150.

COSMOS BOTTLING CORP vs FERMIN

GR NO. 193676 JUNE 20, 2012

Issue:
Was the act of stealing a co-employee’s property a warranted ground for an
employee’s dismissal?

Ruling:
YES, it being analogous to serious misconduct. Theft committed against a coemployee
is considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, for which the penalty of
dismissal from service may be meted out to the erring employee. Misconduct involves "the
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." For
misconduct to be serious and therefore a valid ground for dismissal, it must be: (1) of grave
and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant and (2) connected with the
work of the employee. A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary and/or
willful
act or omission attesting to an employee’s moral depravity. Theft committed by an
employee
against a person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause
analogous to serious misconduct.

151. WATERFRONT CEBU CITY HOTEL vs JIMENEZ

GR NO. 174214 JUNE 13, 2012

ISSUE:

153. MANILA MINING CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE

WORKERS CHAPTER vs. MANILA MINING CORP.

G.R. Nos. 178222-23, September 29, 2010

ISSUE:
Does the failure of an employer to secure a government permit for its operations,
despite its utmost efforts to obtain such, justify its unilateral call of suspending CBA
negotiations?
Ruling:
YES. The lay-off is neither illegal nor can it be considered as unfair labor practice. For
a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was
motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer must
have
acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing social
humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While the law makes it an obligation for
the
employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion does
not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other.
All
it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and
make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement. The Union based its
contention on the letter request by MMC for the suspension of the collective bargaining
negotiations until it resumes operations. Verily, it cannot be said that MMC deliberately
avoided the negotiation. It merely sought a suspension and in fact, even expressed its
willingness to negotiate once the mining operations resume. There was valid reliance on
the
suspension of mining operations for the suspension, in turn, of the CBA negotiation. The
Union failed to prove bad faith in MMC’s actuations.