risks of the rediscounting business of Ms. Sta. Cruz, he accepted from her several questionable checks and even aided the scheme by making her open joint accounts with the so-called payees who, as alleged by Ms. Sta. Cruz, were introduced to her by petitioner himself. His seeming personal interest in this kind of deposits became manifest when he continued to receive such second-endorsed checks despite the return of several checks due to forged or unauthorized endorsements thereby exposing the Bank to even greater financial damage. His repeated violation of the bank policy was indeed deliberate and constitutes gross misconduct. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer.[34] A company has the right to dismiss its employees as a measure of protection, more so in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility.[35] Indeed, it would be oppressive and unjust to order the respondents to take petitioner back, for the law, in protecting the rights of the employee, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[36]
	GR No. 169260 2011-03-23	SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
"As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected."[31] "The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized."[32]
	GR No. 166096 2008-09-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON BRIGIDO L. VELASCO REYES, R.T., J.
In Santos v. San Miguel Corporation,[55] petitioner, in his defense, cited the prolonged practice of payroll personnel, including persons in managerial levels, of encashing personal checks. Finding this argument unmeritorious, the Court held that "[p]rolonged practice of encashing personal checks among respondent's payroll personnel does not excuse or justify petitioner's misdeeds. Her willful and deliberate acts were in gross violation of respondent's policy against encashment of personal checks of its personnel, embodied in its Cash Department Memorandum dated September 6, 1989."[56] The Court even added that petitioner "cannot feign ignorance of such memorandum as she is duty-bound to keep abreast of company policies related to financial matters within the corporation."[57] We apply the same principle here.
	GR No. 164824 2008-04-30	ROLANDO V. AROMIN v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
Due process, under the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, specifically Book VI, Rule I on Termination of Employment and Retirement, requires two written notices and a hearing or conference before a valid and legal termination of employees can be implemented.[30] The first notice is intended to apprise the concerned employees of the particular acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought, and the second is to inform them of the decision to terminate them.[31]
	GR No. 143023 2005-11-29	EASTERN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CENTER v. CECILIA BEA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Procedural due process in labor law requires the employer to give the employee two notices.[10] The first is the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee to air his side, while the second is the subsequent notice of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[11] More particularly, Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides for the standards of due process to be substantially observed in cases of termination of employment, to wit:(d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
	GR NO. 154078 2005-05-06	EDGARDO D. MILLARES v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Finally, there is no cogent reason why we should not accord deference and finality to the Appellate Court's finding that petitioner was accorded his right to due process. In Santos vs. San Miguel Corporation,[6] we reiterated the well-entrenched rule that "(p)rocedural due process requires the employer to give the employee two notices. First is the notice apprising him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. Second is the subsequent notice informing him of the employer's decision to dismiss him." In the case at bar, respondent company sent petitioner the required notices. Clearly, he was not deprived of his right to due process.
	GR No. 158693 2004-11-17	JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[13] Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latter's representative in connection with the employee's work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.