3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village

Homeowners Association, Inc.

evidenced by his eleven years of service with the

private respondent. Accordingly, petitioner enjoys the
right to security of tenure and his services may be
VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 469 terminated only for causes provided by law.

Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village Same; Dismissals; The substantive and
Homeowners Association, Inc. procedural requirements attendant to dismissal of
employees are mandatory and noncompliance
* therewith renders any judgment reached by the
G.R. No. 121791. December 23, 1998.
management void and inexistent.—Viewed in this
light, while private respondent has the right to
ENRIQUE SALAFRANCA, petitioner, vs. terminate the services of petitioner, this is subject to
PHILAMLIFE (PAMPLONA) VILLAGE both substantive and procedural grounds. The
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., substantive causes for dismissal are those provided in
BONIFACIO DAZO and THE SECOND Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code, while the
DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS procedural grounds refer to the observance of the
COMMISSION (NLRC), respondents. requirement of due process. In all these instances, it
is the private respondent, being the employer, who
Labor Law; Security of Tenure; The services of an must prove the validity of the dismissal. Having
employee who enjoys the right to security of tenure may reviewed the records of this case carefully, we
be terminated only for causes provided by law.—On conclude that private respondent utterly failed to
the outset, there is no dispute that petitioner had substantiate petitioner’s dismissal, rendering the
already attained the status of a regular employee, as latter’s termination illegal. At the risk of being
redundant, it must be stressed that these
requirements are mandatory and non-compliance
__________
therewith renders any judgment reached by the
management void and inexistent.
* THIRD DIVISION.
Same; Same; Evidence; Affidavits; It is settled
that no undue importance should be given to a sworn
470 statement or affidavit as a piece of evidence because,
being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always
incomplete and inaccurate.—While private respondent
imputes “gross negligence,” and “serious misconduct”
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED as the causes of petitioner’s dismissal, not a shred of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25

3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
evidence was offered in support thereof, other than
bare and uncorroborated allegations. The facts and
circumstances regarding such alleged infractions were
never explained. While it is true that private
respondent, through its president Bonifacio Dazo,
executed an affidavit narrating the alleged violations
of the petitioner, these were never corroborated by
concrete or competent evidence. It is settled that no
undue importance should be given to a sworn
statement or affidavit as a piece of evidence because,
being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always
incomplete and inaccurate. Furthermore, it must be
noted that when petitioner was terminated in 1992,
these alleged infractions were never raised nor
communicated to him. In fact, these were only
revealed after the complaint was filed by the
petitioner in 1993. Why there was a delay was never
adequately explained by private respondent.
VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Homeowners Association, Inc.
Same; Same; Same; Unsubstantiated accusations
without more, are not tantamount to guilt.—Likewise,
we note that Dazo himself was not presented as a
witness to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-
examine him and propound clarificatory questions
regarding matters averred in his affidavit. All told,
the foregoing lapses and the belated submission of the
affidavit, cast doubt as to the credibility of the
allegations. In sum, the dismissal of the petitioner
had no factual basis whatsoever. The rule is that
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
unsubstantiated accusations without more, are not
tantamount to guilt.
Same; Same; Due Process; The essence of due
process is to afford the party an opportunity to be
heard and defend himself, to cleanse his name and
reputation from any taint—it includes the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.—The essence of
due process is to afford the party an opportunity to be
heard and defend himself, to cleanse his name and
reputation from any taint. It includes the twin
requirements of notice and hearing. This concept
evolved from the basic tenet that one’s employment or
profession is a property right protected by the
constitutional guaranty of due process of law. Hence,
an individual’s separation from work must be founded
on clearly-established facts, not on mere conjectures
and suspicions.
Same; Same; Same; Management Prerogatives; A
471 decision to terminate an employee without fully
apprising him of the facts, on the pretext that the twin
requirements of notice and hearing are unnecessary or
471 useless, is an invalid and obnoxious exercise of
management prerogative.—In light of the foregoing,
private respondent’s arguments are clearly baseless
and without merit. In truth, instead of protecting
petitioner’s reputation, private respondent succeeded
in doing exactly the opposite—it condemned the
petitioner without even hearing his side. It is stating
the obvious that dismissal, being the ultimate penalty
that can be meted out to an employee, should be based
on a clear or convincing ground. As such, a decision to
terminate an employee without fully apprising him of
the facts, on the pretext that the twin requirements of
notice and hearing are unnecessary or useless, is an
invalid and obnoxious exercise of management
prerogative.
3/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

Same; Same; Same; Same; Corporation Law; By- SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme
Laws; Contracts; Non-Impairment Clause; The right to Court. Certiorari.
amend the by-laws by the employer, extensive as it may
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
be, cannot impair the obligation of existing contracts
     Claro F. Certeza for petitioner.
or rights.—Admittedly, the right to amend the by-
     Gregorio D. David for private respondents.
472
ROMERO, J.:

Petitioner Enrique Salafranca started working

with the private respondent Philamlife Village
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Homeowners Association on May 1, 1981 as
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village administrative officer for a period of six months.
Homeowners Association, Inc. From this date until December 31, 1983,
petitioner was
1
reappointed to his position three
laws lies solely in the discretion of the employer, this
more times. As administrative officer, petitioner
being in the exercise of management prerogative or
was generally responsible for the management
2
of
business judgment. However this right, extensive as it
the village’s day to day activities. After
may be, cannot impair the obligation of existing
petitioner’s term of employment expired on
contracts or rights.
December 31,

Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Matters, theories

___________
or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below
will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court, 1 Annexes “B,” “C,” “D” of Petition, pp. 26-29.
as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.— 2 Ibid., p. 59.
In the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, it is
noteworthy that private respondent never raised the 473
issue of compulsory retirement, as a cause for
terminating petitioner’s service. In its appeal before VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 473
the NLRC, this ground was never discussed. In fact,
private respondent, in justifying the termination of Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
the petitioner, still anchored its claim on the Homeowners Association, Inc.
applicability of the amended by-laws. This omission is
fatal to private respondent’s cause, for the rule is well- 1983, he still continued to work in the same
settled that matters, theories or arguments not capacity, albeit, without the benefit of a renewed
brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily contract.
not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot Sometime in 1987, private respondent
be raised for the first time on appeal. decided to amend its by-laws. Included therein
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
was a provision regarding officers, specifically,
the position of administrative officer under
which said officer shall hold office at the
pleasure of the Board of Directors. In view of
this development, private respondent, on July 3,
1987, informed the petitioner that his term of
office shall be coterminus with the Board of
Directors which appointed him to his position.
Furthermore, until be submits a medical
certificate showing his state of health, his
employment
3
shall be on a month-to-month
basis. Oddly, notwithstanding the failure of
herein petitioner to submit his medical
certificate, he continued working
4
until his
termination in December 1992. Claiming that
his services had been unlawfully and
unceremoniously dispensed with, petitioner filed
a complaint for illegal5 dismissal with money
claims and for damages.
After the submission by the parties of their
respective position papers and other pleadings,
6
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering
private respondent to pay the petitioner the
amount of P257,833.33 representing his
backwages, separation pay and 13th month pay.
In justifying the award, the Labor Arbiter
elucidated:
“Respondents’ contention that complainant’s term of
employment was co-terminus with the term of Office
of the Board of Directors, is wanting in merit. Records
show that complainant had been hired in 1981 while
the Amendment of the respondents’ By-Laws making
the position of an Administrative Officer co-terminus
with the term of the Board of Directors was made in
1987. Evidently, the said Amendment would not be
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
applicable to the case of complainant who had become
a regular employee long time before the Amend-
___________
3 Id., p. 61.
4 Id., p. 30.
5 Id., pp. 35-36.
6 Id., pp. 137-144.
474
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Homeowners Association, Inc.
ment took place. Moreover, the Amendment should be
applied prospectively and not retroactively.”
On appeal by the private respondent, the NLRC
reversed the decision of7 the Labor Arbiter and
rendered a new one reducing petitioner’s
monetary award to only one-half (1/2) month pay
for every year of service representing his
retirement pay. In other words, the NLRC
viewed the dismissal of the petitioner as a valid
act by the private respondent.
“The fact that he continued to perform the function of
the office of administrative officer without extension
or re-appointment thereafter, to our mind, did not in
any way make his employment permanent as in fact,
he was even reminded of the nature of his position by
then president of the association Jaime Y. Ladao in a
letter of 3 July 1987. His reply to the aforesaid letter,
claiming his employment regular, and viz a viz,
referring to submit his medical certificate,
notwithstanding, to our mind, merely underscored the
7/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
need to define his position as, in fact, the Association’s
Rules and Regulations were amended if but to put to
rest the tenural (sic) limit of the office of the
Administrative Officer in accordance with its earlier
intention, that it is co-terminus with that of the
members of the Board of Directors.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby set aside. Respondents are hereby ordered to
pay herein appellee one half (1/2) month pay for every
year of service representing his retirement pay.”
In view of the sudden turn of events, petitioner
has elevated the8 case to this Court assigning the
following errors:
1. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion when
it ruled that the employment of the Petitioner
is not purely based on considerations of
Employer-Employee relationship.
2. Petitioner was illegally dismissed by private
respondents.
__________
7 Rollo, pp. 174-186.
8 Id., p. 10.
VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Homeowners Association, Inc.
As to the first assigned error by the petitioner,
we need not dwell on this at length. We agree
with the Solicitor General’s observation that an
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
employer-employee relationship exists between
9
the petitioner and the private respondent.
“x x x      x x x      x x x
The first element is present in this case. Petitioner
was hired as Administrative Officer by respondents.
In fact, he was extended successive appointments by
respondents.
The second element is also present since it is not
denied that respondent PVHA paid petitioner a fixed
salary for his services.
As to the third element, it can be seen from the
Records that respondents had the power of dismissal
over petitioner. In their letter dated December 7,
1992, respondents informed petitioner that they had
decided to discontinue his services. In their Position
Paper submitted to the Labor Arbiter, respondents
stated that petitioner ‘was dismissed for cause.’ (p. 17,
Record).
With respect to the fourth and most important
element, respondents controlled the work of petitioner
not only with respect to the ends to be achieved but
also the means used in reaching such ends.”
Relative to the second assigned error of the
petitioner, both the Solicitor General and the
private respondent take the stance 10
that
475 petitioner was not illegally dismissed. On this
aspect, we disagree with their contentions.
On the outset, there is no dispute that
475
petitioner had already attained the status of a
regular employee, as evidenced by his eleven
years of service with the private respondent.
Accordingly, petitioner
11
enjoys the right to
security of tenure and his services may 12
be
terminated only for causes provided by law.
9/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

__________ (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his

duties;
9 Comment, Rollo, pp. 254-255.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
10 Id., p. 255.
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
11 Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA)-
representative;
Manila v. NLRC, 261 SCRA 189 (1996).
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee
12 San Miguel Jeepney Service v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 38
against the person of his employer or any immediate
(1996).
member of his family or his duly authorized
476 representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of
ANNOTATED
personnel.—The employer may also terminate the
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village employment of any employee due to the installation of labor
Homeowners Association, Inc. saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses
or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment
Viewed in this light, while private respondent or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
has the right to terminate the services of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a
petitioner, this is subject
13
to both substantive and written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
procedural grounds. The substantive causes for Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
dismissal are those provided14
in Articles 282 and thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor
283 of the Labor Code, while the procedural saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby
grounds refer to the 15observance of the shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his
requirement of due process. In all these in- one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment
to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of
__________
operations of establishment or undertaking not due to
13 Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply, 282 SCRA 326 serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation
(1997); Shoppers Gain Supermart v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 411 pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-
(1996). half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is
14 ART. 282. Termination by employer.—An employer may higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be
terminate an employment for any of the following causes: considered one (1) whole year.
15 Brahm v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 828 (1997); Jamer v.
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the NLRC, 278 SCRA 632 (1997).
employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work; 477

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/25

3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 477 1993. Why there was a delay was never
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village adequately explained by private respondent.
Homeowners Association, Inc. Likewise, we note that Dazo himself was not
presented as a witness to give the petitioner an
opportunity to cross-examine him and propound
stances, it is the private respondent, being the
clarificatory questions regarding matters
employer, 16who must prove the validity of the
averred in his affidavit. All told, the foregoing
dismissal.
lapses and the
Having reviewed the records of this case
carefully, we conclude that private respondent
utterly failed to substantiate petitioner’s ___________

dismissal, rendering the latter’s termination 16 Sanyo Travel Corporation v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 129
illegal. At the risk of being redundant, it must be (1997).
stressed that these requirements are mandatory 17 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 277 (1992).
and non-compliance therewith renders any 18 Comment, Rollo, p. 189.
judgment reached by the management void and
17 19 Rollo, pp. 73-77.
inexistent. 20 People v. Ragay, 277 SCRA 106 (1997).
While private respondent imputes “gross
negligence,” and “serious misconduct”
18
as the 478
causes of petitioner’s dismissal, not a shred of
evidence was offered in support thereof, other
than bare and uncorroborated allegations. The 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
facts and circumstances regarding such alleged
infractions were never explained. While it is true Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
that private respondent, through its president Homeowners Association, Inc.
Bonifacio Dazo, executed an affidavit narrating
19
the alleged violations of the petitioner, these belated submission of the affidavit, cast doubt as
were never corroborated by concrete or to the credibility of the allegations. In sum, the
competent evidence. It is settled that no undue dismissal of the petitioner had no factual basis
importance should be given to a sworn whatsoever. The rule is that unsubstantiated
statement or affidavit as a piece of evidence accusations without more, are not tantamount to
21
because, being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is 20
guilt.
almost always incomplete and inaccurate. As regards the issue of procedural due
Furthermore, it must be noted that when process, private respondent justifies its non-
petitioner was terminated in 1992, these alleged compliance therewith in this wise:
infractions were never raised nor communicated
to him. In fact, these were only revealed after “The Association Officers, being his peers and friends
the complaint was filed by the petitioner in had a problem however in terminating his services.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

He had been found to have committed infractions as 24 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC,
previously enumerated. PVHA could have proceeded 276 SCRA 1 (1997).
with a full-blown investigation to hear these charges,
but the ordeal might break the old man’s heart as this 479

will surely affect his standing in the community. So

they decided to make their move as discreetly (but VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 479
legally) as possible to save the petitioner’s reputation.
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Terminating him in accordance with the provision of
Homeowners Association, Inc.
the by-laws of the Association without pointing out his
numerous faults and malfeasance in office and with
one-half month pay for every year of service in In light of the foregoing, private respondent’s
accordance with the Retirement Law was the best and arguments are clearly baseless and without
only alternative.” merit. In truth, instead of protecting petitioner’s
reputation, private respondent succeeded in
We are not impressed. The reasoning advanced doing exactly the opposite—it condemned the
by the private respondent is as puerile as it is petitioner without even hearing his side. It is
preposterous. stating the obvious that dismissal, being the
The essence of due process is to afford the ultimate penalty that can be meted out to an
party an opportunity to be heard and defend employee, should 25be based on a clear or
himself, to cleanse his name and reputation from convincing ground. As such, a decision to
any taint. It includes
22
the twin requirements of terminate an employee without fully apprising
notice and hearing. This concept evolved from him of the facts, on the pretext that the twin
the basic tenet that one’s employment or requirements of notice and hearing are
profession is a property right protected by the 23
unnecessary or useless, is an invalid and
constitutional guaranty of due process of law. obnoxious exercise of management prerogative.
Hence, an individual’s separation from work Furthermore, private respondent, in an effort
must be founded on clearly-established
24
facts, not to validate the dismissal of the petitioner, posits
on mere conjectures and suspicions. the theory that the latter’s position is
coterminus with that of the Village’s Board of
____________ Directors,
26
as provided for in its amended by-
laws.
21 RDS Trucking v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123491, August 27, Admittedly, the right to amend the by-laws
1998. lies solely in the discretion of the employer, this
22 MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664 being in the exercise of management prerogative
(1996). or business judgment. However this right,
23 JMM Production and Management, Inc. v. Court of extensive as it may be, cannot impair the
Appeals, 260 SCRA 319 (1996). obligation of existing contracts or rights.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/25

3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

Prescinding from these premises, private measure taken by the private respondent in
respondent’s insistence that it can legally amending its by-laws is nothing but a devious,
dismiss petitioner on the ground that his tenure but crude, attempt to circumvent petitioner’s
has expired is untenable. To reiterate, right to security of tenure as a regular
28
employee
petitioner, being a regular employee, is entitled guaranteed under the Labor Code.
to security of tenure; hence, his services may 27
Interestingly, the Solicitor General is of the
only be terminated for causes provided by law. view that what actually transpired was that
A contrary interpretation would not find petitioner was retired from his employment,
justification in the laws or the Constitution. If considering the fact that in 199229he was already
we were to rule otherwise, it would enable an 70 years old and not terminated.
employer to remove any employee from his While there seems to be a semblance of
employment by the simple expediency of plausibility in this contention for the matter of
amending its by-laws and providing that his/her extension of service of such employee or official
position shall cease to exist upon the occurrence is addressed to the sound discretion of the
of a specified event. employer, still we have no doubt that this was
just a mere afterthought—a dismissal disguised
____________ as retirement.
In the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, it
25 Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 237 is noteworthy that private respondent 30never
(1996). raised the issue of compulsory retirement, as a
26 Rollo, p. 60. cause for terminating petitioner’s service. In its
27 Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution; San appeal before the NLRC, this ground was never
Miguel Jeepney Services v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 (1996). discussed. In fact, private respondent, in
justifying the termination of the petitioner, still
480
anchored its claim on the applicability of the
amended by-laws. This omission is fatal to
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS private respondent’s cause, for the rule is well-
ANNOTATED settled that matters, theories or arguments not
brought out in the proceedings below will
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing
Homeowners Association, Inc.
court, as they
31
cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.
If private respondent wanted to make the Undaunted, private respondent now asserts
petitioner’s position co-terminus with that of the that the instant petition was filed out of time,
32

Board of Directors, then the amendment must be considering that the assailed NLRC decision was
effective after petitioner’s stay with the private received on June 28, 1995 while
respondent, not during his term. Obviously, the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25

3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

__________ just cause and lacking due process, the 35award of

backwages and reinstatement is proper.
28 Article 279, Labor Code, as amended.
In this particular case, reinstatement is no
29 Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 362-363.
longer feasible since petitioner was already 70
30 Position Paper, Rollo, pp. 66-71.
years old at the time he was removed from his
31 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 459
employment. As a substitute36
thereof, separation
(1996).
pay is generally awarded, the amount of which
32 Rollo, p. 194.
must be equivalent37 to one-month salary for
481 every year of service.
With respect to the amount of backwages
which,
38
incidentally is different from separation
VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 481 pay, it is now settled that
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Homeowners Association, Inc. ___________

33 Sec. 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

this petition was filed on September 20, 1995. At
34 People’s Security, Inc. v. NLRC, 226 SCRA 146 (1993);
this juncture, we take this opportunity to state
PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC,
that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a
260 SCRA 758 (1996).
petition for certiorari must now be instituted
35 Judy Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111934, April
within sixty days of receipt 33 of the assailed
29, 1998.
judgment, order or resolution. However, since
36 Escobin, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118159, April 15,
this case arose in 1995 and the aforementioned
rule only took effect on July 1, 1997 then the old 1998.

rule is applicable. Since prior to the effectivity of 37 International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.

the new rule, a special civil action of certiorari 106331, March 9, 1998; Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. v.
should be instituted within a period of three NLRC, G.R. No. 119420, February 27, 1998.
34
months, the instant petition which was filed on 38 Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corp. v. NLRC, 226 SCRA 723
September 20, 1995 or two months and twenty- (1993).
two days thereafter, was still within the
482
reglementary period.
With respect to the issue of the monetary
award to be given to the petitioner, private 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
respondent argues that he deserves only ANNOTATED
retirement pay and nothing more. This position
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
would have been tenable had petitioner not been Homeowners Association, Inc.
illegally dismissed. However, since we have
already ruled petitioner’s dismissal as without
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to its
full payment as long as the39 cause of action
accrued after March 21, 1989. Considering that
petitioner was terminated from the service on
December 9, 1992, which is after March 21,
1989, he is entitled to full backwages from the
time of the illegal dismissal
40
without any
qualification or deduction.
As regards the issue of retirement pay,
private respondent asserts that the correct
amount should be one-half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service. This time we agree with
private respondent’s contention. The pertinent
law is Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7641, which reads:
“Art. 287. Retirement.—Any employee may be retired
upon reaching the retirement age established in the
collective bargaining agreement or other applicable
employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be
entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may
have earned under existing laws and any collective
bargaining agreement and other agreements:
Provided, however, That an employee’s retirement
benefits under any collective bargaining and other
agreements shall not be less than those provided
herein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement
providing for retirement benefits of employees in the
establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of
sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65)
years which is hereby declared the compulsory
retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years
in the said establishment, may retire and shall be
entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-
half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as
one whole year.
x x x      x x x      x x x.”
__________
39 Highway Copra Traders v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108889,
July 30, 1998; Ala Mode Garments, Inc. v. NLRC, 268 SCRA
497 (1997).
40 Bustamante v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61 (1996); Lopez v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 124548, October 8, 1998.
483
VOL. 300, DECEMBER 23, 1998 483
Salafranca vs. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Homeowners Association, Inc.
With respect to the issue that petitioner, being a
managerial employee, is not entitled to
thirteenth month pay, Memorandum Order No.
28, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines
on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay
Law dated November 16, 1987, provides:
“Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 851 is hereby
modified to the extent that all employers are hereby
required to pay all their rank and file employees a
13th month pay not later than December 24 of every
year.”
Clearly, therefore, the foregoing exempts
managerial employees from this benefit. Of
course, this does not preclude an employer from
granting other bonuses, in lieu of the 13th
month pay, to managerial employees in its
discretion.
21/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300 3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

Finally, we cannot simply ignore private Commission

respondent’s malicious scheme to remove
petitioner from his position which is contrary to and ten 44 thousand (P10,000.00) pesos,
good customs and effected in an oppressive respectively; and (5) to pay ten (10%) percent of
manner, thus warranting an award of moral and 41 the total amount due to petitioner, as attorney’s
exemplary damages to the petitioner. fees. Consequently, the respondent NLRC is
Moreover, since petitioner was forced to litigate ORDERED to COMPUTE the total monetary
and incur expenses to protect his right 42
and benefits awarded in accordance with this
interests, he is entitled to attorney’s fees. decision and to submit its compliance thereon
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the within thirty (30) days from notice of this
instant petition is GRANTED. The NLRC decision.
decision dated June 15, 1995 is hereby SO ORDERED.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private
respondent Philamlife Village Homeowners           Kapunan, Purisima and Pardo, JJ.,
Association is ORDERED: (1) to pay petitioner concur.
Enrique Salafranca separation pay equivalent to
one month salary for every year of service; (2) to Petition granted, judgment reversed and set
pay his full backwages in accordance with our aside.
43
ruling in Bustamante v. NLRC; (3) to pay his
retirement pay in accordance with Article 287 of Notes.—While it is true that security of
the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. tenure is a constitutionally guaranteed right of
7641; (4) to pay moral and exemplary damages the employees, it does not, however, mean
in the amount of twenty thousand (P20,000.00) perpetual employment for the employee.
pesos (Philippine Village Hotel vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 230 SCRA 423 [1994])
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
__________
(People vs. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759 [1994])
41 Zamboanga City Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 243
——o0o——
SCRA 47 (1995); Lopez v. Javier, 252 SCRA 68 (1996).
42 Rasonable v. NLRC, 253 SCRA 623 (1996).
43 Supra, note 40.

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
ANNOTATED
Magos vs. National Labor Relations
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/25
3/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170f1a02a19c05304bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25