This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Thus, it was within Sutherland's prerogative to terminate Labrador's employment when he committed a serious infraction and, despite a previous warning, repeated it. To reiterate, he opened another client account without the latter's consent, with far-reaching and costly effects on the company. For one, the repeated past infractions would have resulted in negative feedbacks on Sutherland's performance and reputation. It would likewise entail additional administrative expense since Sutherland would have to address the complaints an effort that would entail investigation costs and the return of the doubly-delivered merchandise. As a rule, "an employer cannot be compelled to continue with the employment of workers when continued employment will prove inimical to the employer's interests."[28] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that respondent was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. With the nature of his position, he was reposed with managerial duties to oversee petitioner's business in his assigned area. As a managerial employee, respondent was tasked to perform important and crucial functions and, thus, bound by more exacting work ethic. He should have realized that such sensitive position required the full trust and confidence of his employer in every exercise of managerial discretion insofar as the conduct of the latter's business is concerned.[30] The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. The worker's right to security of tenure is not an absolute right, for the law provides that he may be dismissed for cause.[31] As a general rule, employers are allowed wide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel. The mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust and confidence of his employer would suffice for his dismissal.[32] Needless to say, an irresponsible employee like respondent does not deserve a place in the workplace, and it is petitioner's management prerogative to terminate his employment. To be sure, an employer cannot be compelled to continue with the employment of workers when continued employment will prove inimical to the employer's interest.[33] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the present case, Gonzales had the right to be informed of the accrued interest and most especially, for the suspension of his COHLA. For failure to do so, the bank is liable to pay nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[51] In this case, the Court finds that the grant of PhP 50,000 as nominal damages is proper. | |||||