Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ARTURO RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170454 2012-10-11	CECILIA T. MANESE v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The mere existence of a basis for the loss of trust and confidence justifies the dismissal of the managerial employee because when an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, such employee gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers.[29] Infractions, which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated, may be visited with more severe disciplinary action.[30] Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required provided there is a valid reason for the loss of trust and confidence, such as when the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the managerial employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct and the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[31]
	GR No. 173774 2012-01-30	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. LUISA BELTRAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under the circumstances, MERALCO's sanction of dismissal will not be commensurate to Beltran's inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of bad faith and malice but also in consideration of her untainted record of long and dedicated service to MERALCO.[33] In the similar case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Berbano, Jr.,[34] we held that: The magnitude of the infraction committed by an employee must be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be commensurate thereto, in view of the gravity of the penalty of dismissal or termination from the service. The employer should bear in mind that in termination cases, what is at stake is not simply the employee's job or position but [her] very livelihood.
	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
So too did the Court pronounce in Felix v. National Labor Relations Commission,[68] Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company,[69] Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission,[70] Dela Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission,[71] Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Tolentino,[72] Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[73] Permex, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[74] VH Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[75] A' Prime Security Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[76] and St. Michael's Institute v. Santos.[77]
	GR NO. 158707 2006-11-27	COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A company's resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.[49]
	GR NO. 158759 2005-05-26	MARILYN T. SAGUM v. CA PUNO, J.
The existence of strained relations is a factual finding and should be initially raised, argued and proven before the Labor Arbiter.[32] Petitioner is correct that the finding of strained relations does not have any basis on the records. Indeed, nowhere was the issue raised in private respondents' pleadings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Sieving through the records, private respondents first raised the issue in their Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals.[33] In Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC,[34] we emphasized that the principle of strained relations cannot be applied indiscriminately. Otherwise, an illegally dismissed employee can never be reinstated because invariably, some hostility is engendered between litigants. As a rule, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right; otherwise, an employee who asserts his right could be easily separated from the service by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that his relationship with his employer had already become strained.[35]
	GR NO. 137863 2005-03-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have oft said that mere allegation of strained relations to bar reinstatement is frowned upon. In the case of PLDT, et al. v. Tolentino,[23] we reiterated our ruling in Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp.[24] wherein we propitiously said that the strained relations doctrine should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. We further stated that:Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, the case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. Some unscrupulous employers, however, have taken advantage of the overgrowth of this doctrine of "strained relations" by using it as a cover to get rid of its employees and thus defeat their right to job security.