DOMINGO v RAYALA

Petitioner: MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO

Respondent: Rogelio Rayala
Citation: G.R. No. 155831
Date of Promulgation: February 18, 2008
Ponente: Nachura, J.

FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint
for sexual harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her shoulder, part of her neck then
tickled her ears.
Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual harassment because for it to exist, there
must be a demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or
for promotion to a higher position.
Issue:
Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.

Ruling:
Yes.The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-
related sexual harassment in this wise:

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in
a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said
Act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms,
conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

It is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued
employment or for promotion to a higher positionit is enough that the respondents acts result in
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee. Contrary to Rayalas claim,
it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued
employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondents acts result in
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee. That the acts of Rayala
generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo is clearly shown by the common factual
finding of the Investigating Committee, the OP and the CA that Domingo reported the matter to an
officemate and, after the last incident, filed for a leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit.
AGABON v NLRC
Petitioner: Jenny Agabon, Vergilio Agabon
Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission (Nlrc), Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. And Vicente
Angeles
Citation: G.R. No. 158693
Date of Promulgation: November 17, 2004
Ponente: Ynares0Santiago, J.

FACTS:
Petitioners were employed by Riviera Home as gypsum board and cornice installers from January
1992 to February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and was decided in their favor by the Labor
Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the NLRC contending just cause for the dismissal because of
petitioners abandonment of work.
NLRC ruled there was just cause and petitioners were not entitled to backwages and separation
pay.
The CA in turn ruled that the dismissal was not illegal because they have abandoned their work
but ordered the payment of money claims.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins
the employer to give the employee the right to be heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the
deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. For a valid finding or
abandonment, two factors are considered: failure to report for work without a valid reason; and, a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship with the second as the more determinative factor
which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention
to work.

Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the due process
requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the
employee. This became known as the Wenphil Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.

Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the justifiable or authorized by law.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal
but the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity
should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of dismiss now, pay later which we sought to
deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of employees rights warrants the payment of nominal damages.
JAKA v PACOT
Petitioner: Jaka Food Processing Corporation
Respondent: Darwin Pacot, Robert Parohinog, David Bisnar, Marlon Domingo, Rhoel Lescano And
Jonathan Cagabcab
Citation: G.R. No. 151378
Date of Promulgation: March 28, 2005
Ponente: Garcia, J.

FACTS:
Respondents were hired by JAKA until their termination on August 29, 1997 because the
Corporation was in dire financial straits.
It was not disputed that they were terminated without complying with the requirement under
Art. 283 of the Labor Code regarding the service of notice upon the employees and DOLE at least
one month before the intended date of termination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not full backwages and separation pay be awarded to respondents when employers effected
termination without complying with the twin notice rule.

RULING:

The dismissal of the respondents was for an authorized cause under Article 283. A dismissal for authorized
cause does not necessarily imply delinquency or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the
dismissal process is initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative, i.e. when the
employer opts to install labor-saving devices, when he decides to cease business operations or when he
undertakes to implement a retrenchment program.

Accordingly, it is wise to hold that:

1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement,
the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal was initiate by an act
imputable to the employee.

2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause but the employer fails to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employers
exercise of his management prerogative. Thus, dismissal was upheld but ordered JAKA to pay each of the
respondents the amount of PhP 50,000.00 representing nominal damages for non-compliance with
statutory due process.