Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 273 views

    #44 - Eagle Clarc v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    1. Loyola's dismissal by Eagle Clarc Shipping was found to be illegal and invalid. Eagle Clarc failed to prove that Loyola's termination was for a just cause with substantial evidence and did not comply with the twin notice rule. 2. For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show just cause for termination and provide the employee notice and opportunity to be heard. Uncorroborated claims by the employer are not enough. 3. Captain Arcilla, as President of Eagle Clarc, is jointly and solidarily liable along with the company for any claims against it, and cannot evade liability in this case regarding Loyola's dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    #44 - Eagle Clarc v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    273 views1 page
    1. Loyola's dismissal by Eagle Clarc Shipping was found to be illegal and invalid. Eagle Clarc failed to prove that Loyola's termination was for a just cause with substantial evidence and did not comply with the twin notice rule. 2. For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show just cause for termination and provide the employee notice and opportunity to be heard. Uncorroborated claims by the employer are not enough. 3. Captain Arcilla, as President of Eagle Clarc, is jointly and solidarily liable along with the company for any claims against it, and cannot evade liability in this case regarding Loyola's dismissal.

    Original Title

    #44_eagle Clarc v. Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Loyola's dismissal by Eagle Clarc Shipping was found to be illegal and invalid. Eagle Clarc failed to prove that Loyola's termination was for a just cause with substantial evidence and did not comply with the twin notice rule. 2. For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show just cause for termination and provide the employee notice and opportunity to be heard. Uncorroborated claims by the employer are not enough. 3. Captain Arcilla, as President of Eagle Clarc, is jointly and solidarily liable along with the company for any claims against it, and cannot evade liability in this case regarding Loyola's dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    273 views1 page

    #44 - Eagle Clarc v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kê Milan
    1. Loyola's dismissal by Eagle Clarc Shipping was found to be illegal and invalid. Eagle Clarc failed to prove that Loyola's termination was for a just cause with substantial evidence and did not comply with the twin notice rule. 2. For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show just cause for termination and provide the employee notice and opportunity to be heard. Uncorroborated claims by the employer are not enough. 3. Captain Arcilla, as President of Eagle Clarc, is jointly and solidarily liable along with the company for any claims against it, and cannot evade liability in this case regarding Loyola's dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    #44. EAGLE CLARC SHIIPING PHILS., INC., et.al. V.

    NLRC AND LOYOLA


    G.R. NO. 245370, July 13, 2020

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether Loyola’s dismissal was legal and valid just, and that the twin notice rule in
    termination has been complied with; and
    2. Whether Capt. Arcilla should be held solidary liable with the other petitioners.

    INSTRUCTION LEARNED:
    1. Yes. In labor cases, the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was
    for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer, none If the employer fails to
    meet this burden, the conclusion is that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore,
    illegal. Moreover, not only must the dismissal be for a cause provided by law, it should
    also comply with the rudimentary requirements of due process, that is, the
    opportunity to be heard and defend one's self. Thus, for dismissal to be valid, the
    employer must show through substantial evidence – or such amount of relevant
    evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion –
    that (1) the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the dismissed
    employee was afforded due process.

    Incompetence or inefficiency as a ground for dismissal contemplates the failure to


    attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the
    allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results.

    Uncorroborated and self-serving statements of employers are sorely inadequate in


    meeting the required quantum of proof to discharge their burden.

    2. As for the notice requirements, it is settled that for the manner of dismissal in
    termination proceedings to be valid, the employer must comply with the employee's
    right to procedural due process by furnishing him with two written notices before the
    termination of his employment. The first notice apprises the employee of the specific
    acts or omissions for which his or her dismissal is sought, while the second informs
    the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him or he

    3. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022 provides that if the
    recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, its corporate officers, directors
    and partners, as the case may be, shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the
    corporation or partnership for the claims and damages against it.29 Since Capt. Arcilla
    is the President and General Manager of Eagle Clarc, he cannot evade liability in this
    case.

    RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
    JD 4A
    LABOR LAW REVIEW

    You might also like