Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. ROMEO MESANO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186732 2013-06-13	ALPS TRANSPORTATION v. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ SERENO, C.J.
For a dismissal to be valid, the rule is that the employer must comply with both substantive and procedural due process requirements.[35] Substantive due process requires that the dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an authorized cause under Articles 282, 283 or 284 of the Labor Code.[36] Procedural due process, on the other hand, mandates that the employer must observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be effected.[37]
	GR NO. 166208 2007-06-29	KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT v. SANTIAGO O. MAMAC VELASCO, JR., J.
First, respondent was not issued a written notice charging him of committing an infraction. The law is clear on the matter. A verbal appraisal of the charges against an employee does not comply with the first notice requirement. In Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC,[18] the Court held that consultations or conferences are not a substitute for the actual observance of notice and hearing. Also, in Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Mesano,[19] the Court, sanctioning the employer for disregarding the due process requirements, held that the employee's written explanation did not excuse the fact that there was a complete absence of the first notice.
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee,[13] for which two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in the Labor Code;[14] and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[15]
	GR NO. 141464 2005-09-21	GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RICARDO BERNARDO
In Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Mesano,[9] we held:"The law requires 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. Failure to comply with the requirement of two notices makes the dismissal illegal. The procedure is mandatory. Non-observance thereof renders the dismissal of an employee illegal and void."
	GR No. 147473 2004-03-30	ACD INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY v. PABLO D. DAQUERA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Mesano,[6] we held: "The law requires 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. Failure to comply with the requirement of two notices makes the dismissal illegal. The procedure is mandatory. Non-observance thereof renders the dismissal of an employee illegal and void." Moreover, 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 to defend himself.[7]