Oriental Ship Management Co. Vs. Romy B. Bastol
The Termination of Darwin’s employment was for a just cause.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that Appellants have attended all the conciliation and mediation meetings held in relation to this instant case as a badge of good faith. And its failure to submit its Position paper was never intentional nor done with intent to delay the proceedings since Appellants were simply never informed of such requirement. Even granting arguendo that they were duly advised, Appellants are clear foreigners and are greatly unfamiliar with our legal procedures and labor proceedings. In the case of Oriental Ship Management Co., Inc. vs. Romy B. Bastol, the Supreme Court held that:
“The Court, however, has recognized specific instances of the impracticality …show more content…
As such, it is not uncommon that an employee’s work performance is found to be unsatisfactory. As a general concept, poor performance is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. The fact that an employee’s performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.” (Emphasis and underlining …show more content…
NLRC , it was held:
“It should be remembered that the Philippine Constitution, while inexorably committed towards the protection of the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, nevertheless mandates the policy of social justice so as to strike a balance between an avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of legal rights of capital, the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg, on the other. Indeed, we should not be unmindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.”
An equality of rights exists between employer and employee. While the employer cannot force the employee to work against his or her will, neither can the employee compel the employer to continue giving him or her work if there is a lawful reason not to do
At the outset, it must be emphasized that Appellants have attended all the conciliation and mediation meetings held in relation to this instant case as a badge of good faith. And its failure to submit its Position paper was never intentional nor done with intent to delay the proceedings since Appellants were simply never informed of such requirement. Even granting arguendo that they were duly advised, Appellants are clear foreigners and are greatly unfamiliar with our legal procedures and labor proceedings. In the case of Oriental Ship Management Co., Inc. vs. Romy B. Bastol, the Supreme Court held that:
“The Court, however, has recognized specific instances of the impracticality …show more content…
As such, it is not uncommon that an employee’s work performance is found to be unsatisfactory. As a general concept, poor performance is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. The fact that an employee’s performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.” (Emphasis and underlining …show more content…
NLRC , it was held:
“It should be remembered that the Philippine Constitution, while inexorably committed towards the protection of the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, nevertheless mandates the policy of social justice so as to strike a balance between an avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of legal rights of capital, the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg, on the other. Indeed, we should not be unmindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.”
An equality of rights exists between employer and employee. While the employer cannot force the employee to work against his or her will, neither can the employee compel the employer to continue giving him or her work if there is a lawful reason not to do