Lawyerly

GR NO. 182486

2012-06-20

PHILBAG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILBAG WORKERS UNION-LAKAS AT GABAY NG MANGGAGAWANG NAGKAKAISA

BRION, J.

Under the law, the burden of proving that the termination of employment was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.[36] Failure to discharge this burden would result in an unjust or illegal dismissal,[37] as aptly pointed out by the CA. We find such a failure on the part of the employer in this case.

GR No. 185122

2010-08-16

WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG

MENDOZA, J.

Under the security of tenure guarantee, a worker can only be terminated from his employment for cause and after due process. For a valid termination by the employer: (1) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Article 282, or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A just and valid cause for an employee's dismissal must be supported by substantial evidence, and before the employee can be dismissed, he must be given notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard.[13] In the process, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. Its failure to discharge this burden renders the dismissal unjustified and, therefore, illegal.[14]

GR No. 172885

2009-10-09

MANUEL LUIS S. SANCHEZ v. REPUBLIC

ABAD, J.

Gross negligence, on the other hand, is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[18] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them;[19] the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care.[20]

GR No. 180817

2009-06-23

MULTI-TRANS AGENCY PHILS. INC. v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP.

Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It examines a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[50]

GR No. 165565

2008-07-14

SCHOOL OF HOLY SPIRIT OF QUEZON CITY v. CORAZON P. TAGUIAM

QUISUMBING, J.

As a result of gross negligence in the present case, petitioners lost its trust and confidence in respondent. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[23] Otherwise stated, it must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee which must be established by substantial evidence. [24]

GR No. 166211

2008-07-14

ASIAN TERMINALS v. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO

QUISUMBING, J.

Settled is the rule that the requisites of a valid dismissal are: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) the dismissal must be for any of the just causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283[13] and 284 [14] of the same Code.[15]

GR No. 173256

2007-10-09

AFI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. DENNIS G. LORENZO

NACHURA, J.

Lack of just cause in terminating the respondents rendered their dismissal illegal. Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of back wages. However, if such reinstatement proves impracticable and hardly in the best interest of the parties, perhaps due to the lapse of time since their dismissal,[15] or if the employee decides not to be reinstated,[16] respondents should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. We, therefore, agree with the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is warranted in this case.

GR NO. 147790

2006-06-27

GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual.[31] Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter's business.[32] Thus, the single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[33]

GR No. 158255

2004-07-08

MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, private respondents are entitled to attorney's fees as they were compelled to litigate with petitioners and incur expenses to enforce and protect their interests.[27] The award by the Labor Arbiter of P22,250.00 as attorney's fees to private respondents, being reasonable, is sustained.

GR No. 148848

2003-08-05

JACINTO RETUYA v. SALIC B. DUMARPA

PANGANIBAN, J.

In the present case, petitioners failed to show any cogent reason why we should disturb the labor arbiter's computation (affirmed by the CA), which had resulted in a reduction of the amount of separation pay. Reckoned from the respective dates of hiring of petitioners up to the date of their dismissal, the labor arbiter computed their separation pay by multiplying their respective monthly salaries by their respective years of service -- a fraction of six months was deemed equivalent to one whole year.[24] Although the result was a reduction in amount, petitioners have not shown why this manner of computation was not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[25]

GR No. 146267

2003-02-17

NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

Anent petitioners' assertion that they cannot be solidarily liable in this case as there was no malice or bad faith on their part has no leg to stand on. What the Court finds apropos is our disquisition in A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC,[14] which held that since a corporation is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the "person acting in the interest of the employer." In other words the corporation, in the technical sense only, is the employer. In a subsequent case, we ordered the corporate officers of the employer corporation to pay jointly and solidarily the private respondents' monetary award.[15] More recently, a corporation and its president were directed by this Court to jointly and severally reinstate the illegally dismissed employees to their former positions and to pay the monetary awards.[16]

GR No. 154072

2002-12-03

ALFREDO S. PAGUIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

MENDOZA, J.

act complained of. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted in addition to moral damages "by way of example or correction for the public good."[23] Furthermore, as petitioner was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to enforce and protect his rights, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[24] The amount of damages recoverable is, in turn, determined by the business, social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the offender.[25] With the finding that the transfer was illegal, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to his former, or a substantially equivalent, position without loss of seniority rights. Reinstatement contemplates a restoration to a position from which one has been removed or separated

	GR NO. 182486 2012-06-20	PHILBAG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILBAG WORKERS UNION-LAKAS AT GABAY NG MANGGAGAWANG NAGKAKAISA BRION, J.
Under the law, the burden of proving that the termination of employment was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.[36] Failure to discharge this burden would result in an unjust or illegal dismissal,[37] as aptly pointed out by the CA. We find such a failure on the part of the employer in this case.
	GR No. 185122 2010-08-16	WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG MENDOZA, J.
Under the security of tenure guarantee, a worker can only be terminated from his employment for cause and after due process. For a valid termination by the employer: (1) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Article 282, or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A just and valid cause for an employee's dismissal must be supported by substantial evidence, and before the employee can be dismissed, he must be given notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard.[13] In the process, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. Its failure to discharge this burden renders the dismissal unjustified and, therefore, illegal.[14]
	GR No. 172885 2009-10-09	MANUEL LUIS S. SANCHEZ v. REPUBLIC ABAD, J.
Gross negligence, on the other hand, is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[18] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them;[19] the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care.[20]
	GR No. 180817 2009-06-23	MULTI-TRANS AGENCY PHILS. INC. v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP.
Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It examines a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[50]
	GR No. 165565 2008-07-14	SCHOOL OF HOLY SPIRIT OF QUEZON CITY v. CORAZON P. TAGUIAM QUISUMBING, J.
As a result of gross negligence in the present case, petitioners lost its trust and confidence in respondent. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[23] Otherwise stated, it must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee which must be established by substantial evidence. [24]
	GR No. 166211 2008-07-14	ASIAN TERMINALS v. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO QUISUMBING, J.
Settled is the rule that the requisites of a valid dismissal are: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) the dismissal must be for any of the just causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283[13] and 284 [14] of the same Code.[15]
	GR No. 173256 2007-10-09	AFI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. DENNIS G. LORENZO NACHURA, J.
Lack of just cause in terminating the respondents rendered their dismissal illegal. Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of back wages. However, if such reinstatement proves impracticable and hardly in the best interest of the parties, perhaps due to the lapse of time since their dismissal,[15] or if the employee decides not to be reinstated,[16] respondents should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. We, therefore, agree with the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is warranted in this case.
	GR NO. 147790 2006-06-27	GENUINO ICE COMPANY v. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual.[31] Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter's business.[32] Thus, the single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[33]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, private respondents are entitled to attorney's fees as they were compelled to litigate with petitioners and incur expenses to enforce and protect their interests.[27] The award by the Labor Arbiter of P22,250.00 as attorney's fees to private respondents, being reasonable, is sustained.
	GR No. 148848 2003-08-05	JACINTO RETUYA v. SALIC B. DUMARPA PANGANIBAN, J.
In the present case, petitioners failed to show any cogent reason why we should disturb the labor arbiter's computation (affirmed by the CA), which had resulted in a reduction of the amount of separation pay. Reckoned from the respective dates of hiring of petitioners up to the date of their dismissal, the labor arbiter computed their separation pay by multiplying their respective monthly salaries by their respective years of service -- a fraction of six months was deemed equivalent to one whole year.[24] Although the result was a reduction in amount, petitioners have not shown why this manner of computation was not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[25]
	GR No. 146267 2003-02-17	NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Anent petitioners' assertion that they cannot be solidarily liable in this case as there was no malice or bad faith on their part has no leg to stand on. What the Court finds apropos is our disquisition in A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC,[14] which held that since a corporation is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the "person acting in the interest of the employer." In other words the corporation, in the technical sense only, is the employer. In a subsequent case, we ordered the corporate officers of the employer corporation to pay jointly and solidarily the private respondents' monetary award.[15] More recently, a corporation and its president were directed by this Court to jointly and severally reinstate the illegally dismissed employees to their former positions and to pay the monetary awards.[16]
	GR No. 154072 2002-12-03	ALFREDO S. PAGUIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. MENDOZA, J.
act complained of. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted in addition to moral damages "by way of example or correction for the public good."[23] Furthermore, as petitioner was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to enforce and protect his rights, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[24] The amount of damages recoverable is, in turn, determined by the business, social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the offender.[25] With the finding that the transfer was illegal, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to his former, or a substantially equivalent, position without loss of seniority rights. Reinstatement contemplates a restoration to a position from which one has been removed or separated

NATIONAL BOOKSTORE v. CA SPECIAL EIGHT DIVISION