Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

M+W ZANDER PHILIPPINES v. TRINIDAD M. ENRIQUEZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR NOS. 178085 - 178086 2015-09-14	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF LABOR JARDELEZA, J.
Bristol Myers and subsequent cases[60] essentially follow the same formula by subdividing positions of trust and confidence into two classes: managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees. Respondent Employees fall under the latter category.
	GR No. 198620 2014-11-12	P.J. LHUILLIER v. FLORDELIZ VELAYO REYES, J.
There are two classes of corporate positions of trust: on the one hand are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and other officers or members of the managerial staff; on the other hand are the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.[16]
	GR No. 208321 2014-07-30	WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES v. NOWELLA REYES VELASCO JR., J.
We explained in M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez[21] the requisites of a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. As the case elucidates: Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. Certain guidelines must be observed for the employer to terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence. We held in General Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, viz.:
	GR No. 184520 2013-03-13	ROLANDO DS. TORRES v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JUAN REYES, J.
In M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez,[47] the Court decreed that illegal dismissal, by itself alone, does not entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages; additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages, thus: [M]oral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Such an award cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, i.e., that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, and similar injury resulted therefrom.[48] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 192826 2013-02-27	PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS v. MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is noteworthy to mention that there are two classes of positions of trust: on the one hand, there are managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff; on the other hand, there are fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.[27] Episcope belongs to this latter class and therefore, occupies a position of trust and confidence.
	GR No. 175932 2012-02-15	WUERTH PHILIPPINES v. RODANTE YNSON PERALTA, J.
On the matter of attorney's fees, We have ruled that attorney's fees may be awarded only when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith, and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer.[45] In view of Our findings that respondent was validly dismissed for unauthorized absences, amounting to gross dereliction of duties under Article 282 (e) of the Labor Code, reckoned from June 5, 2003 (i.e., the day after he was declared fit to return to work, but failed to do so), and lack of evidence that his dismissal was tainted with bad faith, the grant of 10% of the total monetary award as attorney's fees cannot be sustained.
	GR No. 183350 2012-01-18	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. MAURICIO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Bank should be reminded that for a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[32] Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act.[33] This is obviously not the case here.
	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
Respondent's negligence or carelessness in handling the arriendo collections, however, are not justifiable grounds for petitioners' loss of trust and confidence in her, especially in the absence of any malicious intent or fraud on respondent's part. Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on a dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act.[44] In the case at bar, respondent did not commit any act which was dishonest or deceitful. She did not use her authority as the Finance and Administration Manager to misappropriate company property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by petitioners with respect to her responsibility to implement company rules. The most that can be attributed to respondent is that she was remiss in the performance of her duties. This, though, does not constitute dishonest or deceitful conduct which would justify the conclusion of loss of trust and confidence. There was no demonstration of moral perverseness that would justify the claimed loss of trust and confidence attendant to respondent's job. As such, she does not deserve the penalty of dismissal from employment, especially in the absence of any showing that she has committed prior infractions in her six years of service to petitioner company before her dismissal. There has been no showing nor allegation that respondent had been previously found guilty of any misconduct or had violated established company rules that would warrant the charge of gross negligence and failure to exercise extraordinary diligence as basis for the petitioner company's loss of trust and confidence in her.
	GR No. 170525 2009-10-02	BARON REPUBLIC THEATRICAL v. NORMITA P. PERALTA PERALTA, J.
It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[25] This award is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code,[26] Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules;[27] and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[28]