- Age: 18
- Hair: Ultra Long
- Relation Type:girls i need to fuck
- Seeking: Wants real sex
- Relationship Status: Single
- Online: Yesterday
Tel. +56 77*****2 Phone number is available only to registered users!
New hot girls!
Republic of the Philippines. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Resolutions dated April 14,  and June 19,  of the National Labor Relations Commission NLRCand ordered the immediate reinstatement of respondent to her former position or to a substantially equivalent position Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano loss of seniority rights and with full backwages.
The attendant facts are as follows: Petitioner The Coca Cola Export Corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and export of beverage base, concentrate, and other products bearing its trade name.
Gacayan began working with petitioner on October 8, At the time her employment was terminated on April 6,for alleged loss of trust and confidence, respondent was holding the position of Senior Financial Accountant. This reimbursement was allowed only when the employee worked overtime for at least four hours on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, and for at least two hours on weekdays. The maximum amount allowed to be reimbursed was one hundred fifty P It was in connection with this company policy that petitioner called the attention of respondent and required her to explain the alleged alterations in three receipts which she submitted to support her claim for reimbursement of meal Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano, to wit: Respondent also narrated that her sister, Odette, sometimes buys food for her and that she is not quite sure if the receipt in question was the correct one which Odette gave her.
The receipt was actually issued for a meal bought on October 2, and not on October 1, On December 9,petitioner sent another memorandum  to respondent and required her to explain in writing why her November 21, claim for reimbursement of meal expense should not be considered fraudulent since there was an alteration in the receipt which she submitted.
Respondent added that she asked the delivery staff to alter the receipt thinking that he could just write the correct items ordered and sign the said receipt to authenticate the alterations made thereon. She further stated that there was no intention on her part to commit fraud since she was just avoiding the hassle of waiting for a replacement receipt. Upon verification,  it was discovered that the receipt was actually for three orders of Bunch of Lunch, and not for Buddy Pack which has an item code of CH5, not BP, as claimed by respondent.
On January 3,petitioner sent respondent a letter  directing her to explain why she should not be subjected to Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano sanctions for violating Section II, No. Consequently, respondent submitted her explanation  on January 4,and denied any personal knowledge in the commission of the alterations in the subject receipts.
On January 12,petitioner sent respondent a memorandum  inviting her to a hearing and formal investigation on January 17,to give her an opportunity to explain the issues against her. Respondent was also advised that she was free to bring along a counsel of her choice. On January 17,respondent appeared at the hearing. Said employee, however, denied that she ordered and shared the food covered by the receipt in question. He maintained that what he delivered to respondent was her order for three Bunch of Lunch packs and not one order of Buddy Pack with extra mojos.
On January 24,respondent filed an application for leave  from January 13, up to February 3, Again on January 31,respondent filed another application for leave  for the period February 6, to February 24, On February 23,petitioner sent another Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano  to respondent informing her of the re-setting of the continuation of the formal investigation on March 15, Respondent was also advised that the said scheduled hearing was her last opportunity to fully explain her side, and that she had the option of bringing a lawyer at the hearing.
Respondent did not attend the March 15, hearing. Petitioner then concluded the formal investigation. After the mandatory conciliation proceedings failed, the parties were required to submit their respective position papers.
In her position paper, respondent averred that, assuming arguendo that she altered the receipts in question, dismissal was too harsh a penalty for her considering that: The relevant portions of the Decision read: Respondent [herein petitioner] complied with the notice requirement strictly to the letter.
This Office further notes that more than one notice was given to the complainant [respondent]. In fact, complainant [respondent] was repeatedly directed to answer the charges against her. As she in fact did. It was only after the Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano against complainant [respondent] was received and her fraudulent participation morally ascertained that respondent [petitioner] finally decided to terminate his sic services.
And after arriving at a conclusion, complainant [respondent] was consequently informed of her termination which was the sanction imposed on her. Again, following the yardstick laid down by the Tiu doctrine cited above, the procedure in terminating complainant [respondent] was definitely followed. Her termination is therefore valied sic and must be upheld for all intents and purposes. After a careful review of the evidences presented before Us, including the jurisprudence cited, We decided to look deeper into what led or motivated herein complainant [respondent] to do as she did.
Complainant [Respondent] admitted the alterations were done by her but she was quick to retort and tries to justify why she should not be held guilty of a fraudulent act. She now hastens to conclude that since the company had greatly benefitted from her overtime services, she did not violate company rules and regulations when she tampered the receipts which she attached as her justification for reimbursement for meal allowance. This line of reasoning is absurd, if not utterly dangerous.
Admitting the commission of the act but at the same breath denying any fraudulent intent is inconsistent. Under no circumstances was her misconduct excusable.
Here the Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano becomes immaterial, her position irrelevant. As correctly ruled by the Labor Arbiter a quo, the disciplinary action taken by respondent company [petitioner] on complainant [respondent] applies to all employees regardless of rank. We also agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter below that complainant [respondent] was afforded due process. In fine, in the absence of showing that the decision was rendered Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano and capriciously, We Affirm.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in the Resolution  dated June 19, The Court of Appeals ruled that the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent was too harsh and further directed petitioner to immediately reinstate respondent to her former position, if possible, or a Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated thus: We consider the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner to be too harsh.
The offenses she allegedly committed did not cause any prejudice or loss to the company since the amounts were actually due her as part Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano her compensation for overtime. On the other hand, petitioner [respondent] sufficiently explained that in submitting the falsified receipts, she was acting on the belief that the said requirement was merely for record-keeping purposes for she was already entitled to the money equivalent thereof as consideration for services already rendered.
Hence, the presence of good faith on the part of petitioner [respondent], her long years of exemplary service and the absence of loss on the part of the employer, taken together, justify the application of Yap vs.
Considering however, that there was no evidence of strained relations between the parties in the case at bench precluding a harmonious working relationship should reinstatement be decreed, then the reinstatement of petitioner [respondent] is proper. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association, supra.
Finally, the private respondent [petitioner] raised in issue the timeliness of the filing of the herein petition. Based on their computation, the petition was only filed four days after [the] sixty-day period prescribed in the Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Considering however, that jurisprudence is replete with instances where the Supreme Court has relaxed the technical rules in the Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano of equity jurisdiction when there are strong considerations of substantial justice that are manifest in the petition, Soriano vs.
Our finding that there was grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the assailed resolutions of public respondent merit the allowance of the herein petition. Private respondent [Petitioner] Coca Cola Export Corporation is hereby directed to immediately reinstate petitioner [respondent] to her former position, if possible, otherwise, to a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages, based on her last monthly salary, to be computed from the date of her dismissal from the service up to the date of finality of this decision, without any qualifications or deductions.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals in its second impugned Resolution dated August 9,petitioner is now before us via the present recourse with the following assignment of errors: In her Comment dated February 10,respondent alleges that Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano Court of Appeals correctly gave due course to her petition as it was actually filed on time.
According to respondent, she received the Order denying her motion for reconsideration on August 10,thus, her filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals on October 2,was well within the day period. The Court agrees with respondent. The amended provision reads: Where and when petition to be filed. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction.
If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted.
If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial.
No Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano and in no case to exceed fifteen 15 days. The records of the instant case show that respondent timely filed on June 8,a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated April 14,which respondent received on May 28, A copy of the Resolution dated June 19, on the denial of the said motion for reconsideration was received by respondent on August 10, Applying the aforequoted amendment to the given set of dates, 11 days had already elapsed from the date when respondent received the NLRC Resolution dated June 19, Thus, respondent had a remaining period of 49 days reckoned from August 11, or until September 28, within which to file the petition for certiorari.
The Court, however, takes note that further amendments were made on the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule When and where petition filed. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty 60 day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the said motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court.
It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen 15 days. From the foregoing, it is clear that the day period to file a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial, if one was filed.
In a number of cases,  this Court applied retroactively Circular No. We ruled that a petition for certiorari which had been filed past the day period under Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by Circular No. Instructive on this point is the discussion of the Court in Narzoles v. National Labor Relations Commission viz: The Court has observed that Circular No. This may have been because, historically, i. Were it not for the amendments brought about by Circular No. Hence, the Court deemed it wise to revert to the old rule allowing a party a fresh day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari.
Earlier this year, the Court resolved, in A. The latest amendments took effect on September 1,following its publication in the Manila Bulletin on August 4, and in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 7,two newspapers of general circulation.
In view of its purpose, the Resolution further amending Section 4, Rule 65 can only be described as curative in nature, and the principles governing curative statutes are applicable. Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would Looking for a lunch buddy in Lascano be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements.
They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils.
Sep 12, Ambassadors can then post “open lunch” events, which signal to anyone seeking company that they're invited to join the ambassadors' table. Download Lunch Buddy - meet professionals nearby and enjoy it on your iPhone, Search or filter nearby lunches base on your current location or the specific. See what Rebeca Lascano (RebecaLascano) has discovered on Pinterest, the world's biggest collection of everybody's favorite things. | Rebeca Lascano ( RebecaLascano) is pinning about Animals, Baby, Hair Ideas, Heels, Job Search .. fried rice and you can bet that when we share this meal you will too buddy ❤️.