Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Labor Review – Atty Oswald Lorenzo
Case #1 G.R. No. 218384 July 3, 2017
J. PerlasBernabe
Facts
Respondents were employed as cooks of Dong Juan, a restaurant owned and operated by
petitioners. Respondents alleged that on April 1, 2011, a Friday, Miñoza was absent from work.
Because the company implements a "doubleabsent" policy, which considers an employee absent
for two (2) days without pay if he/she incurs an absence on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, the
busiest days for the restaurant, he chose not to report for work the next day, or on April 2, 2011.
On the other hand, Bandalan reported for work on April 2, 2011, a Saturday, but was later
advised by John to go home and take a rest, with which he complied. Bandalan discovered
thereafter that John was angry at him for having drinking sessions after work on April 1, 2011.
Because of the "doubleabsent" policy, Bandalan purposely absented himself from work on April
3, 2011.
On April 3, 2011, the company called a meeting of its employees. When asked about his
absence, Miñoza explained that he had an argument with his wife, who had been demanding for
his payslips. As for Bandalan, he answered that it would be pointless to report for work that day,
as he would not be paid anyway, considering that he was not allowed to work the day before. The
following day, petitioners summoned respondents once again. Angrily, John accused respondents
of planning to extort money from the company and told them that if they no longer wish to work,
they should resign. He then gave them blank sheets of paper and pens and ordered them to write
their own resignation letters. Respondents replied that they will decide the next day. On April 5,
2011, the day after, respondents alleged that they reported for work but were barred from entering
the restaurant. Instead, petitioners brought them to another restaurant where they were forced to
receive separate memoranda asking them to justify their unexplained absences. Thereat, a certain
"Mark" was present, who appeared to respondents as an intimidating and ominous person. 12When
respondents reported for work on April 6, 2011, they were purportedly refused entry once more.
At closing time that day, respondents were invited to go inside the restaurant and were subjected
to an onthespot drug test, the results of which yielded negative. To his humiliation, Bandalan
had to undergo a second test, which also came out negative. Out of fear, respondents no longer
reported for work the following day, April 7, 2011, and instead, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Issue
Whether or not the employees have been constructively and illegally dismissed in the
case at bar.
Ruling
The SC ruled in the negative.
Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain
on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but
to forego continued employment, or when there is cessation of work because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion
in rank and a diminution in pay. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person
in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.
After a punctilious examination of this case, the Court finds that respondents as
correctly concluded by the NLRC were not constructively dismissed, in view of the glaring
dearth of evidence to corroborate the same. Despite their allegations, respondents failed to prove
through substantial evidence that they were discriminated against, or that working at the
restaurant had become so unbearable that they were left without any choice but to relinquish their
employment. Neither were they able to prove that there was a demotion in rank or a diminution in
pay such that they were forced to give up their work.
In its reversed decision, the NLRC pointed out that respondents claimed to have been
constructively dismissed when petitioners called several meetings where they inquired about
respondents' absences, for which the latter were issued separate memoranda; they were subjected
to an onthespot drug test; they were barred entry into the restaurant; and they were threatened
and intimidated by the presence of Opura, a stranger, in the restaurant. The foregoing
circumstances, however, do not constitute grounds amounting to constructive dismissal.
Case #2 G.R. No. 202308 July 5, 2017
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner
vs.
JUMELITO T. DALMACIO, Respondent
J. Tijam
Facts
The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of separation
pay and retirement benefits, illegal deduction, nonpayment of provident fund with prayer for
damages and attorney's fees filed by Jumelito T. Dalmacio (Dalmacio) and Emma R. Martinez
(Martinez)4 as a result of their separation from PNB due to PNB's implemention of its redundancy
program.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that PNB complied with the law and jurisprudence in
terminating the services of the complainants on the ground of redundancy.
On appeal, the NLRC, affirmed the LA's Decision, and ruled that there is no showing of
bad faith on PNB's part in undertaking the redundancy program.
Issue
Whether or not PNB validly implemented the redundancy program.
Ruling
One of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee is redundancy. It exists
when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the
demands of the business enterprise. A position is redundant when it is superfluous, and
superfluity of a position or positions could be the result of a number of factors, such as the
overhiring of workers, a decrease in the volume of business or the dropping of a particular line or
service previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. Time and again, it has been
ruled that an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the
operation of its business. For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, however,
the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the
employees and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior to the
intended date of termination of employment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least
one month pay for every year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant
positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
redundant and accordingly abolished, taking into consideration such factors as (a) preferred
status; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority, among others.
In the case at bar, PNB was upfront with its employees about its plan to implement its
redundancy program. Likewise, PNB's redundancy program was neither unfair nor unreasonable
considering that it was within the ambit of its management prerogative. As the CA observed,
PNB's action is within the ambit of "management prerogative" to upgrade and enhance the
computer system of the bank. Petitioner, being an IT officer whose job is to maintain the
computer system of PNB, his position has become patently redundant upon PNB's engagement of
the contract service with Technopaq. Likewise, records show that PNB complied with the
procedural requirements. PNB served Dalmacio and Martinez Notices of Termination dated
August 15, 2005, informing them that their termination due to redundancy shall be effective
September 15, 2005. PNB also filed an Establishment Termination Report dated August 16, 2005
with the Regional Office of the DOLE, in order to report complainants' termination.
Case #3 G.R. No. 209582 January 19,2018
TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., and/or TEEKAY SHIPPING LTD., and/or
ALEX VERCHEZ, Petitioners
vs.
ROBERTO M. RAMOGA, JR., Respondent
J. Tijam
Facts
On February 18, 2010, [respondent] entered into a contract of overseas employment with
[petitioner] Teekay Shipping Ltd. represented by its local manning agency, Teekay Shipping
Philippines Inc., to work on board the vessel M/T "SEBAROK SPIRIT.”
After the mandatory preemployment medical examination (PEME), [respondent] was
declared fit for sea duty. He joined the vessel on April 9, 2010. Barely six (6) months after, he
slipped and twisted his left ankle while climbing the stairs on board the said vessel. He underwent
an xray. He was diagnosed to be suffering from a nondisplaced fracture. [Respondent] was
repatriated to the Philippines. He was operated by the company designated physician and was
advised to continue using crutches to aid ambulation and was given medications. Dr. Chuasuan,
Jr. issued a certification stating that [respondent] was fit to return to work.
Unsatisfied with the company doctor's assessment, [respondent] sought the help of his
own doctor. The said doctor issued a medical report declaring that [respondent] still continues to
have pain and discomfort on his left foot and ankle even after his continuous physiotherapy. He
likewise cannot ambulate for long distances, unable to tolerate prolonged walking and squat
especially if the weight is borne on the left foot. Since the time of his injury, he is unable to work
at his previous occupation. Thus, he was declared to be permanently unfit in any capacity to
resume his sea duties. Consequently, [respondent] lodged a complaint for permanent total
disability benefits, sickness allowance, medical expenses, damages and attorney's fees in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Revised Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Oceangoing Vessels.
Issue
Whether or not respondent is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
Ruling
As it now stands, the mere lapse of 120 days from the seafarer's repatriation without the
companydesignated physician's declaration of the fitness to work of the seafarer does not entitle
the latter to his permanent total disability benefits. 16 As laid down by this Court in Elburg
Shipmanagement Phils. Inc., et. al., 17 and in Jebsens Maritime, Inc., Sea Chefs Ltd., and Enrique
M Aboitiz v. Florvin G. Rapiz, 18 the following guidelines shall govern the seafarer's claims for
permanent total disability benefits:
1. The companydesignated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the companydesignated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days,
without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the companydesignated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days
with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove that the companydesignated physician has sufficient
justification to extend the period; and
4. If the companydesignated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended
period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any
justification.
Here, the records reveal that respondent was medically repatriated on October 4, 2010. It
is undisputed that the companydesignated physician issued a declaration as to respondent's
fitness to work on April 8, 2011 or 186 days from his repatriation. Thus, to determine whether
respondent is entitled to his permanent total disability benefits, it is necessary to examine whether
the companydesignated physician has a sufficient justification to extend the period.
Examination of the records lead the SC to conclude that there is a sufficient justification
for extending the period. In a Report 19 dated January 11, 2011, the companydesignated physician
advised respondent to continue his rehabilitation and medications and to come back on February
1, 2011 for his repeat xray of the left foot and for reevaluation. The companydesignated
physician has determined that respondent's condition needed further medical treatment and
evaluation. Thus, it was premature for the respondent to file a case for permanent total disability
benefits on March 4, 201120 because at that time, respondent is not yet entitled to such benefits.
The companydesignated physician has until June 1, 2011 or the 240th day from his repatriation
to make a declaration as to respondent's fitness to work.
Neither is the declaration of respondent's own doctor that respondent is unfit to return to
sea duties conclusive as to respondent's condition. It is wellsettled that the assessment of the
companydesignated physician prevails over that of the seafarer's own doctor. "[T]he assessment
of the companydesignated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of
medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in
one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records." 21
With the declaration of the companydesignated physician that respondent is already fit to
return to work, the latter is not entitled to his permanent total disability benefits.
Case #4 G.R. No. 213128 February 7, 2018
LOURDES CITY, INC., SCHOOL QUEZON v. LUZ V. GARCIA
J. Peralta
Facts
Prior to the termination of her service, Luz Garcia was the school’s Chief Accountant.
Sometime in September 2010, Fr. Cesar Acuin (Acuin), Rector of LSQC, issued a Memorandum
creating two committees to investigate on the possible irregularities in the purchase of notebooks
and the sale of textbooks in the school. In a letter dated October 1, 2010, Fr. Antonio Ala (Ala),
Treasurer ofLSQC, instructed Garcia to tumover all the money and other financial resources of
the school.
The school formed a committee for the investigation of the said irregularities. The
committee recommended the dismissal of Garcia ''for serious misconduct for knowingly
misleading the School Treasurer as to how many notebooks were to be purchased, with a view to
favoring a supplier of notebooks, and for knowingly allowing (at the very least) the massive theft
in the sale of textbooks. "25 Fr. Acuin agreed with the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the committee. In his letter dated April 14, 2011, Garcia was terminated
from employment for loss for trust and confidence.
Issue
Whether or not petitioner complied with the requisites of valid dismissal based on loss of
trust and confidence.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the negative. It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of
proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and
failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. This is in consonance with the
guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and elaborated in the Labor Code. A dismissed
employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his
employer. The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised
with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.
The loss of trust and confidence must be based not on ordinary breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by the employer, but, in the language of Article 282 ( c) of the Labor
Code, on willful breach. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly
or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the
employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to
justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee which
must be established by substantial evidence.
In this case, the evidence submitted, both testimonial and documentary, fail to convince
Us that Garcia had malice aforethought at the time the alleged oversupply of notebooks and theft
in the textbook sale were being committed. On the excessive order of notebooks, there is no
substantial evidence on record of the exact figures that Garcia incorrectly furnished to Fr. Ala; the
frequency of giving the wrong information; how the numbers provided were disproportionate
relative to the actual need of the students taking into account the existing school inventory; how
and why a specific supplier was favored while∙ the others were rejected; the difference in the
prices they offered; and the benefit that Garcia received from the oversupply. Petitioner always
connects her name with that of Salas and attribute the latter's act as hers as well. However, no
evidence was shown that there was collusion between them. In fact, Salas never alleged that
Garcia connived with him when he gave the inaccurate data to Fr. Ala.
Case #5 G.R. No. 202974 February 7, 2018
NORMA D. CACHO and NORTHSTAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC., v.
VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS
J. LeonardoDe Castro
Facts
On March 19, 2004 or after 14 years of service in North Star International Travel, Inc.,
petitioner was placed under 30 days preventive suspension pursuant to a Board Resolution passed
by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation due to her alleged questionable
transactions. On March 20, 2004, she was notified by private respondent Norma Cacho of her
suspension and ordered to explain in writing to the Board of Directors her alleged fraudulent
transactions within 5 days from said notice.
Petitioner promptly heeded the order on March 29, 2004. On April 5, 2004, while under
preventive suspension, petitioner wrote a letter to private respondent Norma Cacho informing the
latter that she was assuming her position as Executive VicePresident/Chief Executive Officer
effective on that date; however, she was prevented from reassuming her position. Petitioner also
wrote a letter dated April 12, 2004 to the Audit Manager inquiring about the status of the
examination of the financial statement of respondent corporation for the year 2003, which request
was, however, ignored. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint claiming that she was
constructively and illegally dismissed effective on April 12, 2004.
Issue
Whether or not the present case is an intracorporate controversy within the jurisdiction
of the regular courts or an ordinary labor dispute that the Labor Arbiter may properly take
cognizance of.
Ruling
The SC ruled that it is clear that the termination complained of is intimately and
inevitably linked to respondent Balagtas's role as petitioner North Star's Executive Vice
President: first, the alleged misappropriations were committed by respondent Balagtas in her
capacity as vice president, one of the officers responsible for approving the disbursements and
signing the checks. And, second, these alleged misappropriations breached petitioners Cacho's
and North Star's trust and confidence specifically reposed on respondent as vice president. All
these incidents are adjuncts of her corporate office lead the Court to conclude that respondent
Balagtas' s dismissal is an intracorporate controversy, not a mere labor dispute.