This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances.[40] Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[41] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' lack of just cause and non-compliance with the procedural requisites in terminating respondent's employment renders them guilty of illegal dismissal. Consequently, respondent is entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages. However, if such reinstatement proves impracticable, and hardly in the best interest of the parties, perhaps due to the lapse of time since his dismissal, or if he decides not to be reinstated, respondent should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.[26] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The principle echoed and reechoed in jurisprudence is that the onus of proving that the employee was dismissed for a just cause rests on the employer,[24] and the latter's failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.[25] The CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in not sustaining the legality of respondent's dismissal. | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In illegal dismissal cases, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer, failure to discharge which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.[11] | |||||