Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENE P. VALIAO v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 172044 2013-02-06	CAVITE APPAREL v. MICHELLE MARQUEZ BRION, J.
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be both gross and habitual.[22] Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances.[23] Under these standards and the circumstances obtaining in the case, we agree with the CA that Michelle is not guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties.
	GR Nos. 169965-66 2010-12-15	CARLOS V. VALENZUELA v. CALTEX PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties is a sufficient and legal ground to terminate employment. Jurisprudence provides that serious misconduct and habitual neglect of duties are among the just causes for terminating an employee. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[30]
	GR No. 180302 2010-02-05	JIMMY ARENO v. SKYCABLE PCC-BAGUIO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In this case, petitioner was asked to explain and was informed of the complaint against him. A committee was formed which conducted an investigation on January 31, 2002 by exhaustively examining and questioning both petitioner and his accuser, Soriano, separately. Petitioner actively participated therein by answering the questions interposed by the panel members. The proceeding was recorded, and the correctness of which was certified by respondent thru its Regional Manager, Raul Bandonill.[34] Undoubtedly, petitioner was given enough opportunity to be heard and defend himself. It has already been held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, a formal or trial-type hearing is not essential as the due process requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side.[35]
	GR No. 171790 2008-10-17	BRENDO D. MERIN v. NLRC TINGA, J.
The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other.[28] While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty[29] Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.[30] We find just cause in petitioner's termination.
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[67] Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in administrative proceedings.[68] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[69] So long as the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.[70]
	GR No. 157076 2007-09-07	PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — PIZZA HUT v. EVERGISTO ANTONIO E. SARMIENTO QUISUMBING, J.
Apropos respondents' salary during their suspension, we hold that the NLRC properly included the period of respondents' preventive suspension in its computation. During the pendency of the investigation, the employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.[12]
	GR NO. 146779 2006-01-23	RENATO S. GATBONTON v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company's property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.[10] However, when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify an employee's preventive suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of preventive suspension.[11]
	GR No. 165268 2005-11-08	CHALLENGE SOCKS CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time. Buguat's repeated acts of absences without leave and her frequent tardiness reflect her indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in her work. Her repeated and habitual infractions, committed despite several warnings, constitute gross misconduct. Habitual absenteeism without leave constitute gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee.[20]