cdao-pjet/data/csvs/labor_new.csv

1	Termination of Employment	Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid. In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Thus, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the employee.	Cited	Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017, 804 Phil. 365, 378 citing NDC Tagum Foundation, Inc. v. Sumakote, G.R. No. 190644, June 13, 2016, 787 Phil. 67		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62487?s_params=hHdxqiEsRdBofyXmpFVw citing https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/61610?s_params=TiTLuZdyRLyDFB9CSPtz	Mariano v. G.V. Florida Transport	G.R. No. 240882 September 16, 2020	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/70282?s_params=4beJ1VNtoSdW1VdNygC9
2	Termination of Employment	In cases where the employee's failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the rule is that the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his own loss.	Cited	Leonardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 125303 & 126937, June 16, 2000, 389 Phil. 118, 128		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/6501?s_params=68o_JQF14-gaz_rzKskz	Toledo v. New Mega Concrete Product Construction Supplies	G.R. No. 235806 February 19, 2020	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/69209?s_params=4A_BqAv9Gk_8sbxAR5wq
3	Termination of Employment	Moreover, the Court has held that where the employee's failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer. Each party must bear his own loss.	Cited	Exodus International Construction Corp. v. Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, February 23, 2011, 659 Phil. 142, 159, citing Leonardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 125303 & 126937, June 16, 2000, 389 Phil. 118, 128		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54258?s_params=c3g1chnyo9MhSVrzt4KH citing https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/6501?s_params=TyaSDxtZwX7H3YBNH2j1	Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc.	G.R. No. 240254 July 24, 2019	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/67637?s_params=cs5QsxXP7GYobXPunpvm
4	Termination of Employment	In Dee Jay's Inn and Café v. Raneses, the Court ruled that "[i]n a case where the employee was neither found to have been dismissed nor to have abandoned his/her work, the general course of action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the employee to return to work, and order the employer to accept the employee."	Illustrative	Dee Jay's Inn and Café v. Raneses, G.R. No. 191823, October 5, 2016		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62157?s_params=XsJpujp58cZdKeue851X	Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr.	G.R. No. 202613 November 08, 2017	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/63601?s_params=XAmPQttsCXshK-uax2Jy
5	Termination of Employment	Damages are recoverable in cases where the plaintiff suffers loss due to a breach of duty committed by the defendant. The plaintiff must prove two (2) things: first, that he or she suffered a loss; and second, that the defendant caused the loss by breaching a legal duty he or she owed to the plaintiff. Absent one (1) of these elements, the plaintiff is not considered to have been injured in contemplation of the law.					De Peralta v. Philippine Commercial International Bank	G.R. No. 184440 July 03, 2017	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/63050?s_params=p6gkWWzaxmGyXYZjRTdK
6	Termination of Employment	In the exercise of the right to terminate a contract without cause, one party need only to give the other prior written notice as provided in the contract.	Cited	Avon Cosmetics, Inc. v. Luna, G.R. No. 153674, December 20, 2006, 540 Phil. 389		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9686?s_params=zvHD55u2JpVsEog_Shbz	GBMLT Manpower Services, Inc. v. Malinao	G.R. No. 189262 July 06, 2015	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60038?s_params=5RCJBKyD4Esa7Y9Tp919
7	Termination of Employment	The Court said:] We had occasion to rule that stipulations providing that either party may terminate a contract even without cause are legitimate if exercised in good faith. Thus, while either party has the right to terminate the contract at will, it cannot not act purposely to injure the other.	Cited	Avon Cosmetics, Inc. v. Luna, G.R. No. 153674, December 20, 2006, 540 Phil. 389		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9686?s_params=zvHD55u2JpVsEog_Shbz	GBMLT Manpower Services, Inc. v. Malinao	G.R. No. 189262 July 06, 2015	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60038?s_params=5RCJBKyD4Esa7Y9Tp919
8	Termination of Employment	The Court said:] We had occasion to rule that stipulations providing that either party may terminate a contract even without cause are legitimate if exercised in good faith. Thus, while either party has the right to terminate the contract at will, it cannot not act purposely to injure the other.	Cited	Petrophil Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122796, December 10, 2001, 423 Phil. 182		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/2895?s_params=YFwWazSacL5UfvhXg66r	GBMLT Manpower Services, Inc. v. Malinao	G.R. No. 189262 July 06, 2015	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60038?s_params=5RCJBKyD4Esa7Y9Tp919
9	Termination of Employment	In Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. NLRC and in the subsequent case of Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, [the Court] held that "[e]ven when there exist some rules agreed upon between the employer and employee on the subject of dismissal, . . . the same cannot preclude the State from inquiring on whether [their] rigid application would work too harshly on the employee." This Court will not hesitate to disregard a penalty that is manifestly disproportionate to the infraction committed.	Illustrative	Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., G.R. No. 140982, September 23, 2003, 458 Phil. 401, 413		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7830?s_params=WG68QECZuNxgkGr4MtY1	Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Marquez	G.R. No. 172044 February 06, 2013	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/56692?s_params=ANP-zjpocvDSek8SCexA
10	Termination of Employment	In Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. NLRC and in the subsequent case of Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, [the Court] held that "[e]ven when there exist some rules agreed upon between the employer and employee on the subject of dismissal, . . . the same cannot preclude the State from inquiring on whether [their] rigid application would work too harshly on the employee." This Court will not hesitate to disregard a penalty that is manifestly disproportionate to the infraction committed.	Illustrative	Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 102993, July 14, 1995, 316 Phil. 335, 343-344		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/15276?s_params=dGs8Vpnrdwac6phzMDCx	Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Marquez	G.R. No. 172044 February 06, 2013	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/56692?s_params=ANP-zjpocvDSek8SCexA
11	Termination of Employment	Withholding of payment by the employer does not mean that the employer may renege on its obligation to pay employees their wages, termination payments, and due benefits. The employees' benefits are also not being reduced. It is only subjected to the condition that the employees return properties properly belonging to the employer. This is only consistent with the equitable principle that "no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another."		Civil Code, Art. 2142		https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/laws/2602?s_params=K4rmHmXNgmyPAUvZsyar	Milan v. National Labor Relations Commission	G.R. No. 202961 February 04, 2015	https://wpd.cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59484?s_params=UnRs4_ZqJ-ykTVyzWbxj