perbandingan acrylic, kaca dengan polycarbonat, keuntungan dan kerugian serta aplikasinya
kumpulan bahan
OBDeleven PRO vs VCDS ( VAG COM ) vs VCP ( Vag Can Pro) vs Carista vs Carly for VAG vs Launch EasyDiag supported functions CompareFull description
Sandingan Sistem Manajemen Keamanan Informasi vs Sistem Manajemen Anti Penyuapan vs Sistem Manajemen Mutu vs Sistem Manajemen LayananFull description
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
digestedFull description
Comparison of Petrol diesel,lpg & CNG run vehicle cars
VS Aristóteles - EnsayosDescripción completa
Descripción: P
difference between guilty and plead guilty under indian evidence act and inherent powers of the high courtFull description
vdb
cabague
kk
Full description
LSDeskripsi lengkap
Descripción: texto
Tabuk Multipurpose Cooperative Inc. vs. Magdalena Duclan Facts: Tabuk Multipurpose Cooperative Inc. (TAMPCO) is duly registered coop in Tabuk, Kalinga is engaged in the business of obtaining investments from its members which are lent out to qualified members-borrowers. members-borrowers. Petitioner Josephine Doctor is TAMPCO Chairperson and BOD member, Petitioner William Bao-Angan is TAMPCO’s CEO. employed as TAMPCO’s Cashier Respondent Duclan was employed
2002- TAMPCO introduced Special Investment Loans (SILs) to its members and prospective borrowers. Among those who availed were Falgui and Kotoken June 2003- issued Board Action (BA) No. 28 which limited the grant of SILs to P5M and instructed management to collect outstanding loans and reduce the amount of loans granted to allowable levels, despite of the BA 28, SILs were granted to Falgui and Kotoken “over and above” the ceiling set. October 26, 2003- due to above-mentioned, BOD issued BA No. 55, completely halting the grant of SILs pending collection of outstanding loans. However, SILs were again granted to Falgui P6.697M and Kotoken P3.5M. Eventually Falgui filed for insolvency while Kotoken failed to pay back her loans. February 2004- TAMPCO indefinitely suspended Duclan and other Coop Officials and required them to replace the P6M representin r epresentingg unpaid loans. March 6, 2004- respondents suspension was fixed to 15 days and ordered to return to work on March 15, 2004. The TAMPCO BOD then created a fact finding committee and came out it the following reports: There are loan notes not containing containing violations o Special loans were still granted despite of BA 28 and BA 55 o Loans were released even with lacking documents o Postdated checks inted inted to pay SIL’s were not presented o o Extension of the term of loans were done without BOD approval All the findings were NOT denied by the respondents and as such RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS were made: Duclan- will be immediately suspended without pay, collect SIL’s o release without proper attachments and pay P1.5M value of a check. Failure to do such will be her dismissal and forfeiture of benefits. Duclan, unable to collect the amount was dismissed form employment. o Hence the complaint. Jully 12, 2005- Duclan (respondent) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with recovery of backwages and other monetary benefits.
1. LA ruling - Duclan found to have been illegally suspended then illegally dismissed, holding the TAMPCO and its BOD’s jointly liable. BASIS: liable. BASIS: a. Duclan’s first Duclan’s first suspension is indefinite hence illegal. b. Not accorded the opportunity to defend herself
c. d. e. f. g. h.
Suspending respondent and requiring her to personally pay the loan Respondent deprived to explain after her suspension the 2 nd time. Respondent was suspended twice for the same infraction. Respondent was constructively dismissed (indefinitely suspended) Respondents signing of checks before its release is merely ministerial TAMPCO did not terminate other coworkers commiting the same infration. 2. NLRC ruling - decision of the LA is reversed and set aside. a. Only second suspension is illegal b. Illegal dismissal is of a valid cause for her violations c. Duclan failed to refute the findings against her d. Release of fund by Duclan is not purely “ministerial” as she is expected to check all supporting documents e. Duclan made deliberate infractions of clear mandatory policies amounting to gross misconduct 3. CA ruling- decision reversed the NLRC’s and “reinstating” LA’s decision. Petitioner filed MR but the CA denied the same. Issues: 1. WON Duclan were illegally dismissed. Ruling: SC: the Petition is Granted, reversing and setting aside the CA’s resolution. Reinstating and affirming NLRC’s decision.
The persistent refusal of an employee to obey the employer’s lawful order amounts to willful disobedience. Willful disobedience as a ground should be: Wilful and intentional, wilfulness must be attended by wrongful and o perverse mental attitude rendering the employees act inconsistent with proper subordination. o The violated order must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, must pertain to the duties they are engaged to discharge.
Discussion Notes 1: Article 282 of the Labor Code: Termination by Employer An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; 2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; 4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and 5. Other causes analogous to the foregoing. Discussion Notes 2:(though not included in the case) Art. 285. Termination by employee. 1. An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.
2. An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:
opep7/24/17
Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee; Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative; Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.