Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WENIFREDO FARROL v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
For example, in Farrol v. Court of Appeals,[66] the employee, who was a district manager of a bank, incurred a shortage of P50,985.37. He was dismissed although the funds were used to pay the retirement benefits of five employees of the bank. The employee was also able to return the amount, leaving a balance of only P6,995.37 of the shortage. The bank argued that under its rules, the penalty for the infraction of the employee is dismissal. The Court disagreed and held that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh. The Court took note that it is the first infraction of the employee and that he has rendered twenty-four (24) long years of service to the bank. In the words of Mme. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, "the dismissal imposed on petitioner is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the infraction which led to the termination of his services. A lighter penalty would have been more just, if not humane."[67]
	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In any case, it would be useless to order the reinstatement of petitioner, considering that he would have been retired by now. Thus, in lieu of reinstatement, it is but proper to award petitioner separation pay computed at one-month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year.[79] In the computation of separation pay, the period where backwages are awarded must be included.[80]
	GR NO. 156994 2005-08-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. RAMON A. UY CALLEJO, SR., J.
To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, the confluence of the following requisites must be established: (a) the loss of confidence must not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper or unjustified; (c) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith; and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence.[25] While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, still, substantial evidence is vital and the burden rests on the employer to establish it.[26] Any other rule would place the employee eternally at the mercy of the employer. Moreover, the term trust and confidence is restricted to managerial employees only.[27]
	GR NO. 154315 2005-05-09	PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG QUISUMBING, J.
Now, however, as regards violations of the procedural requirement for valid dismissal, the petitioners could be justly faulted. Book V, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 in effect at the time respondent was terminated, outlines the procedure for termination of employment.[25] It provides as follows:Sec. 1. Security of tenure and due process. No worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process.
	GR No. 139430 2001-06-20	EDI STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. FERMINA D. MAGSINO MENDOZA, J.
At the outset, it should be stressed that in an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause for the employee's dismissal.[16] Without sufficient proof of loss of confidence, an employee cannot be dismissed on this ground.[17] It was, therefore, error for both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals to disallow evidence on appeal which petitioners tried to present.