Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNION MOTOR CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 179648 2013-08-07	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Taking into consideration the circumstances attendant to Arcobillas's infraction, the NLRC correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that there was no sufficient basis to hold her guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty which would justify her termination from employment. To warrant removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual.[31] Although it was her second time to commit misposting (i.e., the first misposting was in 1995 while the second misposting was committed in 1998), Arcobillas's act cannot be considered as gross as to warrant her termination from employment. Gross neglect of duty "denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty."[32] It "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected."[33] As aptly held by the labor tribunals, the misposting was not deliberately done as to constitute as gross negligence. Rather, it was a case of simple neglect brought about by carelessness which, as satisfactorily explained by Arcobillas, was the effect of her heavy workload that day and the headache she was experiencing.
	GR No. 179326 2013-07-31	LUCIANO P. CAÑEDO v. KAMPILAN SECURITY DEL CASTILLO, J.
The primordial issue in this Petition is whether petitioner was dismissed from service. At the outset, the Court notes that this is a question of fact which cannot be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.[32] However, when there is no uniformity in the factual findings of the tribunals below, as in this case, this Court is resolved to again examine the records as well as the evidence presented to determine which findings conform with the evidentiary facts.[33]
	GR No. 183383 2010-04-05	ANABEL BENJAMIN v. AMELLAR CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears stressing in dismissing an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties, the negligence should not merely be gross. It should also be habitual.[43] There being nothing in the records to identify what specific duties Anabel violated and whether the violations were gross and habitual, any discussion herein is an exercise in futility.
	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
To warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual.[31] Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[32] Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[33]
	GR No. 166703 2008-04-14	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The issues for resolution are factual and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The raison d'etre is that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to reexamine and reevaluate the evidence on record. Moreover, the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect and finality unless the factual findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter clash with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals in which case, the Court will have to review the records and the arguments of the parties to resolve the factual issues and render substantial justice to the parties.[20]
	GR No. 159730 2008-02-11	NORKIS TRADING CO. v. MELVIN GNILO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The issue for resolution is whether respondent's transfer from the position of Credit and Collection Manager to that of a Marketing Assistant amounts to a constructive dismissal. This is a factual matter. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The raison d'etre is that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record. The general rule is that the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are accorded high respect and finality unless the factual findings and conclusions of the LA clash with those of the NLRC and the CA, as it appears in this case. Thus we have to review the records and the arguments of the parties to resolve the factual issues and render substantial justice to the parties.[12]
	GR NO. 150171 2007-07-17	ACEBEDO OPTICAL v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that the past infractions could still validly be the subject of future punishment, still there is no basis for petitioners' claim that private respondent's supposed habitual absenteeism and tardiness is a form of gross and habitual neglect of duty. Under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of duty by the employee of his duties is a just cause for the termination of the latter's employment. To warrant removal from service, however, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual.[30] In this case, assuming the absences and tardiness of private respondent Asegurado to be habitual, can they also be categorized as gross?
	GR NO. 160863 2006-09-27	NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.[40] Dismissal, without doubt, is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee.[41] Thus, where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.[42]
	GR NO. 153784 2005-10-25	ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA TINGA, J.
In its Comment,[10] respondent bank seeks to have the petition dismissed inasmuch as all the issues raised herein involve questions of fact. We note that as a general rule, only questions of law may be brought upon this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts, and as such is tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again.[11]