Tag - discipline

Doctrine of Command Responsibility for Managerial Employees and Breach of Trust by Rank and File Employees

In the case of a Chief Purser of a passenger ship, the established facts show that although he did not participate in the commission of anomalies, he was still liable due to his failure to detect those irregularities. (See Vicente C. Etcuban, Jr. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 148410, January 17, 2005.) Interestingly, jurisprudence has made a connection between neglect of duty and loss of trust and confidence involving a managerial employee or a rank-and-file holding a fiduciary [...]

Classes of Positions of Trust

In a case involving breach of trust and confidence, it is required that the employee being investigated holds a position of trust. There are two classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees and the second. class consists of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. (Abelardo P. Abel vs. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 178976, July 31, 2009 citing Mabeza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 670, 682.) Managerial employees [...]

Fraud and Loss of Trust and Confidence

A managerial employee is conferred with full trust and confidence by his employer. While as a manager he could exercise some discretion, such does not cover acts of betrayal of trust and confidence of his employer. He cannot reimburse his family’s personal travel expenses out of company funds. His act amounted to fraud or deceit which led to the loss of trust and confidence of his employer. An employee, the Officer-in-Charge of the company in its boutique misappropriated the [...]

Abandonment Requires Notice

Abandonment is a ground for dismissal of employees under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended. Being considered as within the context of gross and habitual neglect of duty. However, while abandoning employee is usually not physically available, he should still be served the notices for the dismissal. There is no such thing automatic termination for abandonment. An employee whom the employer deems to have abandoned his work cannot be automatically terminated. Due process is required in order for [...]

Grounds For Dismissal: Just Cause And Authorized Cause

Grounds for dismissal are required ingredients to ensure that termination is valid. There are three classifications of valid grounds for dismissal or termination under the Labor Code which can be used by the employer: First is the just cause under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended. Second, the authorized cause under Article 298 therein. Third is the dismissal due to disease found in Article 299. The employee is also authorized to cut employment ties under Article 300. The burden of proof [...]

Wrongful Intent is Required for Dismissal Due to Transgression of a Rule or Serious Misconduct

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. For this purpose, the employer must present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the employee’s dismissal. Substantial evidence is defined as “such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.” The Supreme Court, in the [...]

EMPLOYER’S MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE AND THE BASES OF RIGHTS

While the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code do not have an equivalent provision expressly upholding the rights of employer, several decisions of the Supreme Court recognize employer’s rights as well. These rights are contained in management prerogative. While the State affords the constitutional blanket of rendering protection to labor, it must also protect the right of employers to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives, so long as the exercise is without abuse of discretion. Courts often decline to interfere [...]

WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AS GROUND FOR DISMISSAL

Balais vs. Se’lon by Aimee G.R. No. 196557, June 15, 2016 Facts: Balais narrated that he was Salon de Orient’s senior hairstylist and make-up artist when respondent Amelita Revilla (Revilla) took over the business. Revilla, however, retained his services as senior hairstylist and make-up artist. Under the new management, Salon De Orient became Se’lon by Aimee and respondent Alma Belarmino (Belarmino) was appointed as its salon manager, who was in-charge of paying the employees’ wages, dismissing erring employees, and exercising [...]

error: Content is protected !!