Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACD INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY v. PABLO D. DAQUERA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 175960 2008-02-19	PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
For abandonment to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and, (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts.[10] The establishment of his own shop is not enough proof that Javilgas intended to sever his relationship with his employer.
	GR NO. 148619 2006-09-19	ABOITIZ HAULERS v. MONAORAI DIMAPATOI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to return to work rests on the employer.[41] Petitioner, however, failed to prove this. It not only failed to contradict or challenge the evidence presented by the respondents, it also failed to present daily time records showing that the respondents had been absent since 9 May 1996. The records also fail to show that the petitioner or Grigio sent the respondents any letter or memoranda ordering the respondents to return to work or seeking any explanation for their absences. Absent any contrary proof, the evidence presented by the respondents becomes conclusive.
	GR NO. 149074 2006-08-10	ASIAN TERMINALS v. DANILO MARBELLA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. v. Daquero,[10] we held that in order to constitute a valid dismissal, two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
	GR NO. 146174 2006-07-12	DR. DANILO T. TING v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The second facet in the case of valid termination from employment is due process. The cardinal rule is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before termination of his employment. The first notice is to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions by reason of which his dismissal has been decided upon; and the second notice is to inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[51]
	GR NO. 154410 2005-10-20	HEAVYLIFT MANILA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In our view, neither does the February 23, 1999 letter constitute the required notice. The letter did not inform her of the specific acts complained of and their corresponding penalty. The law requires the employer to give the worker to be dismissed two written notices before terminating his employment, namely, (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[22] Additionally, the letter never gave respondent Galay an opportunity to explain herself, hence denying her due process.
	GR NO. 149281 2005-06-15	NEW CITY BUILDERS v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
We have, however, carefully examined the records before us and found nothing therein to warrant our departure from the common findings of the three (3) offices below as regards respondents' status as petitioner's regular employees. And being such, their services can only be terminated if the following requisites concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code;[10] and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[11]
	GR NO. 147142 2005-02-14	ANGELITO CABATULAN v. MUSIB M. BUAT CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under the existing law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights. It must be emphasized, though, that the Court has declared that there are specific circumstances obtaining where reinstatement is not a practicable remedy, as when the relations between the employer and employee have been so severely strained that it is no longer fitting to order reinstatement or when the employee decides not to be reinstated.[17] It must be stressed that the petitioner was charged by the respondent spouses with qualified theft and was even coerced into withdrawing the labor case against them. No other conclusion may be deduced other than the categorical fact that antagonism already caused a severe strain in the relationship between the respondent spouses and petitioner. Separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is seeking another employment. The grant of separation pay does not impede an award for backwages as the latter represents the amount of earnings lost by reason of unjustified dismissal.[18] A more equitable settlement, therefore, would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.[19]