Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION v. VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192582 2014-04-07	BLUER THAN BLUE JOINT VENTURES COMPANY v. GLYZA ESTEBAN REYES, J.
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be work related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a wilful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.[25] Such breach is wilful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[26] The loss of trust and confidence must spring from the voluntary or wilful act of the employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the part of the employee.[27]
	GR No. 184011 2013-09-18	REYNALDO HAYAN MOYA v. FIRST SOLID RUBBER INDUSTRIES PEREZ, J.
Following the ruling in The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan,[37] the employers have a right to impose a penalty of dismissal on employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. More so, in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, does loss of trust justify termination. Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[38]
	GR No. 184520 2013-03-13	ROLANDO DS. TORRES v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JUAN REYES, J.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the act that breached the trust must be willful such that it was done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[38] The conditions under which the clearance was issued exclude any finding of deliberate or conscious effort on the part of the petitioner to prejudice his employer.
	GR No. 190436 2012-01-16	NORMAN YABUT v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY REYES, J.
The dismissal is also justified as the act imputed upon the petitioner qualifies as "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative" under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code. While the petitioner contests this ground by denying that his position is one of trust and confidence, it is undisputed that at the time of his dismissal, he was holding a supervisory position after he rose from the ranks since commencement of his employment with Meralco. As a supervisor with duty and power that included testing of service meters and investigation of violations of contract of customers, his position can be treated as one of trust and confidence, requiring a high degree of honesty as compared with ordinary rank-and-file employees. This Court declared in The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan:[24]