Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NATURE
14.01 SECURITY OF TENURE CERTIORARI
FACTS
A. NATURE OF SECURITY OF TENURE - Jose Masaya made an unauthorized electric service connection which supplied
electricity to the house of Antonio Sanchez (who paid the former Php 200 for making the
said connection.)
SONZA V ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP - Sanchez neither applied with Meralco for electric service nor made the requisite
[PAGE 42] deposit for it.
- This clandestine and illicit connection was eventually discovered by Meralco who then
ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES V. NLRC (RUPISAN) charged him (through a letter) with a violation of the Company Code on Employee
Discipline, and thereafter conducted a formal investigation of the matter.
238 SCRA 232 - Those who gave testimony at that investigation were Jose Masaya himself, and Renato
BELLOSILLO; November 18, 1994 Repuyan, Meralco field investigator.
- Prior to being interrogated about the illegal connection and in response to preliminary
NATURE questions by the investigator, Masaya stated for the record that he had received the letter
Special civil action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari accusing him of misconduct, that he had a copy of the code of discipline and understood
the nature of the precise charge against him, and that he did not need to be assisted by a
FACTS lawyer or a representative of his Union because he said that what he was about to say
- Alhambra employed Rupisan as salesman on 6-mo probationary basis. Alhambra was “pawing katotohanan lamang.”
made surprise audit, alleged violations were purportedly committed by him. He was - Repuyan testified on the fact of the undenied and indisputable installation of the illegal
placed under 1-mo preventive suspension. He protested. He alleges that charges electrical connection at the residence of Antonio Sanchez (his description of the manner
against him had become academic when he was given clearance of all accountabilities. of its accomplishment being substantially the same as Masaya's own), and also, the
- A day before end of suspension, he was terminated. He sued Alhambra. disclosures made to him by Sanchez's house helpers and the owner of the house
- Labor Arbiter found that the termination was for just cause, but there was a violation of - After the investigation, and on the basis of the results thereof, Meralco filed with the
due process (failure to furnish copy of audit report). Ministry of Labor and Employment an application for clearance to terminate Masaya's
- Both parties appealed to NLRC which affirmed Arbiter’s findings. services, serving copy on the latter.
- Meralco also placed Masaya under preventive suspension.
ISSUE - A week later, Masaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Meralco.
WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining finding of Labor Arbiter - After the trial, LA Andres M. Lomabao rendered a decision in Masaya's favor; saying
that Rupisan was illegally dismissed but directing his reinstatement so he could have that the record of the investigation conducted by Meralco should not be accorded
explained credence; that Meralco's contention that Masaya had "surreptitiously effected the direct
connection of . . . electric service" was not credible, because Masaya "was employed as
HELD a bill collector, not as a lineman collector, hence, he does not know how to install
YES electrical connection;" and that the money received by Masaya from Sanchez (P200 or
- Employment is no longer just an ordinary human acctivity. For most families the main P250) was not in consideration of any clandestine connection but was accepted as
source of their livelihood, employment has now leveled off with property rights which no "representation expenses in following up Mr. Sanchez' application for installation of
one may be deprived of without due process of law. electric facilities . . . with the Engineer's Office at the City Hall of Manila.
- Termination of employment is not anymore a mere cessation or severance of - NLRC affirmed the Arbiter's decision; said that since Meralco was charging Masaya of a
contractual relationship but an economic phenomenon affecting members of the family. criminal offense, it should prove beyond reasonable doubt (pbrd) said crime which it was
This explains why under the broad principles of social justice the dismissal of employees not able to do as it was not shown that Masaya was given the opportunity to be heard by
is adequately protected by the laws of the state. counsel or at least, a representative to confront his accuser; that based on the doctrine of
- A termination without just cause entitles a worker to reinstatement regardless of PBRD, there is no causal connection between Masaya' s duties to the crime imputed to
whether he was accorded due process. On the other hand, termination of a worker for him, mere substantial evidence is insufficient to hold Masaya guilty of installing electrical
cause, even without procedural due process, does not warrant reinstatement, but the connection let alone deprive him of his right to labor."
employer incurs liability for damages.
- Since the Labor Arbiter found a valid ground for dismissal, it erred when it directed ISSUE
reinstatement. WON the LA & the NLRC committed GABD in failing to take into consideration or
- To order reinstatement and compel the parties to start the procedure from step one excluding Masaya’s admissions in their prononcement that Masaya was illegally
would be circuitous because almost invariably that same issue of validity of the ground of dismissed
dismissal would be brought back to the Labor Arbiter for adjudication. We laid down in
Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC3 that an otherwise justly grounded termination without HELD
procedural due process would only sanction payment of damages YES
- Standards of due process in judicial as well as administrative proceedings have long Reasoning
been established. In its bare minimum due process of law simply means giving notice NLRC’S ERROR:
and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. - Masaya was in truth asked if he wished to be assisted by a lawyer or a representative
- When the private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner, he was afforded the of his Union, and his response was in the negative because, in his own words, " ang
right to an investigation by the labor arbiter. sasabihin ko naman dito ay pawang katotohanan lamang "
- Although belatedly, private respondent was afforded due process before the labor - In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, PBRD is not required as basis for a
arbiter wherein the just cause of his dismissal had been established. With such finding, it judgment of the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, nor even
would be arbitrary and unfair to order his reinstatement with backwages. preponderance of evidence, substantial evidence being sufficient.
- It will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services - LC: ”the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling
of an employee who has been shown to be guilty of the charges that warranted his and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and
dismissal from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file. the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
- However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to each case speedily and objectively and without regard to the technicalities of law or
private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. procedure, all in the interest of due process. . . .
- SC: the ground for an employer's dismissal of an employee need be established only by
substantial evidence.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 187 - Disini
- It is absolutely of no consequence that the misconduct with which an employee may be questioned the award of backwages as the report of the socio-economic analyst
charged also constitutes a criminal offense allegedly did not include backwages from April 1974 to June 1974 when she was on
-The proceedings being administrative, the quantum of proof is governed by the leave with pay and vacation and sick leave in 1974 and other fringe benefits to which she
substantial evidence rule and not, as the respondent Commission seems to imagine, by was entitled before her termination.
the rule governing judgments in criminal actions. - Labor Arbiter Apolinario N. Lumabao issued an order holding that the position of
-The Court cannot close its eyes to the following facts of record, to wit: manager of the Auditing Department was not substantially equivalent to that of resident
1) the reality of the illegal electrical connection; inspector. possible as it appears (that) the position is already filled up (,) to relocate
2) the letter to Masaya accusing him of misconduct complainant to a substantially equivalent position with all the emoluments and privileges
3) Masaya's acknowledgment that, having a copy of the company's code of discipline, of a Resident Inspector. Respondent is hereby further ordered to pay.
he understood the nature of the accusation against him, and his declining to be - The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's order with modification by ordering the following
assisted by a lawyer or a representative of his Union because, according to him, " ang to be added to the award: (a) Her vacation and sick leave privilege during the period of
sasabihin ko naman dito ay pawang katotohanan lamang ;" her separation in accordance with the disposition hereinbefore stated in the body of this
4) his voluntary admission that it was he who had made the illegal electrical Resolution, and (b)the normal increases which complainant would have received during
connection, describing the manner by which he had made it, and that he had received the period of her separation.
P250.00 from the occupant of the house, Antonio Sanchez; and - In connection with the computation of the award in her favor, private respondent sought
5) his plea to the company for forgiveness for having made the illegal connection. the production of the bank's payrolls for 1974-1981. Her motion was opposed by
- on record: testimony regarding identification of Masaya by Antonio Sanchez' servants petitioner which offered instead P74,344.00, the total amount of backwages as computed
and by Castañeda, the owner of the house occupied by Sanchez. by the socio-economic analyst of the Department of Labor, plus P9,040.00 in
- nothing in the record to demonstrate that Masaya's admissions were made otherwise transportation allowance and P1,050.00 mid-year bonus for 1974.
than voluntarily. - Private respondent refused the offer, hence the NLRC directed the analyst to compute
- Such an offense is obviously of so serious a character as to merit the penalty of the award on the basis of the payrolls from 1974 to 1981. Petitioner appealed to the
dismissal from employment, as stated in the Meralco Code on Employee Discipline: NLRC en banc, but its petition was dismissed, on the ground that the order appealed
SECTION 7. Dishonesty. — from was interlocutory.
xxx xxx xxx - Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with this Court, assailing the
3) Directly or indirectly tampering with electric meters or metering installation of the dismissal of its appeal. The petition was at first dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner's
Company or the installation of any device, with the purpose of defrauding the motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. On July 21, 1986 this Court modified its
Company. decision and petitioner was ordered to pay private respondent "backwages limited to
-The Labor Code pronounces "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust three years without qualification or deduction at the salary rate of private respondent at
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative," or "serious the time of dismissal."
misconduct" on the part of the employee to be lawful ground to terminate employment. - The Labor Arbiter issued an alias writ of execution after finding that the amount
Ratio And this Court has held that the "dismissal of a dishonest employee is as much in corresponded to the amount found due private respondent in the decision of the NLRC
the interests of labor as it is of management. The labor force in any company is and the resolution of this Court, consisting of salary differentials and other fringe benefits
protected and the workers' security of tenure strengthened when pilferage of equipment, which were not paid to her from the time that she was reinstated on August 14, 1978 as
goods and products which endangers the viability of an employer and, therefore, the manager of the Auditing Department.
workers' continued employment is minimized or eliminated and consequently labor- - Petitioner moved to quash the alias writ of execution. As its motion was denied, it filed
management relations based on mutual trust and confidence are promoted." a petition for Injunction in the NLRC en banc to stop the implementation of the alias writ
(*IN short: Tenurial Security is not an absolute right for the law provides that an of execution and prayed for a recomputation of the monetary award pursuant to this
employee may be dismissed for just cause. ) Court's resolution of July 21, 1986. Its petition was, however, denied, as was its motion
Disposition Petition for certiorari is GRANTED, the decisions of the NLRC and LA are for reconsideration, in the resolutions of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and the petitioner's termination of the employment of
private respondent is AUTHORIZED and APPROVED ISSUE
WON private respondent is entitled to only three years of backwages and no more
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION V NLRC (RUIZ) HELD
258 SCRA 621 NO
MENDOZA; July 11, 1996 - Private respondent is, in addition, entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights. Art. 280 of the Labor Code provides:
NATURE ART. 280. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, an employer shall
Special civil action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized
by this title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
FACTS reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the
- Private respondent Ruiz was the internal auditor of petitioner Citytrust Banking time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his reinstatement.
Corporation. She was designated manager of the Quiapo branch of the bank, but she (emphasis supplied)
refused the appointment on the ground that it was a demotion. As a consequence, she - Backwages are for earnings which a worker has lost due to his illegal dismissal. Private
was suspended and, upon clearance given by the Department of Labor, she was respondent was illegally dismissed from November 8, 1974 to August 13, 1978. In its
terminated on November 8, 1974. May 28, 1985 Report, the socio-economic analyst computed private respondent's
- Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. She was ordered reinstated backwages for this period but he erroneously considered as backwages private
as branch manager, the NLRC urging her to accept the position, otherwise her refusal respondent's salary differential from August 14, 1978 to October 31, 1984. On August
would be considered a ground for her loss of employment. Private respondent appealed 14, 1978, private respondent had already been reinstated, albeit to a lower paying
to the Minister of Labor (now Secretary of Labor and Employment) but again she lost. position as manager of the Auditing Department. Hence the award of backwages should
Both parties then appealed to the Office of the President, which ordered petitioner to be up to August 13, 1978 only. What she was entitled to receive after that date was the
reinstate private respondent to her former position as internal auditor and to pay her difference between the salary of internal auditor (resident inspector) and that of manager
backwages from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her of the Auditing Department to which she was actually appointed. This position, as
reinstatement. already noted, was found to be not a substantially equivalent position to that of internal
- Petitioner moved for a reconsideration on the ground that the position of internal auditor auditor or resident inspector.
had been abolished (although the position of resident inspector was created in its stead), - The resolution of July 21, 1986 of this Court, which limited the award of backwages,
and therefore in lieu of reinstatement, it should only be made to pay private respondent's referred to the backwages for the period November 8, 1974 to August 13, 1978 as
separation pay. The Office of the President modified its decision and ordered petitioner component of the relief granted by law to those who are illegally dismissed. The Court at
to reinstate private respondent to a substantially equivalent position without loss of that time limited the award of backwages to three years without qualification and
seniority rights and to grant her the benefits and privileges to which she would be entitled deduction to avoid delays incident to the determination of the earnings of the laid-off
had she not been dismissed. employees during the pendency of the case and of deducting them from the backwages
- Subsequently, petitioner reinstated private respondent as manager of the Auditing later awarded.
Department. Private respondent accepted the appointment but questioned her - The second component of the relief granted under then Art. 280 of the Labor Code was
reinstatement to that position on the ground that it was not substantially equivalent to the reinstatement either to their former position or if, this was not possible, to a substantially
position of resident inspector (the position created in place of internal auditor). She also equivalent position. Reinstatement contemplates a restoration to a position from which
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 188 - Disini
one has been removed or separated so that the employee concerned may resume the
functions of the position he already held. Private respondent was the internal auditor of
petitioner at the time of her dismissal. Since this position had been replaced by the EMPLOYMENT
position of resident inspector, private respondent should have been appointed resident
inspector. The position of manager of the Auditing Department to which she was GONZALES V NLRC (ATENEO DE DAVAO
appointed was not a substantially equivalent position, as found by the Labor Arbiter in his
UNIVERSITY)
order of February 26, 1979 and later by the NLRC.
- The order to reinstate an employee to a former position or to a substantially equivalent 313 SCRA 169
position is a positive mandate of the law with which strict compliance is required. This is BELLOSILLO; August 26, 1999
an affirmation that those deprived of a recognized and protected interest should be made
whole so that the employer will not profit from his misdeeds. FACTS
- Since private respondent retired from the bank on March 1, 1991, reinstatement is now - Lorlene Gonzales was a Grade 6 teacher in Ateneo de Davao University from 1974 to
academic. She should therefore be paid the difference in pay of a resident inspector and 1993, when she was terminated. In 1991, the Grade School Headmaster sent her a letter
a manager of the Auditing Department from August 14, 1978 up to March 1, 1991. informing her of 2 complaints from parents of her students for alleged use of corporal
Disposition Petition dismissed. punishment. She demanded to know who the parents were because Ateneo wouldn’t tell
her. When she found out that Ateneo was soliciting complaints from parents of her
PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS V FADRIQUELA students, she demanded an investigation.
- Ateneo sent her a notice of investigation, schedule, Committee composition, affidavits
[PAGE 77] of the parents, and the rules of procedure. She refused to take part in the investigation
unless the rules of procedure were revised. The committee, under advise of counsel, did
QUIJANO V BARTOLABAC not revise the rules, since it had been used for a different teacher in the past. The
480 SCRA 204 investigation went on, without her participation. In 1993, she was asked to tender her
resignation, otherwise she would be considered resigned.
TINGA; January 27, 1999 - Lorlene filed for illegal dismissal with the LA. The LA found that she was indeed
illegally dismissed because although she was afforded due process, Ateneo failed to
FACTS establish substantial evidence as to Lorlene’s guilt. It was established that she is a very
- Quijano was employed by Mercury Drug Corporation as a warehouseman --- a good teacher, equipped with the appropriate educational qualifications, trainings,
clerical/rank and file position. He was dismissed, so he filed a complaint with the NLRC seminars and work experiences. Such fact was affirmed by her present and former
for illegal dismissal. The case reached the SC. In 1998, the SC ruled for his students, their parents, colleagues and the former headmaster of the grade school. As a
reinstatement to his old position or to a substantially similar position. The SC denied the matter of fact, 6 out of the nine 9 students and their parents/guardians retracted and
company’s mfr, and came out with a resolution in 1999 for Quijano’s reinstatement. withdrew their statements.
- What’s this case all about, then? The respondents in this case are the LA and the - NLRC reversed LA’s decision, saying the dismissal was valid and legal.
NLRC commissioner, respectively. Quijano filed a case against then for violation of
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. WHY? They gave out ISSUE
orders contrary to the resolution of the SC. The LA said to make him self-service WON dismissal was valid and legal
attendant because accdg to mercury there were only 4 positions open. All 4 positions
required college graduates, but LA said he thinks Quijano could handle the self-service HELD
attendant job. The NLRC commissioner said since there are no available positions, he NO
should just be given separation pay. - In view of the foregoing, the conclusion of the NLRC is unwarranted.
No due process – The committee refused to revise the rules of procedure. As a result,
ISSUE Lorlene wasn’t afforded a chance defend herself and to examine / cross-examine the
WON Bartolabac & Quimpo erred accusers.
Failure to prove by substantial evidence – The evidence of Ateneo didn’t measure up to
HELD the standard laid down in Ang Tibay v CIR: "substantial evidence is more than mere
YES scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
- The decision of the SC was already final and executory. They had no place to use adequate to support a conclusion."
discretion in executing a final and executory order of the Supreme Court. SUPREME. If Lorlene’s evidence – She was able to prove that she’s a competent and dedicated
the final & executory orders of the SC would be second-guessed by other bodies, then teacher of Ateneo for 17 years.
cases would never reach finality. The implementation of the final and executory decision - Employment is not merely a contractual relationship; it has assumed the nature of
is mandatory. (The court was disappointed in the IBP recommendation to dismiss the property right. It may spell the difference whether or not a family will have food on their
complaint against Bartolabac & Quimpo.) table, roof over their heads and education for their children. It is for this reason that the
- The SC won’t compel to instantly restore the position of warehouseman if it had already State has taken up measures to protect employees from unjustified dismissals. It is also
been abolished. It ruled that Quijano should be reinstated to original or substantially because of this that the right to security of tenure is not only a statutory right but, more
similar position. They took notice of Mercury Drug’s nationwide operation. SC couldn’t so, a constitutional right.
believe that they wouldn’t have a position for Quijano. Disposition NLRC decision reversed and set aside. LA decision reinstated, affirmed and
- Our Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property adopted.
without due process of law. It should be borne in mind that employment is considered a
property right and cannot be taken away from the employee without going through legal
proceedings. In the instant case, respondents wittingly or unwittingly dispossessed
complainant of his source of living by not implementing his reinstatement. In the process,
respondents also run afoul of the public policy enshrined in the Constitution ensuring the
protection of the rights of workers and the promotion of their welfare.
Disposition Bartolabac & Quimpo suspended from the practice of law for 3 months for
violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of CPR.
ISSUES HELD
1. WON the CDS violates the collective bargaining agreement YES
2. WON it is an indirect way of busting the union - BOP resides on the employer to prove that there was valid cause for dismissal, and that
he was afforded the opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
HELD - For the 1st notice, RCPI required petitioner to explain why he failed to account for the
1. NO shortage. The 2nd notice was that informing Farrol of his termination. it does not clearly
- CDS is a valid exercise of management prerogatives: cite the reasons for dismissal, nor were there facts and circumstances in support thereof.
Ratio Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his - Even assuming there was a breach of trust and confidence, there was no evidence that
own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work Farrol was a managerial employee. The term “trust and confidence” is restricted to
assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, managerial employees.
processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of - RCPI alleges that under its rules, petitioner’s infarction is punishable by dismissal.
employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of However, employer’s rules cannot preclude the state from inquiring whether strict and
work. rigid application or interpretation would be too harsh to the employee. This is Farrol’s 1st
- So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the offense, to which the Court holds that dismissal is too harsh and grossly disproportionate.
advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or Disposition CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and new one entered REINSTATING the
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator subject to the MODIFICATION that petitioner’s
this Court will uphold them separation pay be recomputed to include the period within which backwages are due. For
2. NO this purpose, this case is REMANDED to the Voluntary Arbitrator for proper computation
Ratio Nothing in the record as to suggest that the unilateral action of the employer in of backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, sick leave conversion and vacation leave
inaugurating the new sales scheme was designed to discourage union organization or conversion.
diminish its influence, but rather it is undisputable that the establishment of such scheme
was part of its overall plan to improve efficiency and economy and at the same time gain
profit to the highest. While it may be admitted that the introduction of new sales plan
somewhat disturbed the present set-up, the change however was too insignificant as to
convince this Office to interpret that the innovation interferred with the worker's right to
self-organization.
Reasoning
- Petitioner failed to consider is the fact that corollary to the adoption of the assailed VH MANUFACTURING INC V NLRC (GAMIDO)
marketing technique is the effort of the company to compensate whatever loss the 322 SCRA 417
workers may suffer because of the new plan over and above than what has been DE LEON; January 19, 2000
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 193 - Disini
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Before us is a petition for certiorari
FACTS
FACTS - Reyno was employed by MERALCO where he eventually occupied the position of
- Since November 5, 1985 Gamido was employed in VH Manufacturing’s business of Assistant Squad Leader of Squad 12 at the Inspection Department. Petitioner and his
manufacturing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders. He served as a quality control team of inspectors were in charge of monitoring and inspecting electric meters installed
inspector with the principal duty of inspecting LPG cylinders for any possible defects. His at the premises of respondent’s customers; ensuring the accuracy of the electric
service with the company was abruptly interrupted on February 14, 1995, when he was consumption recorded in these meters; and reporting and apprehending violators who
served a notice of termination of his employment. use insidious schemes or devices to reduce their electric consumption deliberately.
- His dismissal stemmed from an incident on February 10, 1995 wherein VH’s company - Later, MERALCO implemented an incentive scheme aimed at encouraging its
President, Alejandro Dy Juanco, allegedly caught private Gamido sleeping on the job. On inspectors to perform their duties zealously. Under this incentive scheme, the inspector
that same day, private respondent was asked through a written notice from the concerned shall be paid an additional 30-minute overtime pay for every submitted report
petitioner’s Personnel Department to explain within twenty-four (24) hours why no of major violation/s committed by customers against respondent.
disciplinary action should be taken against him for his violation of Company Rule 15-b - Roger Sacdalan, Senior Investigator of respondent’s Special Presidential Committee
which provides for a penalty of separation for sleeping during working hours. Without (SPC), received several complaints against Gilbert Villapa, Leader of Squad 12, about an
delay, private respondent replied in a letter which reads: "Sir, ipagpaumanhin po ninyo illegal connection.
kung nakapikit ako sa aking puwesto dahil hinihintay ko po ang niliha hi Abreu para i - SPC conducted an investigation wherein members of Squad 12 were summoned to
quality pasensiya na po kung hindi ko po namalayan ang pagdaan ninyo dahil maingay explain. However, they failed to establish Villapa’s involvement in such illegal
po ang painting booth." Notwithstanding his foregoing reply, he was terminated. connection. Instead, their declarations pointed to Reyno’s irregular performance of his
- Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying for reinstatement to duties.
his position as quality control inspector. Labor Arbiter declared that Gamido’s dismissal is - This prompted SPC to conduct clarificatory hearing. But the hearing was cancelled for
anchored on a valid and just cause. NLRC reversed the decision. failure of Reyno’s counsel to appear despite notice. When the case was called for
hearing as scheduled, his counsel again failed to appear. He then opted to proceed with
ISSUE the clarificatory hearing without the assistance of his counsel.
WON Gamido’s dismissal was too harsh a penaltly for his violation of company rule 15-b - After evaluating the records on hand, the SPC found petitioner guilty of dishonesty,
serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. Respondent then sent petitioner a notice
HELD terminating his services.
YES - Reyno filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of
- Basically, the reason cited for the dismissal of private respondent is sleeping on the job overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, damages and attorney’s fees.
in violation of Company Rule 15-b. But according to Gamido, he was not sleeping on
the job but was merely idle, waiting for the next cylinder to be checked. ISSUES
- In view of the gravity of the penalty of separation, as provided by the Company Rules 1. WON Reyno was deprived of his right to cross examine witnesses before the Labor
and Regulation., in termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to Arbiter
prove that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause. What is at stake here is not only 2. WON Reyno was illegally dismissed
the job itself of the employee but also his regular income therefrom which is the means of
livelihood of his family. HELD
- A thorough review of the record discloses that, contrary to the findings of the Labor 1. NO
Arbiter, petitioner’s claim that private respondent slept on the job was not substantiated - His right to cross-examine the three witnesses, did not err as it was not required to
by any convincing evidence other than the bare allegation of the officer. apply strictly the Rules of Evidence. At any rate, MERALCO had valid reasons why it did
- Next, VH’s reliance on the authorities it cited that sleeping on the job is always a valid not present those three witnesses during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
ground for dismissal, is misplaced. The authorities cited involved security guards whose 2. NO
duty necessitates that they be awake and watchful at all times inasmuch as their - The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer, as in this case,
function, to use the words in Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. Court of Industrial Relations , is has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct
"to protect the company from pilferage or loss." Accordingly, the doctrine laid down in and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by
those cases is not applicable to the case at bar. his position. Reyno violated MERALCO’s Code of Employee Discipline and committed
- Finally, while an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of serious misconduct in the performance of his duties have been proved by the affidavits of
policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees, those petitioner’s own subordinates in Squad 12 of which he was the Assistant Squad Leader.
directives, however, must always be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding Moreover, MERALCO had lost his trust and confidence in petitioner. Under Article 282 of
penalties, when prescribed, must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the the Labor Code, as amended, these are just causes for his dismissal from the service.
degree of the infraction. In the case at bar, the dismissal meted out on private - The longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his
respondent for allegedly sleeping on the job, under the attendant circumstances, responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of
appears to be too harsh a penalty, considering that he was being held liable for first time, discipline in the company.
after nine 9 of unblemished service, for an alleged offense which caused no prejudice to - An employee’s length of service with the company even aggravates his offense. He
the employer, aside from absence of substantiation of the alleged offense. Neither was it should have been more loyal to company from which he has derived his family bread and
shown that private respondent’s alleged negligence or neglect of duty, if any, was gross butter for seventeen (17) years.
and habitual. Thus, reinstatement is just and proper. Disposition Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 17, 2001 and
Disposition petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the challenged Decision and Order of Resolution dated May 3, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53987 are
public respondent NLRC are AFFIRMED. hereby AFFIRMED.
FACTORS
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION V NLRC
[PAGE 181]
NATURE NATURE
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 194 - Disini
Appeal from the order of the NLRC
FACTS
FACTS - Villaflor was the chief accountant of CFC. The top execs were Italians: Cordaro
- Private respondent, Enrique Gabriel, was foreman of petitioner PLDT and was a (president), Kun (GM), Marinoni (Production manager). Guillermo was the accounting
supervisor with territorial responsibility for Camp Crame’s First to 20 th Avenue and clerk of Villaflor.
portions of Project 4, all located in Quezon City. On two occasions (September 5, 1989 - Kun resigned from the company and asked for the liquidation of his investment:
and October 16, 1989) he ordered Medel Mercado and Juancho Jocson to install two P125k. Two weeks later, he asked Guillermo for a blank check and a blank check
telephone lines each at Unit R, Facilities Center Building, located at Shaw Boulevard, voucher. Guillermo gave him. Three days later, Villlaflor noticed that a check voucher
Mandaluyong. was missing. She asked Guillermo, who said that Mr. Kun has it.
- The ordered installations were investigated because (a) the Facilities Center Building - Villaflor immediately informed Mr. Cordaro of what happened. She also wrote to the
had no entrance cable facilities or conduit wires for telephone connection, (b) bank demanding the return of the encashed check.
Mandaluyong was not within Gabriel’s area of jurisdiction, and (c) installers Mercado and - Marinoni charged Villaflor of complicity in Kun’s irregular disbursement of company
Jocson were not under his direct supervision. funds. Two days later, she was prevented entry to the office by the security guards. Her
- During the investigation, Gabriel. while acknowledging responsibility for his action, office drawer and safe were also forcibly opened upon order of Marinoni. Villaflor
claimed that his actuation was motivated by the desire to provide customer satisfaction. reported the incident to the PNP.
He also claimed that the telephones were installed after the documents of approval were - Marinoni suspended her for 30 days without pay for failure to come to work for half a
issued by PLDT. He dismissed from service on September 3, 1990 on the ground that he day (the day she was prevented entry). The next day she was preventively suspended
committed grave misconduct, breach of trust, and violations of company rules and for 30 days pending investigation of her involvement in Kun’s booboo. The company also
regulations. printed a newspaper ad for an accountant.
- Gabriel filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the Labor Arbiter on September 6, 1990. - Villaflor filed for illegal dismissal with the LA. LA decided in her favor. NLRC affirmed.
Said Arbiter affirmed the dismissal but the same was reversed by the NLRC and ordered
PLDT to reinstate Gabriel to the position he held as at the time of the complained ISSUE
dismissal, with full backwages, benefits, and proportionate privileges. Hence the appeal. WON Villaflor was illegally dismissed
ISSUE HELD
WON Gabriel is guilty of serious misconduct and/or breach of trust anent the irregular YES
installation of the telephones - Due to its far reaching implications, our Labor Code decrees that an employee cannot
be dismissed, except for the most serious causes. Article 282 enumerates the causes for
HELD which the employer may terminate an employee.
NO - Company says it’s loss of trust. The SC said that Villaflor’s omission cannot be
- The facts of the case do not point to any misconduct or breach of trust on the part of described as “willful” to justify dismissal. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally,
Gabriel. There was also no provision in the written rule of PLDT which penalizes knowingly and purposely. Petitioners merely proved the omission of the private
unwarranted installation of telephone lines with dismissal. In any case, the installations respondent but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was done intentionally.
were approved by the company. There was also no evidence that Gabriel profited - Company says she’s grossly or habitually negligent in the performance of her duties.
personally with the transaction. The dismissal of Gabriel is illegal. The SC said that since she has not been remiss in the performance of her duties in the
Reasoning past, she can’t be charged with habitual negligence. Neither is her negligence gross in
- Dismissal is the ultimate penalty and should not be imposed if the employee has been character. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight
in service for a considerable length of time and has not been the recipient of any care or diligence or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
disciplinary actions. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. She had not the slightest reason
have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so to distrust Kun because he was the GM and appears to have conducted himself well in
severe such as dismissal. This interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal the performance of his duties in the past. At most, it’s error of judgment, not gross
and compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the Labor Code which negligence.
states that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Disposition NLRC decision affirmed.
Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of
labor.
- Gabriel is not entirely faultless. As a supervisor, he is required to act judiciously and to GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTIRES V NLRC
exercise his authority in harmony with PLDT’s policies. When he jeopardized the status
(MACASPAC)
of the rank and file employees whom he ordered to by-pass the standard operating
procedures of the company, to the detriment of his employer, he was not entirely 304 SCRA 720
blameless. The irregularity attributable to him could not be disregarded. He must not be BELLOSILLO; March 11, 1999
rewarded, in fairness to the employer’s own legitimate concerns such as company
morale and discipline. NATURE
Disposition the resolution f the NLRC is affirmed subject to the deletion of the other Petition to review decision of NLRC
awards of unspecified “benefits and proportionate privileges”.
FACTS
- several employees of Golden Thread Knitting Industries (GTK) were dismissed for
different reasons. 2 employees were allegedly for slashing the company’s products
(towels), 2 for redundancy, 1 for threatening the personnel manager and violating the
company rules, and 1 for abandonment of work.
- The laborers filed complaints for illegal dismissal. They allege that the company
dismissed them in retaliation for establishing and being members of the Labor Union.
GTK, on the other hand, contend that there were valid causes for the terminations. The
dismissals were allegedly a result of the slashing of their products, rotation of work,
which in turn was caused by the low demand for their products, and abandonment of
work. WRT to the cases involving the slashing of their products and threats to the
personnel manager, the dismissals were in effect a form of punishment.
- The labor arbiter ruled partially in favor of GTK. He said that there was no showing that
DISMISSAL AS PENALTY the dismissals were in retaliation for establishing a union. He, however, awarded
separation pay to some employees.
- NLRC, however, appreciated the evidence differently. It held that there was illegal
CEBU FILVENEER CORPORATION V NLRC dismissal and ordered reinstatement.
(VILLAFLOR)
286 SCRA 556 ISSUE
PUNO; February 24, 1998 WON there was illegal dismissal
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 195 - Disini
HELD
YES HELD
Ratio Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. It must 1. Issue is moot and academic
therefore be based on a clear and not on an ambiguous or ambivalent ground. - The parties’ active participation in the voluntary arbitration proceedings, and their failure
Reasoning to insist that the case be remanded to the grievance machinery, shows a clear intention
- WRT to the case involving slashing of towels, the employees were not given procedural on their part to have the issue of respondents’ illegal dismissal directly resolved by the
due process. There was no notice and hearing, only outright denial of their entry to the voluntary arbitrator.
work premises by the security guards. The charges of serious misconduct were not 2. YES
sufficiently proved. - The respondents were validly dismissed. Article 282(c) of the Labor Code allows an
- WRT to the employees dismissed for redundancy, there was also denial of procedural employer to dismiss employees for willful breach of trust or loss of confidence. Proof
due process. Hearing and notice were not observed. Thus, although the characterization beyond reasonable doubt of their misconduct is not required, it being sufficient that there
of an employee’s services is a management function, it must first be proved with is some basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that
evidence, which was not done in this case. the company cannot merely declare that it they are responsible for the misconduct and their participation therein rendered them
was overmanned. unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of their position.
- WRT to the employee dismissed for disrespect, the SC believed the story version of the Reasoning
company (which essentially said that the personnel manager was threatened upon mere - the acts of the respondents were clearly inimical to the financial interest of the
service of a suspension order to the employee), but ruled that the dismissal could not be petitioner. During the investigation, they admitted accommodating Evelyn Joy Estrada by
upheld. encashing her checks from its funds for more than a year. They did so without
“the dismissal will not be upheld where it appears that the employee’s act of petitioner’s knowledge, much less its permission.
disrespect was provoked by the employer. xxx the employee hurled incentives at the - there was willful breach of trust on the respondents’ part, as they took advantage of
personnel manager because she was provoked by the baseless suspension imposed their highly sensitive positions to violate their duties.
on her. The penalty of dismissal must be commensurate with the act, conduct, or - the acts of the respondents caused damage to the petitioner. During those times the
omission to the employee.” checks were illegally encashed, petitioner was not able to fully utilize the collections,
- The dismissal was too harsh a penalty; a suspension of 1 week would have sufficed. primarily in servicing its debts.
“GTK exercised their authority to dismiss without due regard to the provisions of the - it is not material that they did not “misappropriate any amount of money, nor incur any
Labor Code. The right to terminate should be utilized with extreme caution because its shortage relative to the funds in their possession.” The basic premise for dismissal on the
immediate effect is to put an end to an employee's present means of livelihood while ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned hold positions of trust. The
its distant effect, upon a subsequent finding of illegal dismissal, is just as pernicious to betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offence for which an employee is penalized.
the employer who will most likely be required to reinstate the subject employee and - the respondents held positions of utmost trust and confidence. As teller and cashier,
grant him full back wages and other benefits. respectively, they are expected to possess a high degree of fidelity. They are entrusted
Disposition Decision AFFIRMED with a considerable amount of cash. Respondent de Vera accepted payments from
petitioner’s consumers while respondent Macaraeg received remittances for deposit at
petitioner’s bank. They did not live up to their duties and obligations.
CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOP INC V
MACARAEG
395 SCRA 720 PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS V FADRIQUELA
PUNO; January 22, 2003 [PAGE 77]
ISSUE ISSUE
WON NLRC erred in finding that Capulso was illegally dismissed and in holding WON Garcia resigned from his employment
petitioners jointly and solidarily liable to Capulso for back wages
HELD
HELD NO
NO - An examination of the circumstances surrounding the submission of the letter indicates
- On resignation, requisites that the resignation was made without proper discernment so that it could not have been
Ratio To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate intelligently and voluntarily done.
as such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office - What Pili did as petitioner's representative was to advise Garcia, who at that time was
accompanied by an act of relinquishment. thoroughly confused and bothered no end by a serious family problem, that he had better
- The fact that Capulso signified his desire to resume his work when he went back to resign or face the prospect of an unceremonious termination from service for
petitioner AZCOR after recuperating from his illness, and actively pursued his case for abandonment of work. At that precise moment, the employee could not be said to have
illegal dismissal before the labor courts when he was refused admission by his employer, fully understood what he was doing, i.e., writing his resignation letter, nor could have
negated any intention on his part to relinquish his job at AZCOR. foreseen the consequences thereof, for it is established that as soon as he came out of
- a closer look at the subject resignation letters readily reveals the following: (a) the the investigation office he prepared his resignation letter right then and there at a table
resignation letter allegedly tendered by Capulso to Filipinas Paso was identically worded nearby with no time for reflection. It is noteworthy that shortly thereafter he consulted his
with that supposedly addressed by him to AZCOR; (b) both were pre-drafted with blank union president for help regarding his forced resignation. This does not indicate by any
spaces filled up with the purported dates of effectivity of his resignation; and, (c) it was means a resignation that was knowingly and voluntarily done. On the contrary, it shows
written in English, a language which Capulso was not conversant with considering his that his writing and handing in the resignation letter to petitioner were a knee-jerk
low level of education. No other plausible explanation can be drawn from these reaction triggered by that singular moment when he was left with no alternative but to
circumstances than that the subject letters of resignation were prepared by a person or accede, having been literally forced into it by being presented with the more unpleasant
persons other than Capulso. And the fact that he categorically disowned the signatures fate of being terminated.
therein and denied having executed them clearly indicates that the resignation letters - the voluntariness of complaint's resignation can hardly be believed if he was not forced
were drafted without his consent and participation. by circumstances due to the following:
- Even assuming for the sake of argument that the signatures were genuine, the - First he was already in the employ of respondent for almost eight years with a high
resignation letters still cannot be given credence in the absence of any showing that paying job and benefits; Second, no offense or violation has been attributed to the
Capulso was aware that what he was signing then were in fact resignation letters or that complainant during his period of employment; Third, the filing of this instant complaint by
he fully understood the contents thereof. the complainant for illegal dismissal negates or is inconsistent with abandonment and
- On illegal dismissal voluntary resignation. Lastly, there is no iota of evidence that complainant is indeed
> In illegal dismissal cases, the onus of proving that the dismissal of the employee was engaged in business, and belies the contents of his resignation.
for a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer, and failure to discharge the same - Evidently the complainant was asked to make a choice whether to tender his
would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. resignation or be terminated for his absences which to our mind is anchored on justifiable
- On joint and several liability grounds. Such compulsion to make an unnecessary choice placed undue and
> The doctrine that a corporation is a legal entity or a person in law distinct from the unjustifiable pressure on the employee who otherwise would not have thought of leaving
persons composing it is merely a legal fiction for purposes of convenience and to
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 199 - Disini
his position as Station Teller if he had not been induced to do so. This being the case, was given a warning, that this prohibition should be strictly followed. Lilia Pascua did not
the resignation filed by the complainant did not become effective. report for work the next day. She went to see the respondent’s bookkeeper for the
computation of her separation pay. Respondent paid her separation pay.
- On August 24, 1991, Victoria Santos was caught charging a meter of a cloth for the
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION price of a yard. For this offense, she was suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. She
never returned to work since then.
PHIL WIRELESS INC V NLRC (LUCILA) - Mimi Macanlalay was employed on June 10, 1989. Previously, she worked for Mrs.
Tan. On September 19, 1991, Mrs. Tan went to the Tiongsan Super Bazaar, and she
310 SCRA 653 saw Mimi Macanlalay working as a cashier. Mrs. Tan informed Mr. Lao, that Mimi
PARDO; July 20, 1999 Macanlalay was previously dismissed by her for dishonesty. Mimi Macanlalay later on
“resigned”.
NATURE - Violeta Soriano was employed on May 16, 1984. After the August 7, 1991 incident, she
Petition for certiorari to set aside a decision of the NLRC was assigned as a cashier. She was reverted back as a sales lady after a few weeks
when Mr. Lao learned, that, she had some knowledge of the schemes of the resigned
FACTS employees. On November 9, 1991, Mr. Lao required her to explain in writing, why she
- January 8, 1976 – Phil. Wireless Inc. (Pocketbell) hired respondent Doldwin Lucila as should not be the subject matter of a disciplinary action, for her failure to fill up her daily
an operator/encoder. Three years later, Lucila was promoted as Head Technical and time record. Respondent reviewed her past records and found out that, she was the
Maintenance Department of the Engineering Department. On September 11, 1987, he subject matter of a disciplinary action in the past. She was terminated [sic] on December
was promoted as Technical Services Supervisor and later on October 1, 1990, he 8, 1991.
became Project Management Superintendent. - Susan De Castro refused to receive her salary on November 18, 1991, because she
- December 8, 1990 – Lucila tendered his resignation. insisted on receiving more than what is indicated in the payrolls. Respondent told her
- December 3, 1991 – Lucila filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal/constructive that if she is not satisfied with her salary, she can find employment elsewhere. She failed
dismissal. to report for work on the following day. In any case, respondent states, that, she can be
- Lucila alleges that his “promotion” from Technical Services Supervisor to Project dismissed for lack of trust and confidence, for her involvement in the pilferage of goods.”
Management Superintendent was actually a demotion because it was demeaning, Petitioners filed at the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC separate complaints
illusory and humiliating. He based it on the fact that he was not given a against Henry Lao for “illegal dismissal and claims for violation of labor standards
secretary/assistant and subordinates. pertaining to payment of wages.” Subsequently, the labor arbiter ruled that the
- June 29, 1992 – Labor Arbiter Villarente declared that Lucila actually resigned and dismissals were illegal and awarded back wages and separation pay to petitioners.
dismissed the complaint for lack merit. - The NLRC, which modified the appealed decision and found the termination of
- June 15, 1993 – NLRC reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and ordered for petitioners’ employment to be due either to voluntary resignation or dismissals with just
Lucila’s reinstatement with payment of backwages or separation pay. cause.
ISSUE ISSUES
WON Lucila was constructively dismissed 1. WON petitioners’ employment terminated because of resignation, abandonment or
dismissal
HELD 2. WON petitioners’ employment terminated in accordance with law
NO
Ratio Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued HELD
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion 1. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL (except for Santos).
in rank and/or diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by - Petitioner Pascua was aware of the close relationship between Henry Lao and Mrs.
an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. Manaois. Thus, Pascua feared that, if she turned down Mrs. Manaois’ request, she would
Reasoning be subjected to public scolding by Lao. Thus, accommodation of the said request may
- In this case, the Court ruled that Lucila voluntarily resigned and was not pressured into have been an act of disobedience of her employer’s order, but hardly an instance of the
doing so. “wrongful and perverse attitude” that would warrant a penalty as grave as dismissal. That
- Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of en employee who finds himself in a after the incident, Henry Lao kept pushing me by my shoulders as he repeatedly told me
situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the in a loud manner, ‘pakuwenta mo na ang separation pay mo at hindi ka na rin
exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his makakabalik. Puntahan mo ang accountant.’ which made me nervous and afraid
employment. especially that he kept on pushing me even when I was already on top of the stairs; It is
- Lucila’s basis for his “demotion” is inadequate as the Court ruled that there is no evident from the above that Petitioner Pascua was forced to resign -- an act which was
demotion where there is no reduction in position rank or salary as a result of such tantamount to a dismissal, an illegal one at that.
transfer. - The NLRC could not explain the contradictions in Petitioner De Castro’s case. If she
Disposition The petition is hereby granted. The questioned decision of the NLRC is set had not been dismissed but was still an employee of private respondent, then why did
aside and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated and affirmed. No costs. she file this case for illegal dismissal? And even more perplexing: Why would the NLRC
conclude that reinstatement was no longer possible because of the parties’ “respective
PASCUA V NLRC imputations of charges against each other”? Furthermore, the labor arbiter’s finding that
there was no evidence on record to establish her dismissal is refuted by the uncontested
287 SCRA 554 allegations of Petitioner De Castro.
PANGANIBAN; March 13, 1998 - Prior to her employment at Tiongsan Super Bazaar Petitioner Macanlalay had been a
saleslady at Rommel’s which was owned by a certain Mrs. Tan. On September 20,
NATURE 1991, while she was working as a cashier at Tiongsan, Mrs. Tan saw her; thereupon,
Review on certiorari Mrs. Tan reported to Henry Lao that Petitioner Macanlalay had previously been
dismissed for alleged dishonesty. Petitioner was then called by Lao and
FACTS unceremoniously told: “Kunin mo na ang separation pay mo. Pa total mo na sa
- The complainants are among the employees of Henry Lao at the Tiongsan Super accountant. At huwag ka ng magtrabajo dito.” Clearly, she did not resign; she was orally
Bazaar. On August 7, 1991, Henry Lao received a telephone call who informed him that dismissed by Lao. It is this lack of clear, valid and legal cause, not to mention due
one of his sales ladies had just stolen a Karaoke, the previous night. There, said process, that made her dismissal illegal, warranting reinstatement and the award of back
saleslady made a confession, that, there were others who were involved in the stealing of wages.
goods. She was required by Henry Lao to write down their names. Violeta Soriano and - The NLRC justified Petitioner Soriano’s dismissal by alleging that it was due to her
Susan Castillo were included in her list. The eighteen (18) sales ladies who admitted failure to make regular entries in her daily time records. We believe, however, that this
their guilt resigned. The remaining workers were placed under the watchful eyes of alleged “just cause” was convincingly disputed by Petitioner Soriano in her letter dated
respondent. November 9, 1991.
- On August 21, 1991, Lilia Pascua was caught repairing three (3) pairs of pants that - We agree that Petitioner Santos voluntarily resigned. The labor arbiter did not find
belonged to Mrs. Manaois and allegedly were not bought at the Tiongsan Super Bazaar. Petitioner Santos to have been illegally dismissed. Rather, after her suspension for
Respondent scolded Lilia Pascua for this offense, because it is against the respondent’s “charging for a meter of cloth bought [at] the price of a yard,” she offered to resign. The
policy that repair jobs of items not bought at the bazaar should not be accepted. She solicitor general supports this by stating that “even the Labor Arbiter discovered this
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 200 - Disini
when he ruled that ‘there [was] no evidence on record to support Santos’ dismissal.’” - The reason for the stoppage of operation of the bus assigned to petitioner was the
2. NO breakdown of the airconditioning unit, which is a valid reason for the suspension of its
Reasoning operation. However, such suspension regarding that particular bus should likewise last
- Basic is the doctrine that resignation must be voluntary and made with the intention of only for a reasonable period of time. The period of six months was more than enough for
relinquishing the office, accompanied with an act of relinquishment. Based on the it to cause the repair thereof. Beyond that period, the stoppage of its operation was
evidence on record, we are more than convinced that Petitioners Lilia Pascua, Mimi already legally unreasonable and economically prejudicial to herein petitioner who was
Macanlalay, Susan C. De Castro and Violeta Soriano did not voluntarily quit their jobs. not given a substitute vehicle to drive.
Rather, they were forced to resign or were summarily dismissed without just cause. - The so-called "floating status" of an employee should last only for a legally prescribed
Petitioners -- except Victoria L. Santos -- forthwith took steps to protest their layoff and period of time. When that "floating status" of an employee lasts for more than six months,
thus cannot, by any logic, be said to have abandoned their work. he may be considered to have been illegally dismissed from the service. Thus, he is
- In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just entitled to the corresponding benefits for his separation, and this would apply to the two
cause; failure to show this, as in the instant case, would necessarily mean that the types of work suspension heretofore noted, that is, either of the entire business or of a
dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. To allow an employer to dismiss an specific component thereof.
employee based on mere allegations and generalities would place the employee at the - It was not denied by private respondent that it tried to force private respondent to sign
mercy of his employer; and the right to security of tenure, which this Court is bound to an undated company-prepared resignation letter and a blank undated affidavit of
protect, would be unduly emasculated. Considering the antecedents in the summary quitclaim and release which the latter validly refused to sign. Furthermore, the bus which
dismissals effected against Petitioners Pascua, Macanlalay, De Castro and Soriano, the petitioner used to drive was already plying a transportation route as an ordinary bus and
causes asserted by private respondent are, at best, tenuous or conjectural; at worst, they was being driven by another person, without petitioner having been priorly offered the
are mere afterthoughts. same alternative arrangement.
- Under the Labor Code, as amended, the dismissal of an employee which the employer - The other allegation of private respondent that petitioner voluntarily resigned from work
must validate has a twofold requirement: one is substantive, the other procedural. Not obviously does not deserve any consideration. It would have been illogical for herein
only must the dismissal be for a just or an authorized cause as provided by law (Articles petitioner to resign and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal. Resignation is
282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as amended); the rudimentary requirements of due inconsistent with the filing of the said complaint.
process -- the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself -- must be observed as well. - Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a
- Petitioners Pascua and Macanlalay’s acceptance of separation pay did not necessarily situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
amount to estoppel; nor did it connote a waiver of their right to press for reinstatement, exigency of the service, and, that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from
considering that such acceptance -- particularly by Petitioner Pascua who had to feed her his employment. Resignation is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment of an office. It
four children -- was due to dire financial necessity. must be made with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act of
Disposition REVERSED. relinquishment.
- The cardinal rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof to
show that the dismissal is for just cause, failing in which it would mean that the dismissal
AZCOR MANUFACTURING INC V NLRC is not justified. This rule applies adversely against herein respondent company since it
[PAGE 197] has utterly failed to discharge that onus by the requisite quantum of evidence.
- Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, an employee who is unjustly
VALDEZ V NLRC (NELBUSCO INC) dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits
286 SCRA 87 or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
REGALADO; February 9, 1998 from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Disposition Decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is SET ASIDE
NATURE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter REINSTATED
Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
VALIDITY OF POLICY
- Sometime in December, 1986, petitioner was hired by private respondent as a bus
driver on commission basis, with an average earning of P6,000.00 a month. On February
MANILA BROADCASTING COMPANY V NLRC
28, 1993, the airconditioning unit of the bus which petitioner was driving suffered a
mechanical breakdown. Respondent company told him to wait until the airconditioning (OLAIREZ, BANGLOY)
unit was repaired. Meanwhile, no other bus was assigned to petitioner to keep him 294 SCRA 486
gainfully employed. MENDOZA; 1998
- Thereafter, petitioner continued reporting to his employer's office for work, only to find
out each time that the airconditioning unit had not been repaired. Several months
NATURE
elapsed but he was never called by respondent company to report for work. Later,
Petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations
petitioner found out that the bus formerly driven by him was plying an assigned route as
Commission, affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter which found private respondent
an ordinary bus, with a newly-hired driver.
to have been illegally dismissed and which ordered him reinstated with damages.
- On June 15, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal
dismissal, with money claims for labor standard benefits, and for reimbursement of his
FACTS
bond and tire deposit. He claimed that the reason why respondent company did not allow
- Private respondent Samuel L. Bangloy was production supervisor and radio
him to drive again was due to his refusal to sign an undated company-prepared
commentator of the DZJC-AM radio station in Laoag City. The radio station is owned by
resignation letter and a blank affidavit of quitclaim and release.
petitioner Manila Broadcasting Company.
- Private respondent, on the other hand, admitted that it told petitioner to wait until the
- On February 28, 1992, private respondent applied for leave of absence for 50 days,
airconditioning unit of the bus was repaired. However, private respondent alleged that
from March 24 to May 13, 1992, in order to “run for Board Member” in Ilocos Norte under
after the bus driven by the petitioner broke down due to his fault and negligence, the
the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL). He made his application pursuant to §11(b) of R.A.
latter did not report for work. He supposedly informed the management later that he was
No. 6646 which provides:
voluntarily resigning from his employment in order to supervise the construction of his
Sec. 11(b) . . . Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality
house. Consequent to his resignation, petitioner demanded the return of his cash bond
who is a candidate for any elective public office shall take a leave of absence from his
and tire deposit. Respondent company required him to secure the necessary
work as such during the campaign period.
management clearance and other pertinent papers relative to his resignation. Instead of
- After a week, private respondent’s application was returned to him, together with a copy
complying with those requirements, petitioner filed the instant complaint.
of an office memorandum of Eugene Jusi, Assistant Vice-President for Personnel and
Administration, to Atty. Edgardo Montilla, Executive Vice-President and General Manager
ISSUE
of the FJE Group of Companies, in which it was stated that as a matter of “company
WON petitioner was illegally dismissed because he did not voluntarily resigned as
policy,” any employee who files a certificate of candidacy for any elective national or local
claimed by respondents
office would be considered resigned from the company.
- It would appear that private respondent nonetheless ran in the election but lost. On May
HELD
25, 1992, he tried to return to work, but was not allowed to do so by petitioner on the
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 201 - Disini
ground that his employment had been terminated. sign posted at the door of the Asset/Legal Department Office, which read “ MAIPARIT TI
- Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner before the UMISBO DITOY.” When she asked who placed the sign at the door, Gutierrez admitted
Department of Labor and Employment. responsibility. When Ms. Que-Ilagan asked what it meant, Gutierrez answered, “ BAWAL
ANG UMIHI DITO” (No Urinating Here). Ms. Que-Ilagan then asked if Gutierrez had seen
ISSUES anyone urinate at the door where the sign was posted and the latter replied in the
1. WON the company policy that any employee who files a certificate of candidacy for negative. Ms. Que-Ilagan then asked why he placed such a sign, to which Gutierrez
any elective national or local office would be considered resigned from the company valid replied, “Gusto ko, eh” (It is my pleasure). She admonished him not to do the same thing
2. WON the company policy was made known to employees before it was sought to be again and requested him to remove the sign, but Gutierrez refused to do so.
applied to private respondent - Later that same day, August 2, 1996, Gutierrez personally explained his side to the
Asset Manager, Mr. Leonardo Consunji, at the latter’s office. Gutierrez claimed that he
HELD only admitted to the posting of the sign in order to take the cudgels for a co-employee.
1. YES He also explained that their use of the video equipment was upon the orders of their
- the policy is valid and justified. supervisor, Mr. Romeo C. Ninada. The latter wanted to test the quality of their video
2. NO players. Mr. Consunji brought the matter to the attention of Mr. Ninada. The latter
- There are a number of circumstances which raise some doubts whether the company promptly issued a Memo dated August 6, 1996, requiring Gutierrez to explain his side.
policy was strictly enforced. Gutierrez then informed Mr. Ninada that he had already discussed the matter with Mr.
Ratio Although §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 does not require mass media commentators and Consunji. In his letter to Mr. Consunji dated August 21, 1996, Mr. Ninada opined, “[T]he
announcers such as private respondent to resign from their radio or TV stations but only case does not deserve to be devoted with too much time and effort” as he considered it a
to go on leave for the duration of the campaign period, we think that the company may “minor offense.”
nevertheless validly require them to resign as a matter of policy. - Nevertheless, Mr. Consunji issued a Memo dated August 28, 1996, informing Gutierrez
- The policy is justified on the following grounds: of the latter’s violation of company rules and regulations, specifically citing the following:
1) Working for the government and the company at the same time is clearly > Part V-B.9 Use of Company’s time, materials, equipment and other assets for personal
disadvantageous and prejudicial to the rights and interest not only of the company but use or business; and
the public as well. In the event an employee wins in an election, he cannot fully serve, as > Part V-B.18 Acts of vandalism such as defacing or destroying Company documents
he is expected to do, the interest of his employer. The employee has to serve two (2) and records; posting, altering or removing any printed matter, announcements or signs in
employers, obviously detrimental to the interest of both the government and the private the Bulletin Boards unless specifically authorized.
employer. - Under the Company Code of Discipline, these infractions were classified as 4 th Degree
2) In the event the employee loses in the election, the impartiality and cold neutrality of Offenses with the corresponding sanction of dismissal. In the same Memo, Gutierrez was
an employee as broadcast personality is suspect, thus readily eroding and adversely directed to explain in writing why the aforesaid penalty should not be imposed on him. He
affecting the confidence and trust of the listening public to employer’s station. was given until August 30, 1996, to comply with the directive. As Gutierrez insisted that
These are valid reasons for petitioner. No law has been cited by private respondent he had previously verbally explained his side to Mr. Consunji, no written explanation was
prohibiting a rule such as that in question. submitted by him.
Disposition Decision AFFIRMED - On September 9, 1996, another Memo was issued by Mr. Consunji, worded as follows:
> After a thorough investigation of the incident and after having found your explanations
to be unsatisfactory and due to your refusal to comply with my memo to you dated
14.03 NO TERMINATION – PERFORMANCE OF August 28, 1996 which constitutes willful defiance or disregard of Company authority, the
management deems it fitting and proper to impose upon you the penalty of dismissal
MILITARY OR CIVIC DUTY effective immediately upon receipt hereof.
- On September 19, 1996, petitioner filed a motion/request for reconsideration with
Singer, but the latter stood pat on its decision to dismiss him.
C. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY - Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for damages before
the Labor Arbiter, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-06201-96. In a decision
EMPLOYER dated August 13, 1997, Labor Arbiter Renato A. Bugarin dismissed the complaint for lack
of merit.
- Aggrieved, Singer filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which in turn was
1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS referred, by resolution dated December 2, 1998, to the Court of Appeals.The Court of
Appeals reversed the NLRC, thereby upholding and reinstating the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. Gutierrez now comes to the Court via a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
14.04 BASIS OF RIGHT AND REQUIREMENTS reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, with a prayer for moral
damages and attorney’s fees.
BASIS ISSUE
WON the appellate court erred in reversing the NLRC which declared respondents guilty
of illegal dismissal of the petitioner from his employment
GUTIERREZ V SINGER SEWING MACHINE
HELD
411 SCRA 512 YES
QUISUMBING; September 3, 2003 Ratio We agree with the NLRC that petitioner’s dismissal from employment was
unjustified and illegal. Petitioner’s dismissal was based on his alleged violation of two
NATURE company rules and regulations, namely: (1) acts of vandalism; and (2) use of company’s
review is the decision of the Court of Appeals time, materials, equipment and other assets for personal use/business. These acts were
found by the Labor Arbiter to constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience under
FACTS paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter characterized
- Petitioner Mario Gutierrez was initially hired by Singer Sewing Machine Company as Gutierrez’ “undesirable or unreasonable behavior and unpleasant deportment with his
Audit Assistant on contractual basis in 1993. He became an Accounts Checker on fellow employees, all the more his supervisors,” as within the scope of the analogous just
probationary status on February 8, 1994. Thereafter, he acquired regular status as Asset causes for termination under paragraph (e) of the same article.
Auditor on March 1, 1995, receiving a monthly salary of P4,455, until September 9, 1996, - Singer averred that petitioner’s defiance of the reasonable rules and regulations being
when he was dismissed from employment. Singer premised the petitioner’s termination implemented by Singer was enough reason for his dismissal. Singer emphasized that the
on the following incidents: two violations of company rules and regulations on the two consecutive days, were
- On August 1, 1996, at around 3:15 p.m., Ms. Emelita Garcia, Personnel Supervisor of manifestations that petitioner was “challenging the authorities of Singer.”
Singer, caught Gutierrez and three other Asset Auditors, watching a video tape inside the In its impugned decision, however, the NLRC stated:
Asset/Legal Department Office. Despite Ms. Garcia’s reminder that it was no longer - We agree with the complainant that the questioned poster contained an innocuous and
break time and that the other occupants of the room might be disturbed, Gutierrez and harmless statement, which when translated in tagalog means “Bawal Umihi Dito” and
company ignored Ms. Garcia and continued to watch the video. The following day, that such posting cannot be interpreted as an act of vandalism. The affidavit of Ms.
August 2, 1996, Ms. Evangeline Que-Ilagan, Administration Manager of Singer, noticed a Ilagan, in relation with such poster, is not sufficient to establish complainant’s guilt of
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 202 - Disini
vandalism.…The complainant likewise justified his action in relation to his act of watching HELD
video films during office hours by arguing that he, together with four (4) other co- NO
employees, were asked by their immediate supervisor, Mr. Romy Ninada to test the - The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees, is subject to
video tape player. Such claim was not denied by Mr. Ninada, who could have been regulation by the State. An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
easily required by the respondents to do so. Mr. Ninada was the logical officer to negate employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance
the claim of the complainant that he was authorized to test the quality of the VHS and towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently
CTV 143 to guarantee the excellency (sic) of respondent firm’s products. inimical to his interest. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
- Though no admission was made that the use of the video player was upon the orders of oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. There may, of course, be cases where
the immediate supervisor of Gutierrez, Mr. Ninada himself considered the same to be a the suspension or dismissal of an employee is whimsical or unjustified or otherwise
minor infraction, not worth the time and effort of the company spent on the matter. illegal scrutinized carefully and the proper authorities will go to the core of the
- We might add that, as contended by petitioner, the act of posting the sign does not fall controversy and not close their eyes to the real situation.
squarely within the scope of the cited company rules and regulations, Part V-B.18, on Disposition Writ of Certiorari granted
vandalism. The rule prohibits unauthorized posting “in the Bulletin Board,” while the
present case involved posting of a sign at one of the office doors, a different matter. We
AGABON V NLRC
must also stress that, even on the assumption that Gutierrez in fact committed the cited
infractions, in our view they are not major violations but only minor ones which do not [PAGE 35]
merit the supreme penalty of dismissal from employment. Time and again, this Court has
underscored the need for restraint in the dismissal of workers: PLDT V TOLENTINO
- Extreme caution should be exercised in terminating the services of a worker for his job
438 SCRA 555
may be the only lifeline on which he and his family depend for survival in these difficult
times. That lifeline should not be cut off except for a serious, just and lawful cause, for, to CORONA; September 21, 2004
a worker, the loss of his job may well mean the loss of hope for a decent life for him and
his loved ones. FACTS
- In the present case, the penalty of dismissal appears in our view unjustified, much too - Arturo R. Tolentino Tolentino was employed in petitioner PLDT for 23 years.
harsh and quite disproportionate to the alleged infractions. Not only were the alleged - He started in 1972 as an installer/helper and, at the time of his termination in 1995, was
violations minor in nature, in this case the evidence adduced to prove them did not fairly the division manager of the Project Support Division, Provincial Expansion Center, Meet
show they fall exactly within the rules and regulations allegedly violated. Otherwise Demand Group.
stated, the evidence did not square fully with the charges. That is why the Labor Arbiter - His division was in charge of the evaluation, recommendation and review of documents
found only “analogous” causes which, in our view do not sufficiently justify the extreme relating to provincial lot acquisitions. Sometime in 1995, Jonathan de Rivera, a
penalty of termination. supervisor directly under respondent Tolentino, was found to have entered into an
- The penalty imposed on the erring employee ought to be proportionate to the offense, “internal arrangement” with the sellers of a parcel of land which he recommended for
taking into account its nature and surrounding circumstances. In the application of labor acquisition under PLDT’s expansion program. Quirino Donato, the attorney-in-fact of the
laws, the courts and other agencies of the government are guided by the social justice landowner, executed an affidavit disclosing his “internal arrangement” with de Rivera.
mandate in our fundamental law. - Donato’s affidavit revealed that all follow-up calls regarding the transaction were to be
- To be lawful, the cause for termination must be a serious and grave malfeasance to directed to the office of respondent and de Rivera. Upon being apprised of this “internal
justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood. This is merely in keeping with the spirit of arrangement,” PLDT dismissed de Rivera. After he was dismissed, de Rivera submitted a
our Constitution and laws which lean over backwards in favor of the working class, and sworn statement to PLDT implicating respondent as the person behind the anomalous
mandate that every doubt must be resolved in their favor. “internal arrangement.” Respondent, in an affidavit, denied this and pointed out that his
- To conclude, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the NLRC which authority to approve real estate acquisitions was limited to land valued below P200,000.
declared respondents guilty of illegal dismissal. - Petitioner PLDT sent a notice of dismissal, effective October 27, 1995, to respondent
Tolentino. Attached to this notice was a handwritten note from Nicanor E. Sacdalan, Vice-
President of the Provincial Expansion Center, Meet Demand Group, giving respondent
MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO INC V ZULUETA Tolentino the option to resign. Petitioner did not grant respondent’s request for a formal
69 PHIL 485 hearing but delayed the implementation of his dismissal. On December 4, 1995, petitioner
LAUREL; January 30, 1940 informed respondent that his dismissal was already final and effective on December 5,
1995.
- Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral and exemplary damages
and other monetary claims against petitioner PLDT in January, 1996. The labor arbiter
NATURE
found that petitioner PLDT failed to prove and substantiate the charges against
Petition for Certiorari
respondent
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision on the ground that
FACTS
respondent was a managerial employee and that loss of trust and confidence was enough
- On July 7, 1938, the Secretary of Labor apprised the Court of Industrial Relations of a
reason to dismiss him.
labor dispute existing between the petitioner company and its employees who were
- Respondent’s petition for certiorari was referred by this Court to the Court of Appeals
members of the Philippine Labor Union
which rendered the assailed decision reinstating the decision of the labor arbiter, that is,
- A preliminary hearing was held after which, on August 6, 1938 the respondent court
ordering respondent’s reinstatement.
entered an order requiring the company, inter alia not to dismiss any of its employees
and laborers except for good cause and with its permission.
ISSUE
- Subsequently, on June 30, 1939, one of the gatekeepers of the petitioners, Filomeno
WON the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal was not founded on clearly
Ramollo, was suspended for a breach of duty. The breach consisted in that as
established facts sufficient to warrant separation from employment
gatekeeper of the petitioner he permitted, contrary to instructions, one of the customers
to pass thru the exit gate without paying for the work done on the car. Before this, it is
HELD
also alleged that he refused to work in the setting up department of the company when
NO
ordered by his superior.
- The petition is without merit. PLDT’s basis for respondent’s dismissal was not enough to
- The Philippine Labor Union submitted a petition requesting the reinstatement of the
defeat respondent’s security of tenure.
suspended laborer, to which an answer was filed by the company.
- There is no dispute over the fact that respondent was a managerial employee and
- In its order of July 28, 1939, the respondent court found that the laborer was guilty of
therefore loss of trust and confidence was a ground for his valid dismissal. The mere
the breach imputated to him, but, deciding that his suspension from June 30 to July 28,
existence of a basis for the loss of trust and confidence justifies the dismissal of the
1939 was a sufficient punishment, ordered his immediate reinstatement.
employee because:
- The petitioner moved for reconsiderations, but the respondent Court of Industrial
[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office
Relations, sitting in banc, denied the motion.
requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available
to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or
ISSUE
condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A
WON the Court of Industrial Relations can order the readmission of a laborer who has
company’s resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.
been found derelict in the performance of his duties
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 203 - Disini
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required provided there is a valid reason for the - September 9, 1999:Prompted by reports of missing medicines and supplies in the
loss of trust and confidence, such as when the employer has a reasonable ground to Emergency Room/Trauma Room (ER/TR) and upon the suggestion of one of the
believe that the managerial employee concerned is responsible for the purported Hospital’s staff nurses, Medical City General Hospital, opened 22 lockers of employees
misconduct and the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and assigned to the ER/TR. The Hospital found four lockers with items belonging to it. The
confidence demanded by his position. employees corresponding to the lockers (Dominador Perez, Celine Campos, Lailanie
- However, the right of the management to dismiss must be balanced against the Espiritu and Mateo Butardo) were directed to submit written explanations as to why these
managerial employee’s right to security of tenure which is not one of the guaranties he items were inside their lockers.
gives up. This Court has consistently ruled that managerial employees enjoy security of - Perez, Campos and Butardo submitted their written explanations, while Espiritu opted
tenure and, although the standards for their dismissal are less stringent, the loss of trust to resign. An administrative hearing was held where the three employees who responded
and confidence must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to were represented by a union counsel. At the end of the proceedings, the charge against
warrant the managerial employee’s separation from the company. Substantial evidence is Butardo was dismissed while Perez and Campos, herein petitioners, were found to have
of critical importance and the burden rests on the employer to prove it. Due to its violated category seven of the company rules, a serious infraction meriting dismissal.
subjective nature, it can easily be concocted by an abusive employer and used as a The Hospital offered them the opportunity to voluntarily resign with separation pay, under
subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. a clause provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. They refused and the Hospital
- In the case at bar, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner’s dismissed them from the service.
dismissal was not founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant separation - January 19, 2000: petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
from employment. The factual findings of the court a quo on the issue of whether there - Labor Arbiter found respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered the
was sufficient basis for petitioner PLDT to dismiss respondent Tolentino are binding on reinstatement of petitioners with backwages and without loss of seniority rights. NLRC
this Court. In the exercise of the power of review, the factual determinations of the Court reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed. Hence,
of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court. this petitiom.
- The evidence relied upon by petitioner PLDT — de Rivera’s sworn statement and - Petitioners maintain that they have sufficiently accounted for the presence of these
Donato’s affidavit — does not, in our view, establish respondent Tolentino’s complicity in items inside their lockers and that the evidence presented against them is insufficient to
the “internal arrangement” engineered by his subordinate de Rivera. show that they are guilty of misappropriating company property. Moreover, assuming ex
- To be sure, respondent Tolentino was remiss in his duties as division manager for failing gratia argumenti that there was violation of company rules, the penalty of dismissal would
to discover the “internal arrangement” contrived by his subordinate. However, dismissal be too harsh considering their long years of dedicated service to the Hospital.
was not the proper sanction for such negligence. It was not commensurate to the lapse
committed, especially in the light of respondent’s unblemished record of long and ISSUES
dedicated service to the company. In Hongkong Shanghai Bank Corporation vs. NLRC , 1. WON there was sufficient basis to hold that petitioners misappropriated hospital
we had occasion to rule that: property
The penalty imposed must be commensurate to the depravity of the malfeasance, 2. WON dismissal was the appropriate penalty
violation or crime being punished. A grave injustice is committed in the name of
justice when the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to the wrong committed. HELD
[D]ismissal is the most severe penalty an employer can impose on an employee. It 1. YES
goes without saying that care must be taken, and due regard given to an employee’s - The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies with greater force in labor
circumstances, in the application of such punishment. cases. Hence, the factual findings of the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect
- Certainly, a great injustice will result if this Court upholds Tolentino’s dismissal. but even finality if supported by substantial evidence and especially when affirmed by the
An employee illegally dismissed is entitled to full backwages and reinstatement CA. However, a disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the
pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715. NLRC opens the door to a review by this Court.
- Although a managerial employee, respondent should be reinstated to his former position - Contrary to the position taken by the Labor Arbiter, the Hospital’s dismissal of
or its equivalent without loss of seniority rights inasmuch as the alleged strained relations petitioners did not rest on speculative inferences. Petitioners themselves have admitted
between the parties were not adequately proven by petitioner PLDT which had the burden that properties belonging to the Hospital were found inside their lockers. As to how these
of doing so. In Quijano vs. Mercury Drug Corporation, the Court ruled that strained items got inside the lockers, petitioners acknowledged having placed them there against
relations are a factual issue which must be raised before the labor arbiter for the proper company rules. In view of these admissions, there is ample evidence to support a charge
reception of evidence. In this case, petitioner PLDT only raised the issue of strained for pilferage unless petitioners can satisfactorily explain their possession.
relations in its appeal from the labor arbiter’s decision. Thus, no competent evidence - It was made clear to all hospital staff that hospital equipment should only be kept in the
exists in the records to support PLDT’s assertion that a peaceful working relationship with supplies locker.
respondent Tolentino was no longer possible. In fact, the records of the case show that 2. NO
PLDT, through VP Sacdalan, gave respondent Tolentino the option to resign. [18] Such a - The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative that is inherent in the
deferential act by management makes us doubt PLDT’s claim that its relations with employer’s right to freely manage and regulate his business. An employer cannot be
respondent were “strained.” The option to resign would not have been given had expected to retain an employee whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his
animosity existed between them. employer or regard for his employer’s rules and appreciation of the dignity and
- Furthermore, respondent was dismissed in December, 1995 when petitioner PLDT was responsibility of his office has so plainly and completely been bared. An employer may
still under the Cojuangco group. PLDT has since then passed to the ownership and not be compelled to continue to employ a person whose continuance in service will
control of its new owners, the First Pacific group which has absolutely nothing to do so patently be inimical to his interest. The dismissal of an employee, in a way, is a measure
with this controversy. Since there are no strained relations between the new of self-protection.
management and respondent, reinstatement is feasible. - Nevertheless, whatever acknowledged right the employer has to discipline his
Disposition The petition was denied. employee, it is still subject to reasonable regulation by the State in the exercise of its
police power. Thus, it is within the power of this Court not only to scrutinize the basis for
dismissal but also to determine if the penalty is commensurate to the offense,
notwithstanding the company rules.
- In this case, the Court agrees with the Labor Arbiter that dismissal would not be
proportionate to the gravity of the offense considering the circumstances present in this
case. During Perez and Campos' long tenure (19 and 7 years, respectively) with the
Hospital, it does not appear that they have been the subject of disciplinary sanctions and
they have kept their records unblemished. Moreover, the Court also takes into account
the fact that petitioners are not managerial or confidential employees in whom greater
PEREZ V MEDICAL CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly
484 SCRA 138 expected.
- The reinstatement of petitioners is in line with the social justice mandate of the
AZCUNA; March 6, 2006 Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court does not countenance the wrongful act of pilferage
but simply maintains that the extreme penalty of dismissal is not justified and a lesser
NATURE penalty would suffice. Under the facts of this case, suspension would be adequate.
Petition for certiorari Without making any doctrinal pronouncement on the length of the suspension in cases
similar to this, the Court holds that considering petitioners’ non-employment since
FACTS January 2000, they may be deemed to have already served their period of suspension.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 204 - Disini
Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement is upheld, with the deletion of - The CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC and held that the respondents were illegally
the award of backwages, so as not to put a premium on acts of dishonesty. dismissed. According to the appellate court, the non-payment of the scrap steel purlins
Disposition Petition partially granted. by the Sta. Rosa Bible Baptist Church (Sta. Rosa) to Saro’s was not a valid cause for the
dismissal of respondent De Guzman. Contrary to the findings of the Labor Arbiter,
respondent De Guzman did not betray the trust reposed on him by his employer, as the
REQUIREMENTS transaction involving the sale of scrap steel purlins was between Sta. Rosa and Saro’s.
Anent the dismissal of respondent Alvarez, the CA ruled that his act of “sympathizing and
believing in the innocence of respondent De Guzman and expressing his views” was not
SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS of such grave character as to be considered serious misconduct which warranted the
penalty of dismissal.
FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS OF THE PHILS V CA ISSUES
(DE GUZMAN, ALVAREZ) 1. WON De Guzman is guilty of breach of confidence, thus warranting dismissal
454 SCRA 737 2. WON Alvarez committed serious misconduct in sending the e-mail
CALLEJO SR; April 8, 2000
HELD
1. NO
NATURE - De Guzman is not guilty of breach of confidence.
A petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in reversing the Ratio To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is
done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished
FACTS from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on
- Petitioner Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines (FCPP) is a substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or
corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in the manufacture of suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
hard disc drives, MR heads and other computer storage devices for export. In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-
- Respondent Victor de Guzman began working for FCPP on September 21, 1997 as related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the
Facilities Section Manager. As of 1999, he was also holding in a concurrent capacity the employer.
position of Coordinator ISO 14000 Secretariat. Allan Alvarez, on the other hand, was Reasoning
employed as a Senior Engineer on April 21, 1998. He was assigned at the Facilities - The term “trust and confidence” is restricted to managerial employees. In this case, it is
Department under the supervision of respondent De Guzman. undisputed that respondent De Guzman, as the Facilities Section Manager, occupied a
- The garbage and scrap materials of FCPP were collected and bought by the Saro’s position of responsibility, a position imbued with trust and confidence.
Trucking Services and Enterprises (Saro’s). On January 15, 1999, respondent De - The Court had the occasion to reiterate in Nokom v. National Labor Relations
Guzman as Facilities Section Manager, for and in behalf of FCPP, signed a Garbage Commission the guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence:
Collection Agreement with Saro’s, and the latter’s signatory therein was its owner and Loss of confidence should not be simulated;
general manager, Larry Manaig. > It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
- De Guzman served as middleman between Sta. Rosa Bible Baptist Church and Saro. unjustified;
The Church was looking for scrap metal, and was willing to buy the purlins at P3. The > It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
scrap metal was then delivered from FCPP to Sta. Rosa Bible Baptist Church. and
- Ernesto Espinosa, HRD and General Affairs Director of FCPP, received a disturbing > It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
report from Manaig. Manaig reported that respondent De Guzman had caused the - The scrap metals, including the steel purlins, were already classified as scrap materials
“anomalous disposal of steel [purlins] owned by FCPP.” Two of Manaig’s employees, and ready for disposal. No less than the written statements of the witnesses for the
Roberto Pumarez and Ma. Theresa S. Felipe, executed written statements detailing how petitioners confirm this.
respondent De Guzman had ordered the steel purlins to be brought out. Thereafter, - No fraud or bad faith could be attributed to respondent De Guzman, as evinced by his
petitioner Espinosa sent a two-page Inter-Office Memorandum dated July 24, 1999 to readiness to disclose his participation in the transaction between Saro’s and Sta. Rosa.
respondent De Guzman, effectively placing him under preventive suspension. - Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised
- On July 28, 1999, respondent Alvarez sent an e-mail message to his co-employees, on the fact that the employee concerned is invested with delicate matters, such as the
expressing sympathy for the plight of respondent De Guzman. Respondent Alvarez used handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. After such
a different computer, but the event viewer system installed in the premises of petitioner scrap materials are weighed, loaded onto a truck and carried out of the company
FCPP was able to trace the e-mail message to him. Respondent Alvarez submitted a premises, the petitioner FCPP can no longer be considered the owner thereof, and
written Explanation dated September 29, 1999 where he apologized, readily admitted ceases to exercise control over such property. In this case however, Saro’s, as the new
that he was the sender of the e-mail message in question, and claimed that he “acted owner of the scrap materials in question, including the steel purlins, was free to contract
alone with his own conviction.” He alleged, however, that he was only expressing his with anyone as it wished.
sentiments, and that he was led by his desire to help a friend in distress. - A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicions spawned by
- Respondent Alvarez was informed that his services were terminated on the ground of speculative inferences. Because of its subjective nature, this Court has been very
serious misconduct effective August 13, 1999. Respondent De Guzman’s employment scrutinizing in cases of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence because the
was, thereafter, terminated effective August 23, 1999 through an Inter-Office same can easily be concocted by an abusive employer. Thus, when the breach of trust
Memorandum. or loss of confidence theorized upon is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this
- The respondents then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners with case, such dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be allowed.
prayer for reinstatement, full backwages, damages and attorney’s fees before the NLRC. 2. NO
Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam ruled in favor of FCPP, stating that it was justified in - Alvarez did not commit serious misconduct in sending the e-mail.
terminating the employment of the respondents. According to the Labor Arbiter, Ratio Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression
respondent De Guzman, a managerial employee, was validly dismissed for loss of trust of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
and confidence. Citing a number of cases,[24] the Labor Arbiter stressed that where an willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The
employee holds position of trust and confidence, the employer is given wider latitude of misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not
discretion in terminating his services for just cause. merely trivial and unimportant.
- The NLRC sustained the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the respondents’
appeal for lack of merit. The NLRC also affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Reasoning
respondent De Guzman, a managerial employee who was routinely charged with the - For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be
custody and care of the petitioner’s property, was validly dismissed on the ground of serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) must show
willful breach of trust and confidence. In so far as the dismissal of respondent Alvarez that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
was concerned, the Commission held that the circumstances surrounding the sending of - The Court finds that respondent Alvarez’s act of sending an e-mail message as an
the clearly “malicious and premeditated e-mail message” constituted no less than serious expression of sympathy for the plight of a superior can hardly be characterized as
misconduct. Hence, respondent Alvarez’s dismissal was also justified under the serious misconduct as to merit the penalty of dismissal.
circumstances. - There is no showing that the sending of such e-mail message had any bearing or
relation on respondent Alvarez’s competence and proficiency in his job. To reiterate, in
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 205 - Disini
order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, the denial of due process where the party claiming to be aggrieved is the one who is guilty of
act must have been done in relation to the performance of his duties as would show him not disclosing to the court the vital document that contains the most conclusive evidence
to be unfit to continue working for his employer. regarding the matter in dispute. Philex cannot feign ignorance of this letter.
Disposition Petition is denied. Decision of the CA is affirmed, with costs against the 2. YES
petitioners. Ratio A substantive defect invalidates a dismissal because the ground for dismissal is
negated by such defect, rendering the dismissal without basis.
Reasoning
ARIOLA V PHILEX MINING CORP - Philex’s financial condition justified petitioners’ retrenchment. What Philex failed to do
446 SCRA 514 was implement its retrenchment program in a just and proper manner. Its failure to use a
CARPIO; August 9, 2005 reasonable and fair standard in the computation of the supervisors’ demerits points is not
merely a procedural but a substantive defect which invalidates petitioners’ dismissal.
NATURE When the defect is procedural, the dismissal remains valid because the basis of the
Petition for review of the decision of the CA finding the retrenchment of the petitioners to dismissal is not in any way affected by such defect.
be valid Disposition The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the CA is SET ASIDE. We
ENTER another judgment finding petitioners to have been illegally dismissed and
FACTS ordering Philex to reinstate petitioners with full backwages, provided that the amounts
- Petitioners are former supervisors of respondent Philex Mining Corp. Philex sustained petitioners received shall be deducted therefrom. If reinstatement is no longer possible,
financial losses in its operations and adopted several measures including reducing Philex shall pay backwages as computed above plus separation pay.
personnel through early voluntary retirement and retrenchment programs to save costs.
The labor union representing the rank-and-file employees and the union representing the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V CABANSAG
supervisory employees signed a MOA with Philex prescribing the criteria for
460 SCRA 514
retrenchment.
- Petitioners, with 6 other supervisors and 49 rank-and-file employees, received from PANGANIBAN; June 21, 2005
Philex termination notices informing them of their retrenchment. Philex paid them
separation pay, and all of them signed Deeds of Release and Quitclaim in Philex’s favor. NATURE
Claiming that Philex dismissed them illegally, these supervisors and rank-and-file Petition for review on certiorari
employees separately submitted for voluntary arbitration the legality of their separation
from service. FACTS
The rank-and-file employees’ case - Florence Cabansag arrived in Singapore as a tourist. She applied for the Singaore
- The rank-and-file employees’ case was referred to Arbitrator Valdez. Valdez ruled in the branch of PNB. At that time, PNB had 2 types of employees: 1) employees hired in
employees’ favor, declared their dismissal illegal, and ordered their reinstatement. He Manila and assigned in Singapore 2) locally hired.
held that Philex failed to prove its claim of financial losses and that the criteria for - Ruben Tobias, the general manager of the bank, found her qualified and recommended
retrenchment in the rank-and-file’s MOA were arbitrary and inconsistent with the CBA her to the President of the bank in Manila. The latter approved
then in force. The CA reversed Valdez’s finding on Philex’s financial condition and held - Cabansag then applied for an Employment pass with the Ministry of Manpower of the
that Philex had a valid reason to undertake retrenchment. Nevertheless, the appellate Government of Singapore. She was issued said pass.
court affirmed Valdez’s ruling that Philex is liable for illegal dismissal because the criteria - On December 7, 1998, she was offered a temporary appointment, as Credit Officer,
for retrenchment in the rank-and-file’s MOA were inequitable. Philex further appealed to wherein she was to be on probation for 3 months. Cabansag accepted the position and
this Court, which denied Philex’s petition. assumed office. In the meantime, the Philippine Embassy in Singapore processed the
The supervisory employees’ case employment contract of Florence O. Cabansag and, on March 8, 1999, she was issued
- The supervisors’ case was referred to Arbitrator Advincula, who issued an order to by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, an ‘Overseas Employment
reinstate petitioners and their co-complainants, after Philex failed to timely file its Position Certificate,’ certifying that she was a bona fide contract worker for Singapore
Paper. On Philex’s motion, Advincula admitted Philex’s Position Paper and - On April 15, 1999, she was asked to resign. Tobias said that it was a cost cutting
“Supplementary” Position Paper. He rendered judgment finding “sufficient basis or just measure. He likewise said that the PNB branch would be transformed into a remittance
cause” for Philex to undertake a retrenchment. office. Cabansag then asked Tobias that she be furnished with a ‘Formal Advice’ from
Advincula also held that petitioners were barred from questioning their separation from the PNB Head Office in Manila. However, Tobias flatly refused. Cabansag did not submit
service because they availed of the early retirement program and executed the Deeds of any letter of resignation.
Release and Quitclaim releasing Philex from further liability. Petitioners appealed to the - On April 16,1999, Tobias again demanded that she submit a resignation letter. She was
CA, which denied the petition for lack of merit. The appellate court no longer ruled on the warned that he will be dismissed if she does not. Cabansag asked for more time in order
validity of Philex’s retrenchment program because it treated its decision in the rank-and- for her to look for another job. Cabansag said that she should be out by May15, 1999.
file employees’ case as the law of the case on that issue. - However, on April 19, 1999, Tobias again asked that Cabansag submit her letter of
resignation. Cabansag refused. The next day she was terminated.
ISSUES - NLRC ruled in favor of Cabansag. CA affirmed.
1. WON petitioners retired or whether Philex dismissed them from service
2. WON petitioners’ dismissal was illegal ISSUES
1. WON the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case at bar
HELD 2. WON the arbitration of the NLRC in the National Capital Region is the most convenient
1. NO venue or forum to hear and decide the instant controversy
Ratio If the intent to retire is not clearly established or if the retirement is involuntary, it is 3. WON Cabansag was illegally dismissed
to be treated as a discharge.
Reasoning HELD
- Although there is no dispute that petitioners received varied amounts denominated as 1. YES
“retirement gratuity,” the records show that Philex paid these amounts because of - As enunciated in A217 of the Labor Code, labor arbiters clearly have original and
petitioners’ retrenchment. Under Philex’s Retirement Gratuity Plan, “retirement gratuity” exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including
is paid not only to retiring employees but also to those who, like petitioners, are termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers
dismissed for cause “beyond their control” such as retrenchment. Philex treated the - When Cabansag obtained an employment pass from the Singapore Ministry of
“retirement gratuity” as petitioners’ basic separation pay as indicated in Deeds of Manpower, it did not imply a waiver of one’s national labor laws. The permit only grants
Release and Quitclaims petitioners signed. Significantly, Philex paid petitioners such one a status as a worker in the issuing country. She also applied for an Overseas
separation pay after notifying them of their retrenchment. Employment Certificate from the POEA through the Philippine Embassy in Singapore.
Obiter This entitles her to all benefits and processes under our statutes
- In the letter addressed to petitioner Biete, Roxas of Philex Retirement Trust informed - Moreover, petitioner admits that it is a Philippine corporation doing business through a
Biete that he was entitled to receive “retirement gratuity” because his separation, as a branch office in Singapore. Significantly, respondent’s employment by the Singapore
result of the retrenchment program, is for cause beyond his control. Biete submitted branch office had to be approved by Benjamin P. Palma Gil,[19] the president of the bank
Roxas’ letter to the CA after that court had rendered its decision. However, at that time, whose principal offices were in Manila. This circumstance militates against petitioner’s
petitioners did not yet file their MFR. Considering the import of the letter, it was error for contention that respondent was “locally hired”; and totally “governed by and subject to
the CA not to have considered the letter in resolving petitioners’ MFR. There can be no the laws, common practices and customs” of Singapore, not of the Philippines. Instead,
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 206 - Disini
with more reason does this fact reinforce the presumption that respondent falls under the
legal definition of migrant worker. HELD
2. YES 1. NO
- The law gives her two choices: - The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides the rule for the service of notices
(1) at the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) where she resides or and resolutions in NLRC cases, to wit:
(2) at the RAB where the principal office of her employer is situated Sec. 4. Service of notices and resolutions. – a) Notices or summons and copies of
3. YES orders, resolutions or decisions shall be served on the parties to the case personally
- Cabansag was already a regular employee at the time she was terminated, since her 3 by the bailiff or the duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from receipt
months probationary period has already ended. thereof by registered mail; Provided, that where a party is represented by counsel or
- The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of authorized representative, service shall be made on such counsel or authorized
procedural due process, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running representative;
afoul of the constitutional guarantee - The presumption is that the decision was delivered to a person in his office, who was
- In dismissing employees, the employer must furnish them two written notices: duly authorized to receive papers for him, in the absence of proof to the contrary. It is
1) one to apprise them of the particular acts or omissions for which their dismissal is likewise a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to
sought; and have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted, which
2) the other to inform them of the decision to dismiss them. As to the requirement of a includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The
hearing, its essence lies simply in the opportunity to be heard. registry return of the registered mail as having been received is prima facie proof of the
- Respondent was not notified of the specific act or omission for which her dismissal was facts indicated therein. Thus, it was necessary for respondent to rebut that legal
being sought. Neither was she given any chance to be heard, as required by law. At any presumption with competent and proper evidence. Records show that Ducut is not an
rate, even if she were given the opportunity to be heard, she could not have defended employee of the FEU Legal Aid Bureau, but is connected with the Computer Services
herself effectively, for she knew no cause to answer to Department. The FEU Legal Aid Bureau has its own personnel which include Ms. dela
- All that petitioner tendered to respondent was a notice of her employment termination Paz who is the one authorized to receive communications in behalf of the office. It has
effective the very same day, together with the equivalent of a one-month pay. This Court been ruled that a service of a copy of a decision on a person who is neither a clerk nor
has already held that nothing in the law gives an employer the option to substitute the one in charge of the attorney’s office is invalid. The CA was correct in ruling that the
required prior notice and opportunity to be heard with the mere payment of 30 days’ reckoning period should be the date when respondent’s counsel actually received the
salary. NLRC Resolution dated August 31, 1999, which was on December 20, 1999. Petitioner,
- Moreover, Articles 282,[26] 283[27] and 284[28] of the Labor Code provide the valid however, pointed out that a certain Ruby D.G. Sayat received a copy of their Motion for
grounds or causes for an employee’s dismissal. The petitioner has not asserted any Reconsideration filed by registered mail on August 16, 2000. Respondent contended that
grounds as a valid reason for terminating the employment of respondent at the time Sayat received the motion, she was then detailed at the office and was
Disposition Petition denied authorized to receive said pleading, and that it was an isolated and exceptional instance.
On this matter, the FEU Acting Postmaster certified that Sayat is a permanent employee
of the FEU Legal Aid Bureau. As such, she is authorized to receive communications in
GENUINO ICE CO INC V MAGPANTAY behalf of the office and need not possess an express authority to do so. More
493 SCRA 195 importantly, the Court has consistently frowned upon the dismissal of an appeal on
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; June 27, 2006 purely technical grounds. While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, it is,
nonetheless, an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should proceed with caution
NATURE so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure amplest opportunity
Review on certiorari for the proper and just disposition of a cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
2. NO, on the ground of habitual neglect of duties but YES on the ground of
FACTS insubordination. The Court sustained the CA’s finding that respondent’s four-day
- Alfonso Magpantay (respondent) was employed as a machine operator with Genuino absence does not amount to a habitual neglect of duty; however, the Court found that
Ice Company, Inc. (petitioner). On November 18, 1996, respondent filed against respondent was validly dismissed on ground of willful disobedience or insubordination.
petitioner a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for moral and exemplary damages. - FOR HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTY: Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal,
In his Position Paper, respondent alleged that he was dismissed from service effective must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the
immediately by virtue of a memorandum, after which he was not allowed anymore to performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s
enter the company premises. Respondent bewailed that his termination from duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud
employment was done without due process.Petitioner countered that he was not illegally and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to
dismissed, since the dismissal was based on a valid ground, i.e., he led an illegal strike perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter’s business. Thus, the
at petitioner’s sister company, Genuino Agro Industrial Development Corporation, which single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of
lasted from November 18 to 22, 1995, resulting in big operation losses on the latter’s the employee. Thus, the Court agrees with the CA that respondent’s four-day absence is
part. Petitioner also maintained that respondent’s dismissal was made after he was not tantamount to a gross and habitual neglect of duty. As aptly stated by the CA,
accorded due process. “(W)hile he may be found by the labor courts to be grossly negligent of his duties, he has
- Petitioner initially claimed that respondent’s acts were tantamount to serious never been proven to be habitually absent in a span of seven (7) years as GICI’s
misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and breach of employee. The factual circumstances and evidence do not clearly demonstrate that
trust. Subsequently, petitioner amended its position paper to include insubordination petitioner’s [respondent] absences contributed to the detriment of GICI’s operations and
among the grounds for his dismissal, since it came out during respondent’s cross- caused irreparable damage to the company.”
examination, and the matter was reported only after the new personnel manager - FOR INSUBORDINATION OR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE: On this point, the CA
assumed his position in August 1996. opined that petitioner included insubordination as a “mere after-thought.” It noted that
- Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the case petitioner seemed to be “irresolute” in stating the cause of respondent’s dismissal, as in
for lack of merit finding that petitioner had valid cause to dismiss respondent. Labor its Position Paper, it originally relied on respondent’s four-day absence or participation in
Arbiter’s Decision affirmed. Motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision was denied. the illegal strike as a cause for dismissal but later on amended its Position Paper to
Special civil action for certiorari with the CA was filed. Petitioner filed its Comment, include insubordination. Thus, the CA did not make any factual finding or conclusion in its
contending that the petition was filed out of time, considering that contrary to Decision vis-à-vis petitioner’s allegation of respondent’s insubordination.
respondent’s claim that the NLRC Resolution dated August 31, 1999 was received on While its perception may be true, it should not have deterred the CA from making any
December 20, 1999, it was actually received on September 15, 1999, as shown in the resolution on the matter. For one, respondent was able to argue against petitioner’s
registry return card. Petitioner also reiterated its arguments that respondent was allegation of insubordination before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. For another, it was
dismissed for cause and with due process. respondent himself who raised the subject before the CA, wherein he stated in his
- CA rendered the assailed Decision granting the petition and declaring respondent’s Petition. Further, the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are non-
dismissal as illegal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. litigious in nature. As such, the proceedings before it are not bound by the technical
niceties of the law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law, as dictated by
ISSUES Article 221 of the Labor Code:
1. WON the petition was filed by petitioner out of time ART. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. – In
2. WON he was illegally dismissed (and on what ground) any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of
3. WON there was due process under Section 2 (d), Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit
Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides for the standards of due process and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 207 - Disini
Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in
the interest of due process. This rule applies equally to both the employee and the A. SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
employer. In the interest of due process, the Labor Code directs labor officials to use
all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard
to technicalities or formalities. What is essential is that every litigant is given
reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his right, introduce witnesses and
DEFINITION AND ACTS
relevant evidence in his favor, which undoubtedly, was done in this case. Willful
disobedience, or insubordination as otherwise branded in this case, as a just cause VALIAO V CA
for dismissal of an employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: [PAGE 11]
(1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a
wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable,
lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had VILLAMOR GOLF CLUB V PEHID
been engaged to discharge. Company policies and regulations are generally valid and 472 SCRA 36
binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended, CALLEJO; October 4, 2005
unilaterally or preferably through negotiation, by competent authority. For misconduct
or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the same must be related to the
NATURE
performance of the employee’s duties and must show that he has become unfit to
Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision
continue working for the employer. In the case at bench, petitioner informed
respondent, through a Memorandum dated November 14, 1995, that he was being
FACTS
transferred to its GMA, Cavite operations effective November 20, 1995.
- Rodolfo Pehid was employed by the Villamor Golf Club (VGC) as an attendant in the
- Due to his refusal to report to the Cavite plant, petitioner reiterated its order transferring
men’s locker room, and, thereafter, he became the Supervisor-in-Charge. His
respondent in its Memorandum dated November 24, 1995, where respondent was also
subordinates included Superal, Parilla, Mendoza, Velasquez, Casabon, Buenaventura
warned that his failure to report to the Cavite plant will be considered as an absence
and Modelo. Pehid and these employees agreed to establish a common fund from the
without leave (AWOL) and insubordination. Respondent was required to comply with the
tips they received from the customers, guests and members of the club for their mutual
order within 24 hours from receipt, otherwise, disciplinary action will be imposed on
needs and benefits. Each member was to contribute the amount of P100 daily. The
respondent. Respondent replied with a request that he remain in the Otis plant since a
contributions of the employees had reached the aggregate amount of P17,990 based on
transfer to the Cavite plant will entail additional expenditure and travel time on his part.
the logbook maintained in the locker room. This agreement was not known to the VGC
Petitioner again wrote respondent inviting him to appear before the Plant Level
management.
Investigation on December 11, 1995 for the latter to be able to clarify his reasons for
- An audit of the Locker Room Section of the golf club was conducted stating, among
refusing the transfer. Finally, petitioner issued its Memorandum dated December 12,
others, that based on the information relayed, there was an undeclared and unrecorded
1995 informing respondent of its decision to terminate his services. The rule is that the
aggregate amount of P17,990 for the fund from May ‘98 to October ‘98. Further, not one
transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit of the employer’s prerogatives.
in the said section admitted custody of such amount and there was no record that the
The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and
money had been distributed among those employed in the locker room. In said report,
according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in
Capuyan recommended that an investigation be conducted to determine the
demotion in rank or diminution of the employee’s salary, benefits and other privileges. In
whereabouts of said amount and who was accountable therefor.
this case, petitioner’s order for respondent to transfer to the GMA, Cavite Plant is a
- After the requisite formal investigation by the Administrative Board of Inquiry, Pehid
reasonable and lawful order was made known to him and pertains to his duties as a
received order that his employment was terminated. Based on its findings, Pehid
machine operator. There was no demotion involved or diminution of salary, benefits and
committed gross misconduct in the performance of his duties in violation of Paragraph
other privileges, and in fact, petitioner was even willing to provide respondent with
IV-E(d) of the VGC Rules and Regulations. He was also informed that he committed
monetary allowance to defray whatever additional expenses he may incur with the
acts of dishonesty which caused and tend to cause prejudice to the club for
transfer. Such being the case, respondent cannot adamantly refuse to abide by the order
misappropriating the common fund of P17,990.00 for his personal benefit.
of transfer without exposing himself to the risk of being dismissed. Hence, his dismissal
- Pehid filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, separation
was for just cause in accordance with Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code. Consequently,
pay/retirement benefits, damages and attorney’s fees against petitioners VGC. LA ruled
respondent is not entitled to reinstatement or separation pay and backwages.
in favor of Pehid saying that his dismissal was illegal. NLRC set aside and reversed the
3. YES
decision of LA.
- Simply stated, the employer must furnish the employee a written notice containing a
- CA set aside and reversed NLRC decision. The CA declared that Paragraph IV-E(a)
statement of the cause for termination and to afford said employee ample opportunity to
and (d) of the VGC Rules 1 expressly provide that the funds referred to therein are funds
be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires,
of the club and that the P17,990 did not form part of such fund but belonged to the locker
and the employee must be notified in writing of the decision dismissing him, stating
room personnel. The CA also declared that the management of the VGC had no
clearly the reasons therefor.
personal knowledge about the funds and, in fact, had not sanctioned its existence.
- The CA found that petitioner failed to observe the twin requirements of notice and
Moreover, VGC was not prejudiced by the loss of the fund. Hence, this petition by VGC.
hearing, stating that its Memorandum dated December 13, 1995 does not squarely meet
Petitioners’ contentions:
the standards of due process. The circumstances surrounding respondent’s dismissal,
> That when confronted with the letter-complaint against him, Pehid admitted that his
however, prove the contrary. The CA failed to take into account that prior to the
accountability arose from the proceeds of the sale of the golf club and golf shares
Memorandum dated December 13, 1995, petitioner sent respondent several memoranda
entrusted to him, which he used for his personal needs without the knowledge of the
apprising him of the possible implications of his refusal to comply with the order of
persons concerned;
transfer. Thus, in its Memorandum dated November 24, 1995, petitioner notified
> That there is substantial evidence that Pehid was the custodian of fund belonging to
respondent that his continued non-compliance with the order of transfer might bring
the members of the locker room and that his misappropriation of the same constituted
about disciplinary action. Respondent replied to this memorandum, stating the reasons
gross misconduct;
for his refusal, i.e., additional expenses, longer travel time, and union concerns.
> That it is an act of manifest dishonesty within the context of Paragraph IV-E(d) of the
Petitioner sent another Memorandum on December 9, 1995, asking respondent to
Rules of Conduct of the club, in relation to A282(e) of the Labor Code, tending to
appear on December 11, 1995, for further clarification of his reasons for refusing the
prejudice the VGC
transfer. Despite the meeting, and since respondent, apparently, stubbornly refused to
> That, based on the substantial evidence Pehid misappropriated the fund as his co-
heed petitioner’s order, it was then that the Memorandum dated December 13, 1995 was
employees in the locker room even positively identified him as the custodian thereof; and
issued to respondent informing him of the management’s decision to terminate his
> that Pehid’s failure to account for and distribute the common fund which the locker
services. Clearly, respondent’s right to due process was not violated.
personnel had established for their mutual aid and benefit is a manifest dishonesty falling
Disposition petition is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated August 3, 2000 and
within the scope of the proviso
Resolution dated March 16, 2001 are SET ASIDE, and the NLRC Decision dated June
Respondent’s arguments:
30, 1999 is REINSTATED.
> That he was dismissed without just cause and due process of law;
1
14.05 JUST CAUSES – SUBSTANTIVE DUE 1.
E. Dishonesty
The following shall constitute violation of this section.
PROCESS – GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION a)
d)
Misappropriation or malversation of Club funds.
All other acts of dishonesty which cause or tend to cause prejudice to VGC
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 208 - Disini
> that there was no basis or evidence to show that he had custody of the common fund pneumonia. On her way to the hospital, Belga dropped by the house of Marylinda O.
which was used for his own benefit; Vegafria, Technical Manager of Tropical, to hand over the documents she worked on
> that he incurred the ire of his superiors for testifying in support of Tansiongco, a former over the weekend and to give notice of her emergency leave.
Director of Personnel who was dismissed by VGC; and - While at the PGH, Belga who was pregnant experienced labor pains and gave birth on
> that one of Tansiongco’s accusers was the brother of Velasquez, one of the locker the same day. On March 22, 2001, or two days after giving birth, Tropical summoned
boys who complained against him. Belga to report for work but the latter replied that she could not comply because of her
situation. On March 30, 2001, Tropical sent Belga another memorandum ordering her to
ISSUES report for work and also informing her of the clarificatory conference scheduled on April
1. WON CA decision is contrary to law and jurisprudence and therefore reversible 2, 2001. Belga requested that the conference be moved to April 4, 2001 as her newborn
2. WON the incident of the case shall fall within the provision of Article 282 paragraph (e) was scheduled for check-up on April 2, 2001. When Belga attended the clarificatory
of the Labor Code conference on April 4, 2001, she was informed of her dismissal effective that day.
HELD ISSUE
1. NO WON Belga was illegally dismissed
- Company policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or
contrary to law, generally valid and binding and must be complied with by the parties HELD
unless finally revised or amended, unilaterally or preferably through negotiation. YES
However, while an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable rule - Tropical terminated Belga on the following grounds: (1) Absence without official leave
or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company’s business, an act allegedly in for 16 days; (2) Dishonesty, for deliberately concealing her pregnancy; (3)
breach thereof must clearly and convincingly fall within the express intendment of such Insubordination, for her deliberate refusal to heed and comply with the memoranda sent
order. by the Personnel Department on March 21 and 30, 2001 respectively
- The CA was correct in ruling that the NLRC had overlooked and misapplied certain - Tropical cites the following paragraphs of Article 282 of the Labor Code as legal basis
facts and circumstances of substance, which, if properly appreciated, would affect the for terminating Belga:
disposition of the case. Article 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employment
- There’s no doubt that funds alleged to have been embezzled by the petitioner, for any of the following causes:
belonged to the personnel of respondent VGC and not to respondent VGC. Under the (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
afore-quoted VGC rule (see footnote), the dishonesty of an employee to be a valid cause his employer or representative in connection with his work;…
for dismissal must relate to or involve the misappropriation or malversation of the club (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
funds, or cause or tend to cause prejudice to VGC. The substantial evidence on record employer or duly authorized representative
indicates that the P17,990, which was accumulated from a portion of the tips given by the - We have defined misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule
golfers from May 1998 to October 1998 and was allegedly misappropriated by the of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful
respondent as the purported custodian thereof, did not belong to VGC but to the forced intent and not mere error in judgment. Such misconduct, however serious, must,
savings of its locker room personnel. Hence, VGC was not prejudiced. So it is within law nevertheless, be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his
and jurisprudence that CA reversed NLRC ruling. separation
2. NO - Her absence for 16 days was justified considering that she had just delivered a child,
Ratio The principle in statutory construction of ejusdem generis: Where general words which can hardly be considered a dereliction of duty or wrongful intent on the part of
follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific Belga.
meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be -Tropical harps on the alleged concealment by Belga of her pregnancy. This argument,
held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically however, begs the question as to how one can conceal a full-term pregnancy. We agree
mentioned. with respondent’s position that it can hardly escape notice how she grows bigger each
Reasoning day. While there may be instances where the pregnancy may be inconspicuous, it has
- Based on the grounds of termination provided under A282 of the Labor Code and the not been sufficiently proven by Tropical that Belga’s case is such
VGC Rules and Regulations, the common denominator thereof to constitute gross - The charge of disobedience for Belga’s failure to comply with the memoranda must
misconduct as a ground for a valid termination of the employee, is that – it is committed likewise fail. Disobedience, as a just cause for termination, must be willful or intentional.
in connection with the latter’s work or employment. In the instant case, as previously In the instant case, the memoranda were given to Belga two days after she had given
pointed out, the alleged petitioner’s misappropriation or malversation was committed, birth. It was thus physically impossible for Belga to report for work and explain her
assuming it to be true, against the common funds of the Locker Room personnel, which absence, as ordered
did not belong nor sanctioned by respondent VGC. A fortiori, respondent VGC was not - Tropical avers that Belga’s job as Treasury Assistant is a position of responsibility since
prejudiced or damaged by the loss or misappropriation thereof. she handles vital transactions for the company. It adds that the nature of Belga’s work
Obiter and the character of her duties involved utmost trust and confidence.
- Important for our purposes in the outline: “Serious misconduct” as a valid cause for the - In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be “work-
dismissal of an employee is defined as improper or wrong conduct; the transgression of related” such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful the employer. More importantly, the loss of trust and confidence must be based on the
in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To be serious willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. A breach of trust is
within the meaning and intendment of the law, the misconduct must be of such grave and willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. However serious such distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently
misconduct, it must be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for - Belga was an assistant cashier whose primary function was to assist the cashier in
his separation. The act complained of must be related to the performance of the such duties as preparation of deposit slips, provisional receipts, post-dated checks, etc.
employee’s duties such as would show him to be unfit to continue working for the As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, these functions are essentially clerical.
employer.
Disposition Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. CA decision AFFIRMED.
FACTS
NATURE
- Petitioner Carmelita Santos was appointed Finance Director of respondent SMC’s Beer
Petition for review of NLRC decision
Division for Luzon Operations.
On September 15, 1987, SMC issued a Memorandum prohibiting the encashment of
FACTS
personal checks at respondent's Plants and Sales Offices. Thereafter, SMC noticed that
- Complainant Wilfredo Melchor was hired by respondent company as a taxi driver under
petitioner encashed her 3 personal checks in various Metro Manila Sales Offices.
the "boundary system.” He was to drive the taxi unit assigned to him on a 24-hour
SMC commenced an audit investigation. Petitioner received from respondent an inter-
schedule per trip every two 2 days, for which he used to earn an average income from
office memorandum requiring her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should
P500 to P700 per trip, exclusive of the P650 boundary and other deductions.
be taken against her in view of her unauthorized encashment of her 3 personal checks at
- He was involved in a vehicular accident along Quirino Ave when he accidentally
respondent's sales offices.
bumped a car. He was allegedly advised to stop working and have a rest. When reported
- Petitioner admitted that she encashed three personal checks at respondent's sales
for work, he was told that his service was no longer needed.
offices but claimed that such act was not irregular since all personnel in respondent's
- He then filed complaint for illegal dismissal.
Beer Division were allowed to encash their personal checks at any sales office upon
- Paguio maintained that Melchor was not illegally dismissed since there was no
clearance from the region management concerned. She stated that her encashment of
employer-employee relationship. (no control, no payment of compensation) Even if EER
personal checks had prior clearance. She further clarified that only two of the three
existed, complainant's termination arose out of a valid cause since he was already
checks she encashed were dishonored for insufficiency of funds, but she promptly
involved in 3 accidents.
funded the checks upon receipt of notice of such dishonor, thereby causing no damage
- NLRC ruling: there was illegal dismissal
to respondent.
- Meanwhile, the audit results revealed that, aside from petitioner's reported encashment
ISSUES
of 3 personal checks, she had previously encashed 50 personal checks in varying
1. WON an employer-employee relationship exists
amounts, which were not endorsed by the Sales Operations Manager or the Region
2. WON dismissal was for a just cause
Finance Officer. Additionally, petitioner encashed 2 other personal checks. After
3. WON Melchor was afforded due process
receiving such report, SMC formed an Investigating Panel to conduct a full-blown
4. WON ‘doctrine of strained relations’ applies
investigation.
- The Investigating Panel found the encashment by petitioner of her personal checks
HELD
with the region/sales offices as highly irregular transactions to the detriment of the
1. YES
Company. It recommended that Santos be terminated from employment.
Ratio The relationship of taxi owners and taxi drivers is the same as that between
- In a memorandum, SMC adopted the findings of the Investigating Panel and informed
jeepney owners and jeepney drivers under the "boundary system." This relationship is
petitioner of her termination from employment for abuse of position as Finance Director,
that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. The fact that the drivers do not
engaging in highly irregular transactions to the detriment of the company and employer's
receive fixed wages but get only the excess of that so-called boundary they pay to the
loss of trust and confidence.
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of
- The complaint filed by petitioner against SMC for illegal dismissal was dismissed by the
employer and employee.
Labor Arbiter for lack of merit. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Upon an
Reasoning
MR filed by SMC, the NLRC dismissed the complaint filed by Santos. Hence, this
- He was considered an employee because he was engaged to perform activities which
recourse.
were usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade of the employer.
- This is different from lease of chattels, wherein the lessor loses complete control over
ISSUE
the chattel leased. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the
WON SMC dismissed the petitioner from employment without just cause
former exercise supervision and control over the latter.
2. NO
HELD
Ratio Employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee is for a just
NO
cause. The failure of the employer to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is
- Under the Labor Code, a valid dismissal from employment requires that: (1) the
not justified and that the employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code and
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 220 - Disini
(2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.Article confidence in private respondent, there being “no shadow of an act amounting to serious
282(c) of the same Code provides that "willful breach by the employee of the trust misconduct, fraud or breach of trust.”
reposed in him by his employer" is a cause for the termination of employment by an - petitioner’s MFR was denied, hence this petition.
employer. This ground should be duly established. Substantial evidence is sufficient as
long as such loss of confidence is well-founded or if the employer has reasonable ground ISSUE
to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and her act WON there was reason for petitioner to lose trust and confidence in private respondent
rendered her unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of her position. It must be and justify his dismissal
shown, though, that the employee concerned holds a position of trust. The betrayal of
this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized. HELD
- Petitioner argues that her position as Finance Director of respondent's Beer Division is NO
not one of trust but one that is merely functional and advisory in nature. She possesses Ratio The right of an employer to dismiss employees on account of loss of trust of
no administrative control over the plants and region finance officers, including cashiers. confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without showing just cause, so as not to
She reports to two superiors. Petitioner's argument is misplaced. As Finance Director, render the employee’s constitutional right to security of tenure nugatory.
she is in charge of the custody, handling, care and protection of respondent's funds. The Reasoning
encashment of her personal checks and her private use of such funds, albeit for short - Article 282 provides that an employer may terminate an employment for fraud or willful
periods of time, are contrary to the fiduciary nature of her duties. breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer. It is settled that loss
- Moreover, petitioner has functional control over all the plant and region finance officers, of confidence as a just cause for termination must be premised on the fact that an
including cashiers, within the Luzon Operations Area. In fact, she is the highest ranking employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, as in this case. And in
managerial employee for the finance section of the Luzon Beer Division Operations. order to constitute just cause, the act complained of must be work-related. Proof beyond
Obviously, her position is a factor in abetting the encashment of her personal checks. reasonable doubt is not required, so long as there is some basis for the loss of
- Indeed, there is substantial ground for respondent's loss of confidence in petitioner. confidence, but basis thereof must still be clearly and convincingly established, arising
She does not deny encashing her personal checks at respondent's sales offices and from particular proven facts which the employer bears to prove.
diverting for her own private use the latter's resources. The audit investigation accounted - in the instant case, the surveillance report of the private investigator was unreliable as
for all the checks she encashed, some of which were dishonored for insufficiency of the conclusions therein were mere deductions not supported by substantial corroborating
funds. The Investigating Panel concluded that petitioner not only encashed her personal evidence. Petitioner also failed to controvert proof presented by private respondent that
checks at respondent's sales offices, but also used company funds to temporarily satisfy the reselling of the oil was in support of petitioner’s marketing policy. It was also odd that
her insufficient accounts. This Court has held that misappropriation of company funds, petitioner’s agents did not submit the alleged fake merchandise to be tested in their labs,
although the shortages had been fully restituted, is a valid ground to terminate the virtually affirming the articles were genuine, having been purchased from petitioner’s
services of an employee of the company for loss of trust and confidence. dealers.
- Petitioner contends that there is a prolonged practice of other payroll personnel, - another confirmation that petitioner lacked basis for its distrust of private respondent
including persons in managerial levels, who encashed personal checks but remained was the release of the seized articles, with Donato even presenting receipts to prove they
unpunished by respondent. She asserts that her administrative superiors even were purchased from authorized dealers.
encouraged her to encash her checks at the nearest sales office since her appearance at - Considering this, private respondent was illegally dismissed. As such, he is entitled to
the bank for encashment would entail undue digression from her daily work routine. backwages. Since he was terminated before the effectivity of RA 6715, he is entitled to
- Prolonged practice of encashing personal checks among respondent's payroll only 3 years of backwages, and not full backwages as would be granted now. Because
personnel does not excuse or justify petitioner's misdeeds. Her willful and deliberate acts the antagonism and imputations of the criminal act strained the parties’ relationship,
were in gross violation of respondent's policy against encashment of personal checks of reinstatement would not be feasible. Instead, a more equitable disposition would be an
its personnel, embodied in its Memorandum. She cannot feign ignorance of such award of separation pay.
memorandum as she is duty-bound to keep abreast of company policies related to Disposition instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit
financial matters within the corporation. Equally unmeritorious are her claims that the
acts complained of are regular, being with the knowledge and consent of her superiors,
PLDT V TOLENTINO
Francisco Gomez de Liano and Ben Jarmalala, and that she is being charged because
she resisted the sexual advances of her superior. Suffice it to state that she could have [PAGE 202]
proved these matters during the investigation had she attended the proceedings.
DELA CRUZ V NLRC
LAKPUE DRUG INC V BELGA [PAGE 100]
[PAGE 208]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE – REQUISITES CORPORATION V MATIAS
458 SCRA 148
JARDINE DAVIES INC V NLRC (REYES) PANGANIBAN; May 6, 2005
311 SCRA 289
QUISUMBING; July 28, 1999 FACTS
- Rolando Matias was employed by Construction and Development Corporation of the
FACTS Philippines (CDCP) as Chief Accountant and Administrative Officer. During his
- Petitioner, the exclusive distributor of “Union 76” lubricating oil, engaged the services of employment with the company, various parcels of land situated at Don Carlos Bukidnon
a private investigation agency due to reports that petitioner’s products, particularly Union were placed in the names of certain employees as trustees for the purpose of owning
76, were being illegally manufactured, blended, packed and distributed. Upon vast tracts of land more than the limit a corporation can own which were primarily
confirmation of the investigator through a surveillance report and having secured a intended for CDCP agricultural businesses. By internal arrangement documents
search warrant, petitioner seized some of the fake items found in the apartment of private transferring back the properties to the corporation were executed. A piece of land was
respondent, a former sales representative of petitioner. registered in the name of Matias.
- a criminal complaint for unfair competition violating Article 189 of the RPC (repealed by - CDCP was later converted a government owned or controlled corporation, and the
Section 239 of the Intellectual Property Code) was filed against Reyes along with name of CDCP was changed to Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC).
administrative charges for serious misconduct inimical to the interest of petitioner. He Under a new set up, PNCC offered a retrenchment program and on December 31, 1984
was advised to go on an indefinite leave which later led to his termination. Matias availed of the said program.
- the materials seized were released in view of a petition filed by Reyes’ younger brother - Sometime in 1985, the Conjuangco Farms owned by Mr. Danding Conjuangco
Donato, who convinced the court that the materials belonged to him and that he was acquired CDCP Farms Corporation wh[ich] took over the operations of said farms. Not
legally engaged in the business of general merchandising (Lubrix Conglomerate) long after, or in 1989, CDCP Farms Corporation ceased to operate.
reselling oil and lubricant products to the public. - In July 1992, two former CDCP employees, namely Reynaldo Tac-an and Luciano
- with that, Reyes sued petitioner for illegal dismissal but the complaint was dismissed by Tadena went to the house of Matias and brought with them duly accomplished
the Labor Arbiter as he thought otherwise. Upon appeal with the NLRC, the decision was documents and Special Power of Attorney for his signature and informed him that the
reversed on the ground that there was no cogent reason for petitioner to lose trust and lands in Bukidnon under his name with all the others were invaded by squatters, and that
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 221 - Disini
the said land were covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) - Felix Cruz was an employee of Ciytrust Banking Corporation. He held a confidential
where Matias’ name was included in the list of landowners. Matias reluctantly signed the position of Micro Technical Support Officer, whose duties include: evaluating and
document and after six months, he signed an acknowledgment receipt of P100,000.00. recommending requests for Micro Computers received by the bidding committee, further
- The original title registered in the name of Matias was cancelled and a new title was evaluating and accepting of bids done by the Technical Commitee. He was recognized
issued. The transfer of said parcel of land was made possible because Rolando Matias with awards and citations due to his good performance.
and Elena Esmeralda Matias received manager’s checks from the Land Bank of the - There were feedbacks and informations that there were irregularities in the bidding
Philippines in the amount of P102,355.96 and P219.22 and bond worth P203,478.48 as process and purchase of the computers. A special investigation was conducted which
payment of Land Transfer Acquisition. found that there were unauthorized and unreported commissions and rebated given out
- On August 12, 1996, Matias was rehired by PNCC as Project Controller in Zambales by one of its computer suppliers (MECO) for purchases made by Citytrust.
PMMA Project. - Citytrust sent a show cause memorandm to Cruz placing him under preventive
- Not long after, Mr.Alday, Head of the Realty Management Group of PNCC invited suspension and directing him to appear in an administrative hearing by the Ad Hoc
Matias to his office and showed him a listing of parcels of land in the name of different Committee. The committee found him guilty of fraud, serious misconduct, gross
persons with the corresponding status including the latter’s name. On the basis of the dishonesty and serious violation of the bank policies. For the resultant loss of confidence,
listing, Mr. Alday told Matias that the transfer of the property registered in the latter’s Citytrust terminated Cruz from employment.
name was not yet consummated by the LBP and then requested Matias to execute a - Cruz filed before the Labor Arbiter an action for illegal dismissal and damages for being
Deed of Assignment in favor of PNCC pertaining to the said property, which Matias did denied due process and hastily dismissed. LA decision favored Cruz.
and guaranteed in writing that the ‘parcel of land is free from any lien or encumbrance.’ - Citytrust appealed to the NLRC, setting aside LA decision and dismissing the case fro
- On April 20, 1998, a memorandum was issued to Matias by PNCC directing the former lack of merit. Cruz filed MFR, but was denied for lack of merit.
to explain in writing why none of the following actions, falsification, estafa, dishonesty, - Cruz filed petition for Certiorari with SC, which was referred to the CA for appropriate
and breach of trust and confidence, should be taken against him in connection with the action and disposition.
Deed of Assignment. PNCC alleges that respondent fraudulently breached its trust and - CA dismissed the petition. It held that although the signature of the petitioner does not
confidence when, without its knowledge and consent, he disposed of the Bukidnon appear in the check vouchers, other pieces of evidence prove that he benefited from the
property; though actually belonging to petitioner, that property had purportedly been proceeds of the checks issued and that there is substantial evidence to hold the
merely placed in trust under his name. Thereafter, he assigned the same property to petitioner liable for soliciting; that his acts constituted a willful breach of the supplier’s
petitioner, allegedly despite his full knowledge that the title had already been transferred trust and confidence; that the dismissal was the result of a thorough investigation and
-- with his active planning and participation -- to the Republic of the Philippines . hearing.
- In due time, Matias submitted his written explanation. However, he was later advised
that he was terminated from the service on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. ISSUES
Hence, Matias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against PNCC 1. WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion
alleging that the dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was without 2. WON he denied due process
basis.”
HELD
ISSUE 1. NO
WON the dismissal of Matias on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was without - Petitioner failed to prove such.
basis - Petitioner was dismissed on the ground, among others, of loss of trust and confidence.
Loss of trust and confidence, as a valid ground for dismissal, must be substantiated by
HELD evidence.
YES - WRT to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence requires proof of
Ratio: To constitute a valid cause to terminate employment, loss of trust and confidence involvement in the alleged events in question. But as regards a managerial employee,
must be proven clearly and convincingly by substantial evidence. To be a just cause for the mere existence of a basis fro believing that such employee has breached the trust of
terminating employment, loss of confidence must be directly to the duties of the his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
employee to show that he or she is woefully unfit to continue working for the employer. required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence such
Reasoning when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned id
- Undeniably, the position of project controller -- the position of respondent at the time of responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation renders him
his dismissal -- required trust and confidence, for it related to the handling of business unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
expenditures or finances. However, his act allegedly constituting breach of trust and - Art 282 ( c) LC states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful
confidence was not in any way related to his official functions and responsibilities as breach. It should be done intentionally, knowingly and purposely without justifiable
controller. In fact, the questioned act pertained to an unlawful scheme deliberately excuse. It must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim
engaged in by petitioner in order to evade a constitutional and legal mandate. that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause
- It has oft been held that loss of confidence should not be used “as a subterfuge for for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee
causes which are illegal, improper and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence is
afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.” Be it remembered that at stake premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust
here are the sole means of livelihood, the name and the reputation of the employee. and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect
Thus, petitioner must prove an actual breach of duty founded on clearly established facts to delicate matters. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an
sufficient to warrant his loss of employment. employee is penalized
- We stress once more that the right of an employer to dismiss an employee on account - Cruz’s job entails the observance of proper company procedures. His functions are also
of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised whimsically. To countenance an extended to all branches nationwide, involving high degree of responsibility requiring a
arbitrary exercise of that prerogative is to negate the employee’s constitutional right to substantial amount of trust and confidence.
security of tenure. In other words, the employer must clearly and convincingly prove by - Petitioner’s acceptance of commissions and rebates from MECO, without knowledge
substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the and consent from Citytrust, and without said rebates being reported and turned over to
employee may be fairly made to rest; otherwise, the latter’s dismissal will be rendered the latter, are acts which can be considered willful breach of the trust and confidence
illegal. reposed by Citytrust on him.
- An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who s guilty of acts inimical to
the interests of the employer.
CRUZ V CA (NLRC, CITYTRUST BANK) 2. NO, he was not denied due process.
494 SCRA 226 - The basic requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases is for the employer to
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; July 12, 2006 inform the employee of the specific charges against him and to hear his side and
defenses. This does not mean a full adversarial proceeding. The parties may be heard
NATURE through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memorandum or oral argument.
Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 PROC seeking to annul CA decision In all of these instances, the employer plays an active role by providing the employee
affirming NLRC decision and resolution . with the opportunity to present his side and answer the charges in substantial compliance
with due process.
FACTS - The fact alone that he was not able to confront the witnesses against him during the
investigation conducted by Citytrust does not mean that he was denied his right to due
process. What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice and hearing.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 222 - Disini
- Citytrust complied with the first requirement of notice when it informed petitioner confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of
through a letter of the charges against him, directing him to explain in writing why his the employer's property"
employment should not be terminated and to appear in a hearing to be conducted by the - A few examples were given by the Court in the case of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio
company to give him further opportunity to explain his side. Citytrust also complied with Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission and Imelda Salazar, G.R. No.
the second requirement of notice when it sent a memorandum informing him of his 82511, March 3, 1992, to illustrate the principle:
dismissal from employment and the reasons therefore. - where the employee is a Vice-President for Marketing and as such, enjoys the full
Dispositon instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. trust and confidence of top management
- or is the Officer-In-Charge of the extension office of the bank where he works
BREACH OF TRUST – LOSS OF CONFIDENCE - or is an organizer of a union who was in a position to sabotage the union's efforts to
organize the workers in commercial and industrial establishments
- or is warehouseman of a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to
CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELEC CORP V MACARAEG facilitate and maximize voluntary gifts by foreign individuals and organizations to the
[PAGE 195] Philippines
- or is a manager of its Energy Equipment Sales
- Credit and Collection Supervisor ( Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. National Labor
POSITION, TRUST AND CONFIDENCE Relations Commission)
- If the respondent had been a laborer, clerk or other rank-and-file employee, there
would be no problem in ordering her reinstatement with facility. An officer in such a key
SANTOS V SAN MIGUEL CORP
position as Vice President for Marketing(or as Chief Accountant as in the present case)
[PAGE 219] can work effectively only if she enjoys the full trust and confidence of top management.
- The case of Metro Drug Corp. v. National, Labor Relations Commission, aptly describes
PANDAY V NLRC (LUZON MAHOGANY TIMBER the difference in treatment between the positions of trust on one hand and mere clerical
positions on the other. It states:
INDUSTRIES INC)
Managerial personnel and other employees occupying positions of trust and
209 SCRA 122 confidence are entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of employment, and the
GUTIERREZ; May 20, 1992 protection of labor laws. However, the rules on termination of employment, penalties
for infractions, and resort to concerted action are not necessarily the same as those
NATURE for ordinary employees.
Petition seeking the review of the order rendered by the NLRC authorizing the separation A special and unique employment relationship exists between a corporation and its
from the service of Panday to the payment by the private respondent of separation pay cashiers. More than most key positions, that of cashier calls f or the utmost trust and
equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service. It likewise ordered the confidence. . . .
payment of the complainant's 13th month pay for 1977 but dismissed his claim for living When an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office
allowance for lack of merit. requiring full trust and confidence she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available
to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or
FACTS condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action.
- Panday was hired by Luzon Mahogany Timber Industries since Aug. 23, 1973. A company's resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified. It would be
Sometime in Dec. 1977, Panday was called by Martin Gaw, the owner-manager who most unfair to require an employer to continue employing as its cashier a person
instructed him to cut off the living allowance of the employees. Panday requested that a whom it reasonably believes is no longer capable of giving full and wholehearted
memorandum to this effect be made so that he would not be blamed by the workers. trustworthiness in the stewardship of company funds.
Gaw got angry and shouted "what for is the memorandum? I am telling you to do so." He - Reinstatement in the present case is no longer possible not only because of the
then butted, "Ano ba talaga Naning ang ibig mong sabihin? Sa tuwing magsasalita ka, strained relationship between the employee and the employer but also because of the
panay ka "policy" ng companya at panay ka records". length of time that has passed from the date the incident occurred to its resolution.
- From the time of that incident, Panday was deprived of free light. He was no longer Instead of reinstating the employee, this Court has in several cases awarded separation
given any accounting work. His per diem was abruptly cut off. All that was left for him to pay although the employee was found to be illegally dismissed.
do was the simple clerical job of registering or paying SSS premiums. Still complainant The following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying reinstatement
continued to bear it out. In 1979, however he was totally divested of all his duties and he - reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time
was compelled to approach Manager Martin Gaw to clear up matters. Gaw referred him - because of the realities of the situation
to Mr. Gerry Lumban who was supposed to give him some work to do. It turned out, - that it would be inimical to the employer's interest
however, that no such instructions were given to said Mr. Lumban. - that reinstatement may no longer be feasible
- In 1979, Panday filed a request for vacation leave with pay for 15 days from April 14-30, - that it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved
1979. On that same day he brought his son to Manila for medical treatment and stayed - that the company would be prejudiced and by the workers' continued employment
there up to the end of the month. Upon his return to Isabela, he asked for his salaries - that it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have transpired
only to learn that his application for leave was disapproved. which make execution on that score unjust or inequitable
- Hence, he filed this case for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay for 1977, Disposition the prayer for reinstatement is DENIED but the order rendered by Deputy
emergency allowance under P.D. 525 since 1975 up to 1977 and unpaid wages for April Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. dated May 29, 1984 is modified to cover five (5) years
16-30, 1979. backwages. The order is AFFIRMED in other respects.
- The Office of the Minister found and ruled that Panday was constructively dismissed
from the service. Luzon Timber was ordered to comment on the petition but failed to so.
Thus, the actual findings are affirmed. The only complaint of Panday which remains is
his claim that Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. should have ordered his
reinstatement with backwages.
CRUZ V COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS INC
ISSUE 460 SCRA 340
WON Panday’s prayer for reinstatement should have been granted
YNARES-SANTIAGO; June 15, 2005
HELD
NO FACTS
- Panday, as branch accountant occupied a position involving trust and confidence and in - Cruz has been working for respondent company’s plant in Calamba, Laguna, as a
the light of the estranged relation between the complainant and the respondent that may driver/helper since June 1983. At times, however, Cruz gets designated as Acting
not permit the full restoration of an employment relationship based on trust and Salesman for company’s soft drinks and other beverages. On July 25, 1998, petitioner
confidence, we have to allow termination of the employer-employee relationship but upon was assigned as acting salesman of Route DA1, covering the small barangays.
the payment of separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month for every year of Together with his helper, Mr. Pablito Aguila, Cruz loaded their truck with CCBPI
service rendered. products. After the required verification and confirmation of the products loaded on the
- The case of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Court of Appeals provides a definition truck by the Checker and the guard at the gate, Cruz proceeded to leave the plant
of a "position of trust and confidence". It is one where a person is "entrusted with vicinity.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 223 - Disini
- After gate inspection, however, Cruz drove back inside the plant on the pretext of NATURE
refueling. While waiting in line to refuel, Cruz allegedly asked Aguila to load an additional Special Civil action in the SC. Certiorari
thirty cases of assorted canned soft drinks as “plus load”. Aguila reminded him about the
required documents but he merely stated “ Ayos na” and continued with the refueling of FACTS
the truck. - Private respondent, Isagani Recodo, started working at Vitarich as an Accounting clerk.
- On his second exit from the plant premises, Cruz did not slow down for the mandatory He gradually moved up the organization ladder until he was made Sales Manager for
inspection even as the security guards at the gate flagged him down. Western Visayas in 1988. He was dismissed in October 15, 1992 for alleged violation of
- One of the guards pursued the truck and when he caught up with petitioner at the a memorandum dated August 4, 1992 and also for violation of company policies relating
Walter Mart Shopping Mall in Barangay Real, Calamba, the latter could not produce the to credit extensions and cash advances. He was also terminated for loss of trust and
proper documents for the extra thirty cases loaded on his truck. He was then directed to confidence.
return to the plant and unload the products. At this point, it was confirmed that Cruz did - Apparently, his new boss, Onofre Sebastian, was under pressure from senior
not actually secure any paper for the added products nor did he follow the established management to address and correct all the problems he had inherited from his
procedure before taking out the extra cases. predecessor. The problems included high account receivable level in the sales territory of
- Cruz admitted the incident but alleged that he forgot to secure the requisite documents Recodo. The two had a meeting sometime middle of July to address the problems,
for the products. On August 5, 1998, an investigation was conducted on the alleged including the A/R level of one Rex Cordova.
violations committed by petitioner. On August 19, 1998, respondent company terminated - The August 4 Memorandum referred to contains instructions to Recodo to ground
the services of petitioner effective upon receipt of the memorandum. salesmen with thirty say overdue A/R so that the levels of said A/R can be regularized.
Apparently, Recodo received the said memo garbled and had to verify its contents on
ISSUE September 5, 1992. In the meantime, he postponed the grounding of Cordova until
WON Cruz was validly dismissed August 20 to bring about the desired reduction. The reduction hoped for in fact
happened when Cordova’s A/R went down from Pesos 800,000 to just Pesos 250,000.
HELD Huffing and puffing, Sebastian was asked to explain why he should not be terminated for
YES failure to ground Cordova in compliance with the August 4 memo of Sebastian.
- The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals were unanimous in their findings - Recodo complied with the order to explain and an investigation was conducted by the
that petitioner was guilty of dishonest acts but differed only on the propriety of the penalty Head of Personnel, a certain Enriquez. In his report, Enriquez found that there was no
imposed upon petitioner. defensible ground for terminating Recodo’s services in the absence of documented
- After a careful evaluation of the evidence on record of this case, we found no warnings given to Recodo to justify any loss of trust and confidence in him. Nonetheless,
compelling reason to disturb the unanimous findings of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC Recodo was terminated on October 15, 1992.
and the Labor Arbiter. - Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal termination, non-payment of managerial
- Several factors militate against petitioner’s claim of good faith. Petitioner’s length of bonus, and for moral and exemplary damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled illegal dismissal.
service, which spans almost fifteen years, works against his favor in this case. We have The NLRC initially overturned the ruling but on appeal by Recodo, the finding of the
held that the longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his Labor Arbiter was upheld. Hence this action.
responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of
discipline in the company. Considering that petitioner has worked at respondent ISSUE
company for a long period of time, one expects that securing the LOGP or TGP would be WON the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding in favor of Recode
automatic for him.
- Faced with the overwhelming evidence presented by respondents on one hand and the HELD
mere general denial of petitioner on the other, the invocation of the protective mantle of NO
the law in favor of labor cannot be upheld in this case. This principle cannot be adopted . In rectifying its previous appreciation and assessment of Recodo’s dismissal, the NLRC
where there is clear and convincing evidence of the truth. While this court endeavors to did not commit any abuse of discretion. A careful scrutiny of the records reveal that the
live up to its mandate that the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and decision of the Labor Arbiter is suffused with established facts and a correct
paramount consideration, it cannot do so if it will be at the expense of justice and will understanding of them.
result in the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The interests of both the Reasoning
employers and employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given - While it may be true that there was a delay on the part of Recodo in implementing his
undue preference. superior’s order with regard Cordova’s grounding, the question is whether the delay
- Termination of employment by reason of loss of confidence is governed by Article constitutes disobedience and whether this disobedience was willful to merit loss of
282(c) of the Labor Code, which provides that an employer can terminate the confidence. The SC, in AHS Philippines, Inc. vs. CA, explained that “willful disobedience
employment of the employee concerned for “fraud or willful breach by an employee of the of the employer’s lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, envisages
trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.” Loss of the concurrence of at least two requisites:
confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that a. the employee’s assailed conduct must be willful or intentional, the willfulness
the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence. He must being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude;
be invested with confidence on delicate matters such as the custody, handling, care and b. the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
protection of the employer’s property and/or funds. employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
- Admittedly, the company rules violated by Cruz are punishable, for the first offense, with discharge.
the penalty of suspension. However, company has presented evidence showing that - In the case at bar, the non-compliance by Recodo was not an open defiance but “as
Cruz has a record of other violations from as far back as 1986. To be sure, the nature of one of the discretions which he had to take under the circumstances in his capacity as
petitioner’s offenses is downright inimical to the interests of respondent company. By sales manager. As it turned out, the result both Recodo and Sebastian hoped for was
virtue of his job, Cruz is entrusted with the property and funds, which belong to achieved by not immediately grounding Cordova.
respondent company. His actions on that fateful day highlight, not only his consistent - While an employer is allowed wide latitude to dismiss employees on loss of trust and
and deliberate defiance of company rules and regulation, but also his duplicity in confidence, still the loss thereof must have some basis and must be proved by the
handling respondent company’s properties. It would appear that company had tolerated employer otherwise the social justice policy of the labor lawsand the constitution will be
his work ethic far too long. We therefore find that it was justified in terminating petitioner for naught. The guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence are:
after the flagrant dishonesty he committed. a. loss of confidence should not be simulated
Disposition Instant petition is DENIED. Dismissal of petitioner is declared valid but b. it dhould not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or
respondent company is ORDERED to pay petitioner the amount of P20,000.00 as unjustified
nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process. c. it should not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to
the contrary
GUIDELINES d. it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify
faith
earlier action taken in bad
Disposition the resolution f the NLRC is affirmed with the modification that corresponding
back wages of respondent be forthwith updated and released to him.
VITARICH CORP V NLRC (RECODO)
307 SCRA 509
BELLOSILLO; May 20, 1999 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHIL INC V KAPISANAN NG
MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 224 - Disini
[PAGE 209] - In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the
dismissal is for a just or authorized cause. The charges against private respondent are:
(1) withdrawal of 192 liters of gasoline from company stocks for his private use; and (2)
WILLFUL BREACH knowingly allowing company personnel to work on company time in the assembly of a
privately-owned jeep. To prove the first charge, petitioner presented the Tenders
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT Logbook showing the unsigned entries of gasoline withdrawals allegedly made by
CORP V NLRC (VILLACENCIO) Villavicencio . Wilfredo Caba and Bienvenido Villacencio also testified that Villavicencio
refused to sign the entries when requested to do so.
290 SCRA 479 (1) The evidence for the Villavicencio shows that during his more than twenty (20)-year
PUNO; May 21, 1998 stint with petitioner, he received several awards and commendations for his contribution
in the areas of production, services and smooth operation of his department. The
NATURE management recognized his ability in handling his subordinates and in protecting
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court of Decision dated company assets in relation to his assigned duties. As a stickler for company rules, he
December 27, 1994 of NLRC which ordered the payment of separation pay and never held back on issuing warnings, admonitions and even suspensions against erring
backwages to private respondent Isabelo O. Villacencio, and its Resolution dated August subordinates. Consequently, he earned the ire of some of his subordinates. Among them
18, 1995 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. were Wilfredo Caba., June Climaco, Felix Gonzales and Bienvenido Villacencio. In sum,
Villavicencio’s position is that the logbook entries do not prove that he received the 192
FACTS liters of gasoline since his signature does not appear therein and that the witnesses
- private respondent Isabelo O. Villacencio worked with petitioner ACMDC from January presented by the petitioner to explain the absence of his signature in the logbook entries
23, 1970 to February 2, 1990. He started as an ordinary laborer/helper in the Mill were motivated by vengeance since he offended their feelings when he disciplined them
Department. In 1973, he became supervisor of the Tailings Disposal Department. In and denied their requests for promotion.
1982, he was elevated as a junior staff of the department. Finally, he was promoted - The Standard Guidelines of ACMDC require that all withdrawals of consumable items
general foreman of the Tailings Disposal and Water Supply Department with a monthly and the borrowing of company materials and equipments should be recorded in the
salary of P7,440.00. He held this position until his services were terminated on February Tender's Logbook by the tender on duty and should be signed by the withdrawing party.
2, 1990. The tender on duty is also required to immediately report to his supervisor any
- As general foreman, Villacencio was the second-to-the-highest man in the department discrepancy, error or irregularity. Needless to stress, the best evidence of any withdrawal
which has a field office located in Magdugo, Toledo City. Under Villacencio were some is the Tender's Logbook. In the case at bar, the gasoline withdrawal entries were made
fifty nine (59) workers whom he supervised through regular field inspections. Villacencio by tenders Caba and Villacencio. Villavicencio’s signature does not appear in the
was assigned a service jeep and a service motorcycle which he used alternately. He was logbook, thus, there is no proof that he actually withdrew and received the gasoline.
given the privilege to withdraw the necessary fuel/gasoline for the vehicles at the (2) The Authorization to Work Overtime dated May 14, 1989 indicates that A. Saavedra,
Transport Department located inside the main compound of ACMDC. A. Sepada and V. Rago were among those authorized to work overtime 'to assist in
- September 8, 1989 - Engineer Sanchez of the Services Division wrote a memorandum emergency repair of busted 280 CIC Tailings Line' on that date. The same does not
requesting that Villacencio be investigated for alleged anomalies at the Magdugo Tailings show or affirm petitioner's contention that said workers were not actually authorized or
Field Office. Villacencio was charged before the Special Investigation Board with acts of did not actually perform the required work but were at the Magdugo Field Office working
malfeasance consisting of: on private respondent's personal jeep. On the contrary, the Authorization to Work
1. withdrawal of company-owned gasoline for the refueling of his personal jeep; Overtime appears regular on its face, as in fact, the same bears the imprimatur indicated
2. use of company personnel on company time as well as company-owned materials by the signature not only of private respondent alone but of three (3) other officers: the
for the assembly of a jeep not belonging to the company; and Supervisor, J.V. Climaco, Jr., the Department Head, J. N. Tecson, and the Division
3. granting of authority to non-company personnel to withdraw company-owned Manager, C. N. Sanchez. If ever there was an irregularity, these officers would likewise
stocks. have to be answerable to the company, instead of letting private respondent bear the
- January 1990 - He was summoned and investigations were conducted. the Special burden alone.
Investigation Board found Villacencio guilty of the charge of withdrawing on various dates 2. NO
a total of 192 liters of company-owned gasoline which he used to refuel his private jeep - We reject the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that since Villavicencio neglected to inspect the
and of the charge of using company personnel on company time in the assembly of his logbook and thus failed to discover the irregularity, he committed breach of trust.
jeep. The third charge was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Villacencio was Ratio Settled is the rule that under Article 283(c) of the Labor Code, the breach of trust
dismissed from work on February 2, 1990. must be willful. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
- February 19, 1990 - Villavicencio lodged a complaint against ACMDC before the without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
Regional Arbitration Cebu City, for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's
backwages plus damages. The case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally
Belarmino. remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should
- Meanwhile, ACMDC initiated a criminal complaint against Villacencio for the it appear as a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge
misappropriation of 192 liters of gasoline amounting to P1,086.72. An Information for for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never been intended to afford
Estafa was filed against Villacencio before the Municipal Trial Court of Toledo City. After an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. Private respondent explained
trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to prision correccional as maximum, and to pay that he failed to inspect the logbook for about two (2) months before its disappearance
ACMDC the amount of P1,086.72 for the misappropriated gasoline. because he was preoccupied with some emergency works brought about by a storm.
- Villacencio appealed his conviction to RTC Toledo City. For failure of the prosecution to With the foregoing explanation, it cannot be said that Villavicencio’s failure was willful.
establish the guilt of Villacencio beyond reasonable doubt, the appellate court acquitted Disposition the assailed Decision and Resolution of public respondent NLRC are
him AFFIRMED.
- August 9, 1993 - Labor Arbiter Belarmino rendered a Decision dismissing Villacencio's
complaint of illegal dismissal for lack of merit.
- December 27, 1994 - NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. COVERAGE
- Both parties filed their respective Motion for Reconsideration. ACMDC's motion assailed
the public respondent's decision for allegedly misapprehending the Labor Arbiter's FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORP V CA
decision. On the other hand, Villacencio's motion prayed for reinstatement and award of
[PAGE 204]
backwages in addition to separation pay.
- August 18, 1995 – NLRC rendered a Resolution granting Villacencio's prayer for
backwages and denying ACMDC's motion.
PROOF
ISSUES
1. WON NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
reversing the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and holding Villavicencio’s dismissal illegal RAMATEK PHILS V DE LOS REYES
2. WON there is willful breach of trust 474 SCRA 129
CARPIO; October 25, 2005
HELD
1. NO
NATURE
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 225 - Disini
petition for review resolutions of CA (denying appeals for being filed out of time) LACK OF DAMAGE
FACTS
- Anelia de los Reyes was employed by Ramatek as a comptroller. Subsequently,
CADIZ V CA (PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL BANK
Ramatek entered into a sub-contracting agreement with Sicar Micro-Electronics Corp, of
which Anelia’s husband Nestor was a major stockholder, treasurer, and COO. [EQUITABLE PCIBANK])
- Some time after, Sicar filed a civil action for damages against the Ramatek officials for 474 SCRA 232
the unilateral termination of their contract. Later, the chairman of the board of directors of TINGA; October 25, 2005
Ramatek informed Anelia that she should file a leave of absence while the case was
ongoing. Afterwards, the chairman emailed Anelia, requesting her to tender her voluntary
NATURE
resignation from the company. The email said in part: “IT IS WITH GREAT REGRET
Certiorari
THAT I MUST INFORM YOU OF MY REACTION TO THE SICAR AFFAIR. YOUR
CONNECTION IN THIS MATTER HAS CAUSED ME TO LOSE MY FAITH AND TRUST
FACTS
IN YOU. IT IS A MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITUATION.”
- Cadiz, Bongkingki and Gloria were employed as signature verifier, bookkeeper, and
- In a letter dated a month later, the company required Anelia to explain within 72 hours
foreign currency denomination clerk/bookkeeper-reliever, respectively, in the main office
some of her allegedly questionable transactions. Such included awards of work bids to
branch (MOB) of Philippine Commercial International Bank (respondent bank).
bidders who did not give the lowest bids, purchase of equipment not at the lowest prices,
- Cadiz reserved S/A No. 1083-4 in July 1987 as reflected on respondent bank’s “new
and failure to submit company documents despite demand.
account register.”
- Anelia did not answer (she failed to claim the letter sent by Ramatek through registered
- Foreign denominated checks payable to other payees were diverted into the said
mail) nor did she appear in the administrative investigation. Ramatek, soon after,
account.
terminated Anelia’s employment for committing anomalies amounting to breach of trust
- The various deposit slips, covering the said checks, did not bear the machine validation
and confidence. Anelia filed for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
of any of the tellers-in-charge.
LA ruled in favor of Anelia. NLRC affirmed. Appeal to CA (by Ramatek) was denied for
- Petitioner Cadiz agreed to pay Alqueza the equivalent amount of $600.00 but it was
being filed out of time.
made to appear that Alfiscar paid the said amount.
- In view of these findings, petitioners were served with show-cause memoranda asking
ISSUES
them to explain the lapses.
1. WON the appeal was filed out of time
- Finding their explanations unsatisfactory, petitioners were terminated from employment.
2. WON dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence was valid
LA-adjudged that petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordered their reinstatement and
payment of backwages.
HELD
- NLRC-reversed
1. NO
- CA-affirmed reversal by NLRC
Ratio The latest amendment to Rule 65, ROC allows filing of an appeal within 60 days
after the notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES
Reasoning
1. WON petitioners were validly dismissed (with just cause and were afforded due
- The amended rule now reads:
process)
- Sec. 4. When and where petition filed. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty
2. WON petitioners should be relieved of any liability considering that respondent bank
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
did not suffer a pecuniary loss
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.
HELD
- In the present case, the petition filed in the Court of Appeals was indeed filed beyond
1. YES
the 60-day period if computed from the time the notice of judgment was received and
- Petitioners had surreptitiously diverted funds deposited by depositors to S/A No. 1083-4
interrupted only by the filing of the motion for reconsideration. However, if the 60-day
which was under their control and disposition.
period is reckoned from the receipt of the notice denying the motion for reconsideration,
- Their behavior in the course of the discharge of their duties is clearly malfeasant, and
as provided under Circular No. 56-2000, then the petition for certiorari was filed on time.
constitutes ground for their termination on account of just cause.
2. NO
- respondent bank complied with the two-notice rule prescribed in Article 277(b) of the
Ratio That the dismissal was based on loss of trust and confidence was not sufficiently
Labor Code. Petitioners were given all avenues to present their side and disprove the
proven by evidence. Ramatek’s evidence are insubstantial and inadequate to support a
allegations of respondent bank. An informal meeting was held between the branch
conclusion that Anelia engaged in anomalous transactions. Since the company had the
manager of MOB, the three petitioners and Mr. Gener, the Vice-President of the PCIB
burden of proving the same, said dismissal cannot be held valid.
Employees Union.
Reasoning
2. NO
- The SC upholds the findings of the Labor Arbiter that Anelia was able to prove that the
- In University of the East v. NLRC the court held that lack of material or pecuniary
charges against her were false and baseless.
damages would not in any way mitigate a person’s liability nor obliterate the loss of trust
“Despite the gravity of the charges, there is nothing competent in the records to
and confidence.
substantiate the same. Xxx Ramatek has the burden to prove just cause, but it failed
- In the case of Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines, this Court definitively ruled that:
to undertake the burden. On the other hand, complainant explained to the satisfaction
. . . Whether or not the respondent bank was financially prejudiced is immaterial. Also,
of this Office that the charges against her are utterly false and baseless.”
what matters is not the amount involved, be it paltry or gargantuan; rather the
- Ramatek having failed to substantiate their charges against Anelia with competent and
fraudulent scheme in which the petitioner was involved, which constitutes a clear
credible evidence, this Office perceives that the primordial inspiration for her dismissal
betrayal of trust and confidence. . . .
was the filing by her husband of a civil suit against the company officials, a matter which
respondents cannot legally use against complainant to deprive her of her tenurial rights.
This is because the suit was not filed by Anelia against Ramatek or its officials but by her D. COMMISSION OF A CRIME
husband. There is no showing that the filing of the suit was a joint decision by the couple
or was instigated by complainant as to charge complainant with disloyalty or a conflict of
interests. Moreover, it appears that Anelia’s husband was merely asserting and E. ANALOGOUS CAUSES
exercising his right to seek redress in the courts, a matter which Ramatek should not
begrudge Anelia about. Finally, the case was amicably settled by the parties such that
there can be no rational justification for respondents to dismiss Anelia just because a QUARELSOME – BOSSY
plaintiff in the civil suit happened to be her husband.
- Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not require proof beyond reasonable CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY V NLRC
doubt. The law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify it. Thus, there
must be some evidence to substantiate the claim and form a legal basis for loss of (VALLEJERA)
confidence. The employer cannot exercise arbitrarily and without just cause the right to 214 SCRA 551
dismiss an employee for loss of trust and confidence. October 13, 1992
Disposition Resolutions of CA set aside. Decision of NLRC AFFIRMED.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 226 - Disini
NATURE - Thereafter, she filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and
Petition for certiorari of a decision of NLRC. nonpayment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay against petitioners.
- Petitioners alleged that Galay had an attitude problem and did not get along with her
FACTS co-employees for which she was constantly warned to improve. Petitioners aver that
- Starting as an aspirant to the Congregation of the Religious of Virgin Mary (RVM), Galay’s attitude resulted to the decline in the company’s efficiency and productivity.
VALLEJERA worked on a volunteer basis as a library aide of CST, an educational - The Labor Arbiter found that Galay was illegally terminated for petitioners’ failure to
institution run by the RVM sisters. Eventually she became a regular employee of CST, prove that she violated any company regulation, and for failure to give the proper notice
again as library aide. as required by law.
- It was around such regular employment, however, that trouble developed. The sisters - Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The latter, however, denied the appeal for lack of
began receiving complaints from students and employees about VALLEJERA's difficult merit and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
personality and sour disposition at work. On one occasion, VALLEJERA was summoned - CA denied the motion for lack of justifying circumstances, and because the attached
to the Office of the Directress by SISTER APOLINARIA, shortly after the resignation of board resolution was issued after the petition was filed (petitioners failed to: state the full
the school's Chief Librarian on account of irreconcilable differences with VALLEJERA, for names and actual addresses of all the petitioners; attach the copies of all pleadings and
the purpose of clarifying the matter. SR APOLINARIA also informed VALLEJERA of the supporting documents; properly verify the petition; and certify against forum-shopping)
negative reports received by her office regarding the latter's frictional working relationship
with co-workers and students and reminded VALLEJERA about the proper behavior in ISSUES
the interest of peace and harmony in the school library. VALLEJERA resented the 1. WON petitioners were denied due process with the CA’s dismissal of the petition on
observations about her actuations and was completely unreceptive to the advice given by technical grounds
her superior. She reacted violently to SR APOLINARIA and angrily offered to resign, 2. WON “attitude problem” is a valid ground for the termination of an employee.
repeatedly saying, "OK, I will resign. I will resign." Thereafter, without waiting to be 3. If issue 2 is in the affirmative, WON this was sufficiently proved
dismissed from the meeting, she stormed out of the office. 4. WON the procedural requirements for an effectual dismissal were present
- On separate occasions thereafter, CST and SR APOLINARIA (PETITIONERS, for 5. WON the awards of service incentive pay and 13th month pay were proper
brevity) sent people to convince VALLEJERA to settle her differences with the former.
VALLEJERA remained adamant in her refusal to submit to authority. Eventually, SR HELD
APOLINARIA, by letter, informed VALLEJERA to look for another job as the school had 1. YES
decided to accept her resignation. VALLEJERA filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. An Ratio The Rules of Court are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases. In
issue arose as to whether there was lawful cause for her dismissal. not a few instances, we relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In that way, the ends of justice
ISSUE would be better served. Additionally, verification of a pleading is a formal, not a
WON there was there lawful cause for VALLEJERA’s dismissal jurisdictional requisite. It is intended to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the
pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of
HELD speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.
YES 2. YES
Ratio The reason for which VALLEJERA’s services were terminated, namely, her Ratio An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the
unreasonable behavior and unpleasant deportment in dealing with the people she closely company for he can upset and strain the working environment. Without the necessary
works with, is analogous to the other "just causes" enumerated under ART.282, Labor teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well. Thus, management has
Code. the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its
- PETITIONERS' averments on VALLEJERA’s disagreeable character as "quarrelsome, organization. When personal differences between employees and management affect
bossy, unreasonable and very difficult to deal with," are supported by testimonies of the work environment, the peace of the company is affected. Thus, an employee’s
several co-employees and students of CST. In fact, her overbearing personality caused attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination. It is a situation analogous to loss of
the chief librarian to resign, Furthermore, the complaints about her objectionable trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer. Similarly, compliance
behavior were confirmed by her reproachable actuations during her meeting with SR with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be proven by the employer.
APOLINARIA, when VALLEJERA, upon being advised of the need to improve her 3. NO
working relations with others, obstreperously reacted and unceremoniously walked out Ratio We are not convinced that in the present case, petitioners have shown sufficiently
on her superior, and arrogantly refused to subsequently clear up matters or to apologize clear and convincing evidence to justify Galay’s termination. Though they are correct in
therefor. To make matters worse, she ignored the persons sent by PETITIONERS to saying that in this case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, still there must
intervene in an effort to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution. The conduct she be substantial evidence to support the termination on the ground of attitude. The mere
exhibited on that occasion smacks of sheer disrespect and defiance of authority and mention of negative feedback from her team members, and the letter, are not proof of her
assumes the proportion of serious misconduct or insubordination, any of which attitude problem. Likewise, her failure to refute petitioners’ allegations of her negative
constitutes just cause for dismissal from employment. attitude does not amount to admission. Technical rules of procedure are not binding in
- As CST is run by a religious order, it is but expected that good behavior and proper labor cases. Besides, the burden of proof is not on the employee but on the employer
department, especially among the ranks of its own employees, are major considerations who must affirmatively show adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable
in the fulfillment of its mission. Under the circumstances, the sisters cannot be faulted for cause.
deciding to terminate VALLEJERA whose presence "has become more a burden rather 4. NO
than a joy" and had proved to be disruptive of the harmonious atmosphere of the school. Ratio The letter did not constitute the required notice. It did not inform her of the specific
Disposition NLRC decision that VALLEJERA was illegally dismissed, SET ASIDE. acts complained of and their corresponding penalty. Additionally, the letter never gave
respondent Galay an opportunity to explain herself, hence denying her due process.
5. YES
Ratio Apropos the award of service incentive pay and 13th month pay, we find that they
HEAVYLIFT MANILA INC V CA (GALAY, NLRC) were properly prayed for by Galay. These were subsumed in the complaint and under
473 SCRA 541 the position paper’s general prayer of “such other relief as are just and equitable under
QUISUMBING; October 20, 2005 the law”.
Disposition Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the Resolution of the NLRC are hereby
affirmed.
NATURE
A petition for certiorari
FACTS
PROBABLE CAUSE
- Petitioner Heavylift, a maritime agency, thru a letter signed by Josephine Evangelio,
Admin. and Finance Manager of Heavylift, informed respondent Ma. Dottie Galay,
STANDARD ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CORP V
Heavylift Insurance and Provisions Assistant, of her low performance rating and the
negative feedback from her team members regarding her work attitude. The letter also STANDARD ELECTRIC EMPLOYEES UNION
notified her that she was being relieved of her other functions except the development of CALLEJO; August 25, 2005
the new Access program.
- Subsequently, Galay was terminated for alleged loss of confidence. NATURE
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 227 - Disini
Petition for review on certiorari to review the CA decision annulling the NLRC Resolution reinstatement is warranted. It would be unjust and unreasonable for the Company to
which affirmed the LA decision dismiss petitioner after the latter had proven himself innocent of the cause for which
he was dismissed.”
FACTS - The petitioner acted with precipitate haste in terminating respondent Javier’s
- Rogelio Javier, a radio machine operator, employee of Standard Electric Manufacturing employment on the ground that he had raped the complainant therein. Respondent
Corp. (SEMC) and member of the Standard Electric Employees Union (Union), failed to Javier had yet to be tried for the said charge. In fine, the petitioner prejudged him, and
report for work and failed to report the reason for his absence. This failure to report for preempted the ruling of the RTC. Petitioner had, in effect, adjudged Javier guilty without
work and failure to report the reason therefor happened several times until he was later due process of law. While it may be true that after the preliminary investigation of the
found to have been arrested and detained for the charge of rape. complaint, probable cause for rape was found and respondent Javier had to be detained,
- Javier informed SEMC (through a letter and through his counsel) that he was detained these cannot be made as legal bases for the immediate termination of his employment.
for the charge of rape which is why he failed to report for work. He requested that SEMC Disposition petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. CA decision is AFFIRMED with
defer the implementation of its intention to dismiss him. The SEMC denied his request MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to reinstate Rogelio Javier to his former position
and issued a Memorandum terminating his employment for having been absent without or, if no longer possible, a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights
leave (AWOL) for more than 15 days and for committing rape. and other privileges appurtenant thereto, with full backwages from the time it refused to
- Javier, after the RTC granted his demurrer to evidence and ordered his release from allow his reinstatement on May 24, 1996 until actually reinstated; or, if reinstatement is
jail, reported for work but the SEMC refused to accept him back. A grievance meeting no longer feasible, to pay him separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every
between the Union, Javier and the SEMC was later held, but the SEMC refused to re- year of service.
admit Javier. The Union and Javier then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
SEMC before the NLRC, alleging that since his detention for rape was non-existent, the
termination of his employment was illegal. SEMC averred that Javier’s prolonged CONVICTION – MORAL TURPITUDE
absences caused irreparable damage to its orderly operation and that it could not afford
to wait for Javier’s indefinite return from detention, if at all. IRRI V NLRC (MICOSA)
- The LA dismissed the complaint but ordered SEMC to pay Javier P71, 760 as
separation pay. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s ruling (held that Javier was given
221 SCRA 760
a chance to explain his side), and later denied a subsequent MFR. Javier and the Union NOCON; May 12, 1993
then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which reversed the findings of both the LA
and the NLRC and ordered the reinstatement of Javier to his former position. The NATURE
appellate court cited Magtoto v NLRC and City Govt of Makati v Civil Service as Petition for certiorari
precedents and declared that it was not Javier’s intention to abandon his job; his
incarceration reasonably justified his failure to report for work and negated the theory that FACTS
he was on AWOL. The CA also held that Javier could not be terminated on the ground of - International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is an international organization recognized
commission of a crime, as he was acquitted of the rape charges. Hence, despite the fact by the Philippine government and accorded privileges, rights and immunities normally
that Javier was allegedly afforded the opportunity to explain his side (the basis of the LA granted to organizations of universal character. In 1977, it hired Nestor Micosa, who
and NLRC decisions), the same was unnecessary since there was no just or authorized thereby became bound by IRRI Employment Policy and Regulations, the Miscellaneous
cause for the dismissal. The MFR by SEMC was denied by the CA, hence, this recourse. Provisions of which states:
"C. Conviction and Previous Separation.
ISSUE XXX
WON the CA erred in holding that the termination was illegal '2. An employer who has been convicted of a (sic) criminal offense involving moral
turpitude may be dismissed from the service.'"
HELD - On February 6, 1987, Micosa stabbed to death Reynaldo Ortega inside a beer house in
NO Laguna. He was accused of homicide. During the pendency of the criminal case, Micosa
- The CA was correct in holding that the termination was illegal and correctly applied the voluntarily applied for inclusion in IRRI's Special Separation Program. However, IRRI's
Magtoto case. Director General expressed deep regret that he had to disapprove Micosa's application
Ratio Separation from employment founded on a false or non-existent cause is illegal for separation because of IRRI's desire to retain the skills and talents that persons like
Reasoning him possess.
- In the Magtoto case, Alejandro JONAS Magtoto was arrested. He was charged with - Trial court found Micosa guilty of homicide, but appreciated in his favor the mitigating
violation of Arts 136 and 138 of the RPC. Although Magtoto informed his employer and circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender, and no aggravating
pleaded that he be considered “on leave” until released, his employer denied the request. circumstance. Subsequently, Micosa applied for suspension of his sentence under the
About seven months after his arrest, Magtoto was released after the City Fiscal Probation Law.
dismissed the criminal charges for lack of evidence. On the same date, he informed his - On February 8, 1990, IRRI's Director General personally wrote Micosa that his
employer of his intent to start working again but the employer rejected the offer. In ruling appointment as laborer was confirmed, making him a regular core employee whose
that his termination was illegal, the SC ruled: appointment was for an indefinite period and who "may not be terminated except for
The employer tries to distance itself from the detention by stressing that the petitioner justifiable causes as defined by the pertinent provisions of the Philippine Labor Code."
was dismissed due to prolonged absence. However, Mr. Magtoto could not report for - On March 30, 1990, IRRI’s HR head wrote Micosa urging him to resign from
work because he was in a prison cell. The detention cannot be divorced from employment in view of his conviction in the case for homicide.
prolonged absence. One caused the other. Since the causes for the detention, which - Laguna Parole and Probation Office No. II wrote IRRI informing the latter that said office
in turn gave the employer a ground to dismiss the petitioner, proved to be non- found Micosa's application for probation meritorious as he was evaluated "to possess
existent, we rule that the termination was illegal and reinstatement is warranted. desirable social antecedents in his life."
- Respondent Javier was dismissed by the petitioner for: (a) being AWOL from July 31, - Micosa informed IRRI that he had no intention of resigning from his job.
1995 up to January 30, 1996; and (b) committing rape. However, on demurrer to - IRRI’s HR head replied to Micosa's letter insisting that the crime for which he was
evidence, Javier was acquitted of the charge. With Javier’s acquittal, the cause of his convicted involves moral turpitude and informing him that he is thereby charged of
dismissal from his employment turned out to be non-existent. violating Section I-AA, Par VII, C-2 of the Institute's Personnel Manual (quoted above).
- A non-existent cause for dismissal was explained in Pepito v. Secretary of Labor (96 - Micosa explained to IRRI that the slaying of Ortega arose out of his act of defending
SCRA 454): himself from unlawful aggression; that his conviction did not involve moral turpitude and
“... A distinction, however, should be made between a dismissal without cause and a that he opted not to appeal his conviction so that he could avail of the benefits of
dismissal for a false or non-existent cause. In the former, it is the intention of the probation, which the trial court granted to him.
employer to dismiss his employee for no cause whatsoever, in which case the - Micosa sought the assistance of IRRI's Grievance Committee who recommended to the
Termination Pay Law would apply. In the latter case, the employer does not intend to Director General, his continued employment. However, IRRI issued a notice to Micosa
dismiss the employee but for a specific cause which turns out to be false or non- that the latter's employment was to terminate effective May 25, 1990.
existent. Hence, absent the reason which gave rise to his separation from - Micosa then filed a case for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter found the termination was
employment, there is no intention on the part of the employer to dismiss the employee illegal and ordered his reinstatement with full backwages from the date of his dismissal
concerned. Consequently, reinstatement is in order. And this is the situation here. up to actual reinstatement. NLRC affirmed decision.
Petitioner was separated because of his alleged involvement in the pilferage in Petitioner’s claims:
question. However, he was absolved from any responsibility therefor by the court. > Micosa's conviction of homicide, which is a crime involving moral turpitude, is a valid
The cause for his dismissal having been proved non-existent or false, his ground for his dismissal under the Miscellaneous Provisions of IRRI's Employment Policy
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 228 - Disini
Regulations. IRRI has the prerogative to issue rules and regulations including those which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are
concerning employee discipline and that its employees are bound by the aforesaid reached.
personnel manual Disposition petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
- While IRRI admits that Micosa's interests — in his employment and means of livelihood
— are adversely affected; that a convict should not be discriminated against in society
OANIA V NLRC (PHILEX MINING)
and that he should be given the same opportunities as those granted to other fellow
citizens, it claims that one's right is deemed superior than that of another. It believes that 244 SCRA 668
it has a superior right to maintain a very high degree or standard not only to forestall any ROMERO; June 1, 1995
internal problem hampering operations but also to prevent even the smallest possibility
that said problems could occur considering that it is an international organization with FACTS
concomitant obligation to the host country to avoid creating disturbance or give occasion - Alfredo Oania, a welder, and Aurelio Caluza and Santiago Biay, miners, were employed
for such disturbance. by Philex Mining Corporation (Philex) in Benguet. They were accused of mauling their
co-worker, Felipe Malong, at the gasoline area within the company compound.
ISSUE - Philex conducted investigation regarding the incident. After a formal hearing wherein
WON a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for dismissal from petitioners were duly notified and accorded the opportunity to be heard, the company
employment arrived at the decision to terminate their employment on the ground that petitioners
violated Art I, par 1 of the company rules and regulations 2
HELD - Malong instituted a criminal complaint (frustrated murder) vs. petitioners. But later,
NO, it is not one of the causes enumerated in the Labor Code. Malong desisted from pursuing the criminal case because he said his conscience
- Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes wherein an employer may bothered him.
terminate an employment. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is not one of - With Malong's affidavit of desistance, petitioners sought reconsideration of their
these justifiable causes. Article 282 (c) or (d) may not be applied by analogy. Analogous dismissal from employment. Philex refused. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal
causes must have an element similar to those found in the specific just cause dismissal before the labor arbiter.
enumerated under Article 282. - Labor Arbiter: The termination of employment of petitioners was not justified was based
- Under Article 282 (c) fraud or willful breach by the employees of the trust reposed in on findings that there was no proof that the mauling of Malong was "caused by a dispute
him by his employer or duly authorized representative refers to any fault or culpability on involving their employment" with private respondent (which, the Labor Arbiter believed,
the part of the employee in the discharge of his duty rendering him absolutely unworthy was the only dispute clearly prohibited by the company rule).
of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. The breach of trust must be - Petitioners had been illegally dismissed from employment. Philex to reinstate them to
related to the performance of the employee's function. their former positions or substantially equivalent positions and to pay each of them one
- Commission of a crime by the employee under Article 282 (d) refers to an offense year's backwages.
against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly - NLRC: Reversed. “there is prima facie evidence that the complainants injured physically
authorized representative. a co- employee under circumstance(s) which constitute an infraction of specific company
- The commission of the crime of homicide was outside the perimeter of the IRRI rules; and that the respondent had valid cause to terminate their employment."
complex, thus, the conviction of Micosa for homicide was not work-related, his misdeed
having no relation to his position as laborer and was not directed or committed against ISSUES
IRRI or its authorized agent. 1. WON the mauling comes under Art 1 of the company rules and regulations
- IRRI failed to show how the dismissal of Micosa would be in consideration of the safety 2. WON there was illegal dismissal
and welfare of its employees, its reputation and standing in the community and its special
obligations to its host country. Micosa's service record is unblemished. IRRI's Director HELD
General even expressed his confidence in him when he disapproved his application for 1. YES
special separation and decided to promote him to the status of a regular core employee, - The provision in question obviously covers situations where any company employee
with the commensurate increases in benefits. In addition, the employees at IRRI's inflicts or attempts to inflict physical harm or injury upon any person. There are two
Grievance Committee interceded favorably in behalf of Micosa when they recommended separate instances contemplated here. The first part of the sentence conceives of a
his retention despite his conviction showing that the very employees which IRRI sought situation wherein such injury was done "on the job site on company time or property,"
to protect did not believe that they were placing their very own lives in danger with regardless of the reason. What is material is the venue. The second half of the sentence
Micosa's retention. deals with a situation where an employee attempts to inflict or actually inflicts bodily
- Likewise, Micosa, although found guilty as charged, was also found worthy of probation. injury upon another "anywhere at anytime," regardless of the venue, as long as it arose
This means that there existed no undue risk that Micosa will commit another crime during in connection with a dispute "involving one's employment." The site matters not; what is
his period of probation and that his being placed on probation would be to the benefit of crucial in the subject matter, i.e. it should have something to do with the employee's job.
society as a whole. Clearly, the commas in the sentence may be dispensed with without sacrificing the intent
- Even under IRRI's Employment Policy and Regulations, the dismissal of Micosa on the behind the provision.
ground of his conviction for homicide cannot be sustained. The miscellaneous provisions 2. YES
of said personnel manual mentions of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a - Violation of a company rule prohibiting the infliction of harm or physical injury against
ground for dismissal. IRRI simply assumed that conviction of the crime of homicide is any person under the particular circumstances provided for in the same rule may be
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. deemed analogous to "serious misconduct" stated in Art. 282 (a). (H)owever, there is no
- Moral turpitude has been defined in Can v. Galing citing In Re Basa and Tak Ng v. substantial evidence definitely pointing to petitioners as the perpetrators of the mauling of
Republic as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act Malong. What is an established fact is that, after investigation, private respondent
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his dismissed them and, thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed against petitioners. It is of
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. record that Malong desisted from suing the perpetrators before the regular courts. In
As to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine. The criminal cases, an affidavit of desistance may create serious doubts as to be the liability
conclusion of IRRI that conviction of the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude is of the accused
unwarranted considering that the said crime which resulted from an act of incomplete - On the issue of the legality of the dismissal, two requisites must concur to constitute a
self-defense from an unlawful aggression by the victim has not been so classified as valid dismissal: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Art. 282 of
involving moral turpitude. the Labor Code, and (2) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which are
- The facts of the incident show that Micosa's intention was not to slay the victim but only the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
to defend his person. The appreciation in his favor of the mitigating circumstances of self-
defense and voluntary surrender, plus the total absence of any aggravating circumstance
demonstrate that Micosa's character and intentions were not inherently vile, immoral or LIM V NLRC (PEPSI-COLA FAR EAST TRADE DEV’T)
unjust. 259 SCRA 485
- Corollary issue: WON conviction of homicide involves moral turpitude DAVIDE JR; July 26, 1996
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.
Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and
intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral 2
turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding "Inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily injury on the job-site on company time or property for any reason, or
attempting to inflict or inflicting bodily injury anywhere at anytime, in any dispute involving one's employment”
circumstances. Moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 229 - Disini
NATURE - Lim obtained an unfavorable rating, but not to the extent, under the company's
Petition for certiorari standards, to warrant even a probationary measure which is given to the lowest rating of
Significantly Below Target (SB).
FACTS - In Pepsi's brochure entitled Managing Performance for the 90's, a BT rating does not
- Pepsi is a manufacturer of concentrates sold to Pepsi-Cola Bottlers Co. Inc. Petitioner merit dismissal from the service; as a matter of fact, the lower rating - Significantly Below
Sixta Lim had been employed with the Pepsi Group since January 1, 1981, working as a Target (SB) - is not even a ground for termination of employment, but may only justify
secretary for Pepsi Bottling Co. Pepsi employed Lim as a secretary on June 15, 1983. putting the employee "on probation, telling the said employee that improvement is
- At the time of her dismissal she was a staff accountant. necessary.
> She assisted and worked closely with the Plant Accountant to carry out the - If the company truly found the petitioner's "inefficiency" to be of such a gross character,
accounting department's tasks necessary to ensure an accurate, timely, and then it should have rated her even lower than SB, since the latter only requires that the
coordinated compilation of data for each accounting transaction. employee be put on probation.
> Her work involved cost accounting production, cost accounting financial reporting, - Pepsi also violated the petitioner's right to due process. Prior to the issuance of her
payroll reporting, statutory reporting and preparation of daily trade accounts termination letter, Pepsi never called Lim’s attention to any alleged "gross inefficiency" on
receivable reports, petty cash fund custodianship, and check preparation. her part. Likewise, she was never warned of possible disciplinary action due to any
- Pepsi regularly evaluated its employees' performance using following ratings: Marginal alleged "gross inefficiency." The evaluation report merely indicated her areas for
(obviously well below the acceptable level for the position), Fair Below (shows noticeable improvement.
need for improvement), Commendable (fully meeting the performance requirements of Disposition the instant petition is GRANTED. Private Respondent Pepsi-Cola Far East
the position), Superior (noticeably better than required performance) and Distinguished Trade Development Co., Inc. is ordered to reinstate petitioner Sixta C. Lim to her position
Outstanding (obviously far above an acceptable job). as Staff Accountant without loss of seniority rights, and to pay her (a) backwages from
- Lim’s overall performance appraisals rated as follows: (a) "S" (Superior) as of May 1, the time she was illegally dismissed until she was effectively reinstated, less whatever
1984; (b) "C" (Commendable) for the period for December 1, 1987 to August 31,1988; she may have received through payroll reinstatement and whatever amount she may
and (c) "U' (C minus), quantified as 81.10% for the period from September 1, 1988 to have earned from employment elsewhere during the period of her illegal dismissal, and
May 31, 1989. (b) other monetary benefits that may be due her from the date of her illegal dismissal
- In 1989, Pepsi changed its rating scale to: Significantly Above Target (SA, exceeds until such effective reinstatement.
position requirements by a wide margin; exceptional), Above Target (AT, usually exceeds
position requirements), On Target (OT, meets and sometimes exceeds position F. OTHER – JUST CAUSES CLAIMED BY EMPLOYER
requirements), Below Target (BT, meets some or many but not all position requirements)
and Significantly Below Target (SB, below position requirements by a wide margin;
unacceptable). 1. ABANDONMENT
- July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989 – Lim received an overall rating of BT.
> This was heavily influenced by her ratings in production reporting which made up
40% of her final rating. Her supervisor noted several discrepancies which could have DEFINED
been avoided had Sixta been more diligent in her work.
> In cost accounting and financial reporting (20% of the rating), Lim also was given a
NUEVA ECIJA ELECTRIC COOP (NEECO) II V NLRC
BT. Her supervisor noted that she did not seem to be aware of the importance of the
reports she issued and her work always needed to be reviewed. She also needed a 461 SCRA 169
systematic workplan. CHICO-NAZARIO; June 23, 2005
> For the remaining 60%, she was given an OT. Overall, she was given a BT.
- Lim questioned the change in the rating style as well as the ratings and appraisals
NATURE
given to her by her supervisors. She asserted her previous positive ratings and
Petition for review
expressed disbelief over the sudden decline of her ratings. Pepsi conducted another
evaluation and Lim’s overall rating was a BT. Following that evaluation, she was given a
FACTS
report which outlined the areas where she could improve.
- Petitioner NEECO II staunchly asserts that since its new GM assumed office on 01
- Lim then wrote Mr. Mihara of Pepsi Co. in Japan and Mihara replied, saying that he
March 1995, the GM never saw private respondent Eduardo Cairlan report for work
would discuss the matters with her upon arrival in the Philippines. Pepsi, however, did
prompting the former to issue a memorandum dated 22 November 1995, which required
not wait for Mihara and offered to pay Lim’s termination benefits if she resigned.
private respondent to explain in writing why he was not reporting for duty. Private
- Lim refused to do so and on May 6, 1991, she was informed that she was terminated as
respondent was likewise directed in the said memo to report to its main office at
an employee of Pepsi. On May 14, 1991, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. For failure of the private respondent to comply with
the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter decided matters in her favor, ordering Pepsi to
the said memorandum, Mr. dela Cruz directed a certain “Mr. Marcelo” to conduct an
reinstate Lim to her former position or to pay her separation pay, 13 th month and
investigation on the whereabouts of the petitioner. It was then that NEECO II uncovered
backwages.
that private respondent was at that time already working with the Provincial Government
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.
of Nueva Ecija as driver allegedly under an assumed name of “Eduardo Caimay.” For
Petitioners’ Claim
these reasons, petitioner contended that it was left with no other alternative but to
> Lim’s BT performance appraisal was sufficient ground to dismiss her under Article 282
terminate private respondent’s services.
(b) of the Labor Code.
- Petitioner’s GM terminated private respondent’s services on ground of abandonment.
Respondents’ Comments
Immediately thereafter, private respondent talked with the GM regarding this matter and
> Lim argues her alleged inefficiency was not among the just causes prescribed by law
the latter promised him that the issue would be brought to the attention of NEECO’s
for the dismissal of an employee and even assuming that such dismissal was justified,
Board of Directors for appropriate action. But nothing came out of the GM’s promise
she was still entitled to separation benefits of P268,000.00 in accordance with company
prompting private respondent to institute a Complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
policy plus damages and attorney's fees.
reinstatement and payment of backwages since the NEECO’s Board of Directors did not
act upon his termination.
ISSUE
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that private respondent was illegally
WON Lim’s alleged “gross inefficiency” was an adequate ground for her dismissal
dismissed on the following grounds: First, petitioner’s assertion that it required private
respondent to explain in writing why he was not reporting for duty as driver assigned at
HELD
Quezon Service Center merited scant consideration since a copy of the alleged
NO
memorandum dated 22 November 1995, purportedly as its Annex “A,” was nowhere to
Ratio "Gross inefficiency" is closely related to "gross neglect," for both involve specific
be found in the record of the case. Second, petitioner’s contention that private
acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to
respondent Cairlan was later discovered to be working with the Provincial Government of
his business. The Court has ruled that failure to observe prescribed standards of work,
Nueva Ecija under an assumed name of Eduardo Caimay remained unsubstantiated as
or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for
petitioner failed to adduce independent evidence that said “Eduardo Caimay” and private
dismissal.
respondent Eduardo Cairlan are one and the same person. Third, the Labor Arbiter held
Reasoning
that the private respondent was denied his right to due process since the letter of
- Pepsi had not characterized as "gross inefficiency" whatever failures, shortcomings, or
termination dated 15 January 1996 stated that said termination is retroactively effected
deficiencies may have been attributable to the petitioner.
on 1 January 1996 . Finally, according to the Labor Arbiter, petitioner failed to
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 230 - Disini
corroborate its claim that private respondent was guilty of dereliction of duty. Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
Public respondent NLRC dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed in toto the
decision of Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition. FACTS
- The respondent Oversea Paper Supply, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the
ISSUES business of selling paper products. On different dates, the respondent corporation hired
1. WON petitioner was accorded due process the petitioners for the positions machine operators, driver and helpers.
2. WON petitioner is guilty of illegally dismissing private respondent - On April 7, 1999, the respondent corporation’s sales and operations manager, James
C. Tan, required all employees to fill up and submit their bio-data not later than April 17,
HELD 1999 so that their 201 files could be updated. All the employees complied except for the
1. YES petitioners. Petitioners William Lacambra and Rodolfo Gabuay even failed to report for
Ratio The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling work starting April 19 and 21, 1999, respectively.
and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and - Thereafter, the respondent corporation required petitioners to explain why they refused
the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in to submit their updated bio-data and requiring each of them to (a) return to work, and (b)
each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or explain why they were absent. Despite the receipt of such notices, the petitioners, except
procedure, all in the interest of due process. for Reynante Lacambra, did not reoport back to work.
Reasoning - On April 21, 1999, petitioner Rodolfo Gabuay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
- The Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there is need for a formal trial payment of separation pay, accumulated vacation and sick leave, and reinstatement with
or hearing. full backwages before the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission
- Under Section 4, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the Labor Arbiter (NLRC). On April 26, 1999, petitioners William Lacambra, Reynante Lacambra, Rolando
is given the latitude to determine the necessity for a formal hearing or investigation, once Vicente and Tomacito Tabuli filed a similar complaint.
the position papers and other documentary evidence of the parties have been submitted - The petitioners alleged that they were barred from reporting for work after they refused
before him. The parties may ask for a hearing but such hearing is not a matter of right of to fill up their bio-data for the respondent corporation. They also claimed that they were
the parties. The Labor Arbiter, in the exercise of his discretion, may deny such request not paid vacation and sick leave benefits; that their 13th month pay for 1996 to 1998 was
and proceed to decide the case on the basis of the position papers and other documents underpaid; and, that the respondents violated their right to security of tenure and
brought before him without resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in regular payment of separation pay.
courts of justice.
- In the present case, a scrupulous study of the records reveals that the Labor Arbiter did ISSUE
not abuse his discretion conferred upon him by the Rules in not conducting a formal WON the petitioners were legally dismissed by reason of abandonment of work
hearing. On this, the findings of the Court of Appeals, consistent with that of the NLRC
and the Labor Arbiter, ought to be sustained. HELD
2. YES - As correctly ruled by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, the petitioners were not
Ratio Abandonment3 is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume illegally dismissed. Even after the petitioners received notices from the respondent
his employment; it is a form of neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of corporation requiring them to report for work and to explain their unauthorized absences
employment by the employer under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which enumerates the and failure to submit their updated bio-data, they still failed to report for work. It can then
just causes for termination by the employer: i.e., (a) serious misconduct or willful be inferred that the petitioners had abandoned their work. Indeed, the factors considered
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latter’s for finding a valid abandonment are present in the case at bar: the petitioners’ failure to
representative in connection with the employee’s work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by report for work or absence was without valid or justifiable cause, and their refusal to
the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust report for work notwithstanding their receipt of letters requiring them to return to work,
reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d) commission of show their clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate - Consistent with the finding that the petitioners abandoned their work, the award of
member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other analogous financial assistance in the form of separation pay should be deleted. Separation pay is
causes. defined as the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance and is
Reasoning designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is
- Private respondent’s alleged abandonment of work through his employment with the looking for another employment. Under the Labor Code, the award of separation pay is
Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija was not clearly established and proven. The sanctioned when termination was due to an authorized cause, i.e., (a) installation of labor
evidence submitted by petitioner to buttress its allegation that private respondent saving device, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, closure or cessation of
abandoned his work consists merely of indexes of payments to employees under the business operations not due to serious business losses or financial reverses; and, (b)
name Eduardo Caimay without any further evidence showing that Eduardo Caimay and disease prejudicial to the health of the employee and his fellow employees.
private respondent Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same person. The best evidence - Separation pay is, likewise, awarded in lieu of reinstatement if it can be shown that the
that could have established the allegation that Eduardo Caimay and private respondent reinstatement of the employee is no longer feasible, as when the relationship between
Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same person is Eduardo Caimay’s Personal Data Sheet employer and employee has become strained. In some cases, it is awarded as a
which definitely would have the pertinent personal information about him and a picture measure of social justice. In the present case, the petitioners were not dismissed, either
that would identify him and not a testimony of a representative from the Provincial legally or illegally; the petitioners abandoned their jobs. They failed to return to work
Government of Nueva Ecija, as adverted to by petitioner to justify its motion for a trial despite the respondents’ directive requiring them to do so. There is, thus, no room for
type hearing. the award of financial assistance in the form of separation pay. To sustain the claim for
- Worse, private respondent received his notice of termination only on 15 January 1996 separation pay under the circumstances herein established would be to reward the
which termination is effective as early as 01 January 1996, all in gross violation of the petitioners for abandoning their work.
requirements provided for by law. Disposition Petition denied
- Further negating petitioner’s contention of abandonment, as noted by the Labor Arbiter,
is private respondent’s letter dated 04 March 1996 addressed to Mr. Danilo dela Cruz
reiterating the former’s plea for reconsideration of his dismissal. This letter depicts private
REQUISITES
respondent’s fervor and yearning to continue working with petitioner – the very antithesis
of abandonment LEONARDO V NLRC (REYNALDO'S MKTG CORP)
Disposition AFFIRMED. 333 SCRA 589
DE LEON JR; June 16, 2000
GABUAY V OVERSEA PAPER SUPPLY INC
436 SCRA 514 NATURE
CALLEJO; August 13, 2004 Petitions for certiorari seeking the annulment of a Decision of the public respondent,
NLRC.
NATURE
FACTS
3 - Petitioner AURELIO FUERTE was originally employed by private respondent
The elements of abandonment are: (a) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) REYNALDO'S MARKETING CORPORATION on August 11, 1981 as a muffler specialist,
a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative
factor manifested by some overt acts (Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 278 SCRA 716 [1997]). receiving P45.00 per day. He was appointed as supervisor in 1988and his compensation
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 231 - Disini
was increased.
- DANILO LEONARDO was hired by private respondent on March 4, 1988 as an auto-
R.P. DINGLASAN CONSTRUCTION INC V ATIENZA
aircon mechanic.
- FUERTE alleges that on January 3, 1992, he was instructed to report at private 433 SCRA 263
respondent's main office where he was informed by the company's personnel manager PUNO; June 29 2004
that he would be transferred to its Sucat plant due to his failure to meet his sales quota,
and for that reason, his supervisor's allowance would be withdrawn. NATURE
- For a short time, FUERTE reported for work at the Sucat plant; however, he protested Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
his transfer, subsequently filing a complaint for illegal termination.
- LEONARDO abandoned his post following an investigation wherein he was asked to FACTS
explain an incident of alleged "sideline" work which occurred on April 22, 1991. It would - This is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated
appear that late in the evening of the day in question, the driver of a red Corolla arrived January 17, 2001 and October 30, 2002, respectively, upholding the finding of
at the shop looking for LEONARDO. The driver said that, as prearranged, he was to pick constructive dismissal against petitioner.
up LEONARDO who would perform a private service on the vehicle. When reports of the - Petitioner R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. provided janitorial services to Pilipinas
"sideline" work reached management, it confronted LEONARDO and asked for an Shell Refinery Corporation (Shell Corporation) in Batangas City. Private respondents
explanation. According to private respondent, LEONARDO gave contradictory excuses, Mariano Atienza and Santiago Asi served as petitioner’s janitors assigned with Shell
eventually claiming that the unauthorized service was for an aunt. Corporation since 1962 and 1973, respectively. Private respondents claim that on July 7,
- When pressed to present his aunt, it was then that LEONARDO stopped reporting for 1994, petitioner called for a meeting and informed private respondents and three (3)
work. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal some ten months after his termination. other employees that their employment with Shell Corporation would be terminated
effective July 15, 1994. They were told that petitioner lost the bidding for janitorial
ISSUES services with Shell. Petitioner notified respondents that they may reapply as helpers and
1. WON the demotion of Fuerte by the private respondent is proper redeployed in other companies where petitioner had subsisting contracts but they would
2. WON Fuerte's action constitutes abandonment receive only a minimum wage. Private respondents refused as the offer would be a form
3. WON the dismissal of Leornado is justified of demotion --- they would lose their seniority status and would not be guaranteed to
work at regular hours.
HELD - In December 1994, private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for non-
1. YES payment of salary with the district office of the Department of Labor and Employment
- Private respondent's justification is well-illustrated in the record. Complainant Fuerte's (DOLE) in Batangas City. In February 1995, during the conciliation proceedings with the
failure to meet his sales quota which caused his demotion and the subsequent DOLE, petitioner sent notices to respondents informing them that they would be
withdrawal of his allowance is fully supported by Exhibit "4" of respondents' position reinstated with Shell Corporation as soon as they submit their barangay clearance,
paper showing that his performance for the months of July 1991 to November 1991 is medical certificate, picture and information sheet as per the new identification badge
below par. requirements of Shell Corporation. Thereafter, petitioner again met with private
Reasoning respondents, who were then accompanied by the barangay captain and a councilor, and
- FUERTE nonetheless decries his transfer as being violative of his security of tenure, the latter confirmed to the former their willingness to be reinstated. Private respondents
the clear implication being that he was constructively dismissed. We have held that an duly submitted the documents required for their reinstatement.
employer acts well within its rights in transferring an employee as it sees fit provided that - In May 1995, respondents demanded the payment of their backwages starting from July
there is no demotion in rank or diminution in pay. 11 The two circumstances are deemed 15, 1994. On June 1, 1995, petitioner notified private respondents that they have been
badges of bad faith, and thus constitutive of constructive dismissal. In this regard, declared absent without leave (AWOL) as they allegedly failed to signify their intention to
constructive dismissal is defined in the following manner: return to work and submit the badge requirements for their reinstatement. On June 13,
an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes 1995, private respondents wrote petitioner and insisted that they had complied with the
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution badge requirements. Accompanied by the barangay officials, private respondents
in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer attempted to meet with the officers of petitioner but the latter refused to dialogue with
becomes unbearable to the employee. 12 them. As proof of their compliance with the Shell requirements, private respondents
- However, this arrangement appears to us to be an allowable exercise of company submitted to the DOLE their x-ray results, dated May 17 and 19, 1995 and their barangay
rights. An employer is entitled to impose productivity standards for its workers, and in certification, dated May 13, 1995. The case was eventually referred to the National Labor
fact, non-compliance may be visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. Private respondents amended
Thus, the practice of a company in laying off workers because they failed to make the their complaint charging petitioner with illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13 th month
work quota has been recognized in this jurisdiction. pay, with a claim for payment of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, and a prayer for
- In the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of reinstatement with payment of full backwages from July 15, 1994.
them constitute a just cause of their dismissal, regardless of the permanent or - Petitioner gave a different version of the incident. It allegedly informed respondents
probationary status of their employment. Failure to observe prescribed standards of and the other affected employees that they would be deployed to petitioner’s other
work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just principal companies but that their work would be different. Except for private
cause for dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals respondents, all the affected employees accepted its offer of redeployment and reported
or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable back to work. Respondents failed to submit a resignation letter to signify their intention
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. This management prerogative of requiring not to return to work. Thereafter, during the pendency of the labor case, petitioner in two
standards may be availed of so long as they are exercised in good faith for the (2) separate notices, informed private respondents that they could be reinstated at Shell
advancement of the employer's interest. Corporation with no diminution in their salary provided that they submit the documents for
2. NO the new identification badge requirement of Shell Corporation. Private respondents,
- his actions do not constitute abandonment. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, however, refused to return to work until they were paid their backwages. Consequently,
as in this case, is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment. petitioner was constrained to consider them as having abandoned their work and to
Ratio To constitute abandonment there must be (1) failure to report for work or absence terminate their employment on September 19, 1995. Petitioner, thus, justified the
without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt dismissal of private respondents on the grounds of gross and habitual neglect of duties
acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship. and abandonment of work. On September 3, 1998, labor arbiter Andres Zavalla rendered
3. YES a decision finding that private respondents were illegally dismissed from service and
- He was not terminated by the company but Leonardo abandoned his position in light of ordering their reinstatement.
the pending investigation against him. Abandonment is a valid ground for dismissal. - On appeal, the decision of the labor arbiter was affirmed by the NLRC. Without moving
- He protests that he was never accorded due process. This begs the question, for he for reconsideration, petitioner immediately filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
was never terminated; he only became the subject of an investigation in which he was Appeals but petitioner suffered the same fate. On the procedural aspect, the Court of
apparently loath to participate. As testified to by Merlin P. Orallo, the personnel manager, Appeals ruled that the petition could not prosper as petitioner failed to move for a
he was given a memorandum asking him to explain the incident in question, but he reconsideration of the NLRC decision. On the substantive issues, the appellate court
refused to receive it. In an analogous instance, we held that an employee's refusal to upheld the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that: (1) private respondents were
sign the minutes of an investigation cannot negate the fact that he was accorded due constructively dismissed as petitioner’s offer of reassignment involved a diminution in pay
process. and demotion in rank that made their continued employment unacceptable; and, (2)
Disposition Petition dismissed. private respondents could not be considered to have abandoned their work.
- As petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed this appeal
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 232 - Disini
at the time of their dismissal, were receiving a measly P4,000.00 monthly salary. It is
ISSUES time to put a period to private respondents’ travail. If there is anything that frustrates the
1. WON the respondents’ dismissal is justified search for justice by the poor, it is the endless search for it.
2. WON the Court of Appeals, contrary to existing law, erred in dismissing the petition for
certiorari and affirming the decision of the NLRC insofar as the monetary award is
CHAVEZ V NLRC
concerned
[PAGE 59]
HELD
1. Ratio In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove FLOREN HOTEL V NLRC (CALIMLIM, RICO, ET AL)
that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause. In the case at bar, petitioner failed
458 SCRA 128
to discharge its burden. It failed to establish that private respondents deliberately and
unjustifiably refused to resume their employment without any intention of returning to QUISUMBING; May 6, 2005
work.
- To constitute abandonment of work, two (2) requisites must concur: first, the employee FACTS
must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason; - At the time of their termination, private respondents Roderick A. Calimlim, Ronald T.
and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever Rico and Jun A. Abalos were working in the hotel as room boys, private respondent Lito
the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts. Abandonment as a just F. Bautista as front desk man, and private respondent Gloria B. Lopez as waitress. They
ground for dismissal requires deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume all started working for the hotel in 1993, except for Jun A. Abalos who started only in
his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not 1995.
enough to amount to abandonment. - In the afternoon of June 6, 1998, petitioner Dely Lim randomly inspected the hotel
Reasoning rooms to check if they had been properly cleaned. When she entered Room 301, she
- In the case at bar, the evidence of private respondents negates petitioner’s theory that found private respondent Lito F. Bautista sleeping half-naked with the air-conditioning
they abandoned their work. Firstly, private respondents reported back to petitioner’s on. Lim immediately called the attention of the hotel’s acting supervisor, Diosdado
office a number of times expressing their desire to continue working for petitioner without Aquino, who had supervision over Bautista. Lim admonished Aquino for not supervising
demotion in rank or diminution of salary. This fact was established by the corroborating Bautista more closely, considering that it was Bautista’s third offense of the same nature.
testimony of barangay councilman Valentin Clerigo who, together with the barangay When she entered Room 303, she saw private respondents Calimlim and Rico drinking
captain, accompanied private respondents to petitioner’s office at least ten (10) times to beer, with four bottles in front of them. They had taken these bottles of beer from the
negotiate their redeployment on more acceptable terms. Secondly, in seeking hotel’s coffee shop. Like Bautista, they had switched on the air conditioning in Room
reinstatement, private respondents also sought the intervention of the DOLE to arbitrate 303.
the labor issue between the parties. Thirdly, private respondents submitted the barangay - That same afternoon, Dely Lim prepared a memorandum for Bautista, citing the latter
clearances and x-ray results required from them by petitioner for their reinstatement as for the following incidents: (1) sleeping in the hotel rooms; (2) entertaining a brother-in-
witnessed by the barangay officials. Lastly, the records would bear that private law for extended hours during duty hours; (3) use of hotel funds for payment of SSS loan
respondents lost no time and sought their reinstatement by filing an illegal dismissal case without management consent; (4) unauthorized use of hotel’s air-con; and (5) failure to
against petitioner, which act is clearly inconsistent with a desire to sever employer- pay cash advance in the amount of P4,000.
employee relations and abandon their work. All these overt acts on the part of private - Dely Lim tried to give Bautista a copy of the memorandum but Bautista refused to
respondents negate petitioner’s claim of abandonment of work and prove beyond doubt receive it. Bautista then went on absence without leave. Calimlim and Rico,
their steadfast desire to continue their employment with petitioner and be reinstated to embarrassed by the incident, went home. When they returned to work the next day, they
their former position. Moreover, petitioner failed to explain why it waited for 14 months were served with a notice of suspension for one week.
from the time private respondents allegedly did not return to work before it dismissed - Like Bautista, they refused to receive the notice of suspension, but opted to serve the
them for being AWOL. penalty. Upon their return on June 15, 1998, they saw a memorandum dated June 13,
- We hold that private respondents were constructively dismissed by petitioner. 1998 on the bulletin board announcing (a) the suspension as room boys of Calimlim and
Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting when continued employment is rendered Rico, or alternately, (b) returning to work on probation as janitors for the following
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a demotion in reasons: unsatisfactory work, having a drinking spree inside the hotel’s rooms, cheating
rank and diminution of pay. In the case at bar, petitioner committed constructive on the Daily Time Record, being absent without valid reason, leaving work during duty
dismissal when it offered to reassign private respondents to another company but with no time, tardiness, and sleeping on the job. The memorandum also included Calimlim and
guaranteed working hours and payment of only the minimum wage. The terms of the Rico’s new work schedule.
redeployment thus became unacceptable for private respondents and foreclosed any - Calimlim and Rico submitted handwritten apologies and pleaded for another chance,
choice but to reject petitioner’s offer, involving as it does a demotion in status and before they went AWOL
diminution in pay. Thereafter, for six (6) months, private respondents were in a floating - On June 25, 1998, Calimlim, Rico and Bautista filed separate complaints, for illegal
status. Interestingly, it was only after private respondents filed a complaint with the dismissal and money claims, before the Labor Arbiter. Abalos and Lopez later also filed
DOLE that petitioner backtracked in its position and offered to reinstate private separate complaints for underpayment of wages, non-payment of their 13 th month pay,
respondents to their former job in Shell Corporation with no diminution in salary. and service incentive leave pay. On July 7, 1998, after they stopped working, Abalos
Eventually, however, petitioner unilaterally withdrew its offer of reinstatement, refused to and Lopez amended their complaints. They claimed that petitioners orally dismissed
meet with the private respondents and instead decided to dismiss them from service. them when they refused to withdraw their complaints.
2. On the second issue, petitioner cannot impugn for the first time the computation of the - Petitioners alleged that they did not dismiss private respondents but that private
monetary award granted by the labor arbiter to private respondents. respondents had abandoned their jobs.
Doctrine The settled rule is that issues not raised or ventilated in the court a quo cannot - Private respondents filed a manifestation and motion dated November 24, 1998,
be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of praying that petitioners be ordered to reinstate them to their former positions since after
fair play and justice. The computation of monetary award granted to private respondents all, according to petitioners, they were not dismissed.
is a factual issue that should have been posed at the arbitration level when the award - Petitioners opposed the motion and argued that private respondents cannot be
was first granted by the labor arbiter who received and evaluated the evidence of both reinstated since they were not illegally dismissed but they had abandoned their jobs and
parties, or, at the latest, raised by petitioner in its appeal with the NLRC. management simply considered them dismissed for abandonment.
- Petitioner omitted to do any of these. All throughout the proceedings below, from the - On March 19, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints but ordered petitioners
labor arbiter to the NLRC, and even in its petition before the Court of Appeals, petitioner to pay private respondents their proportionate 13 th month pay, and service incentive leave
repeatedly pounded only on the sole issue of the validity of its dismissal of private pay. He likewise ordered petitioners to pay Calimlim and Rico indemnity.
respondents. Thus, at this late stage of the proceedings, it cannot ask the Court to - The Labor Arbiter found that Calimlim, Rico, and Bautista did not report for work and
review the bases and verify the correctness of the labor arbiter’s computation of the they did not show any order of dismissal, thus constructively, they abandoned their work
monetary award which it never assailed below. A first-hand evaluation of the evidence of and were not illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that Calimlim and Rico’s
the parties upon which the monetary award is based belongs to the labor arbiter. This demotion and reassignment were valid exercises of management prerogatives. The
Court is not a trier of facts and factual issues are improper in a petition for review on reassignment was intended to enable management to supervise them more closely and,
certiorari. Likewise, the Court notes that in seeking reinstatement and payment of their in any event, did not involve a diminution of wages. The Labor Arbiter, however, held
monetary claims, private respondents have traversed a long and difficult path. This case petitioners liable for indemnity to Calimlim and Rico for not observing the twin notices
has passed the DOLE, the labor arbiter, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals and now this rule.
Court, with the finding of illegal dismissal having been consistently affirmed in each - Private respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
stage. Private respondents had been rendering janitorial services as early as 1962 and,
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 233 - Disini
- On March 22, 2000, the NLRC rendered its decision. It reversed the decision of the Article 279. The award of indemnity is a penalty awarded only when the dismissal was
Labor Arbiter and ordered the hotel management to immediately reinstate complainants- for just or authorized cause but where the twin-notice requirement was not observed.
appellants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, with full backwages 4. NO
and other benefits until they are actually reinstated. In the event that reinstatement was - Petitioners did not question the propriety of the award of proportionate 13 th month pay
no longer possible, the respondent-appellees should pay herein private respondents their and service incentive leave in the Court of Appeals. They assailed the NLRC decision on
separation pay in addition to the payment of their full backwages; their incentive leave only one ground: “Respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing
pay and their 13th month pay, together with P1,000 to each of them as indemnity. the Labor Arbiter’s decision insofar as it relates to the issues of illegal dismissal.” Hence,
- Later, the NLRC also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The petitioners the correctness of the cited award in the NLRC ruling was never brought before the
appealed to the Court of Appeals. appellate court and is deemed to have been admitted by petitioners. It cannot therefore
- On September 10, 2002, the Court of Appeals decided the petition as follows: (1) The be raised anymore in this petition. The decision of the NLRC as regards the award of 13 th
Court declares that the private respondents Roderick A. Calimlim and Jose Abalos month pay and service incentive leave pay became binding on petitioners because the
[should be Ronald T. Rico] were illegally dismissed by petitioner Floren Hotel/Ligaya Chu failure to question it before the Court of Appeals amounts to an acceptance of the ruling.
who is ORDERED to reinstate them to their former positions without loss of [seniority] In any event, the award appears to us amply supported by evidence and in accord with
rights, with full backwages and other benefits until they are actually reinstated; but if law.
reinstatement is no longer possible, Floren Hotel/Ligaya Chu shall pay their separation Disposition Assailed decision MODIFIED
pay in addition to their backwages. (2) Declaring private respondents Lito Bautista, Jun
Abalos and Gloria Lopez to have abandoned their employment, and, therefore, not
entitled to either backwages nor separation pay; and (3) ORDERING Floren Hotel/Ligaya
INFERENCE
Chu to pay all the private respondents their 13 th month pay and incentive leave pay as
computed in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter HDA. DAPDAP V NLRC (BARRIENTOS JR)
285 SCRA 9
ISSUES
1. WON the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari filed BELLOSILLO; January 26, 1998
before the appellate court
2. WON the private respondents were illegally dismissed FACTS
3 WON the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioners to pay Calimlim and Rico - Nine workers of Hda. Dapdap I, a sugar farm in Victorias, Negros Occidental, filed a
indemnity of P1,500 complaint for illegal dismissal against its owner Magdalena Fermin alleging that they had
4 WON the appellate court erred in ordering petitioners to pay all of private respondents been working in the farm since 1977 but were unjustly terminated, without notice and
their proportionate 13th month pay and incentive leave pay without any valid ground, on 27 January 1992.
- The only reason for their dismissal was their refusal to return the 6-hectare lot given to
HELD them for cultivation under an "Amicable Settlement” in connection with an illegal
1. NO dismissal case previously filed against the management of Hda. Dapdap I by its workers.
- Acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is - In addition, complainants charged Magdalena Fermin with unfair labor practice for trying
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to bust the National Federation of Sugar Workers Food and General Trades (NFSW-
in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the same rules does not specify the precise FGT) Union which forged the 1986 "Amicable Settlement."
documents, pleadings or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition - Eight of the original complainants withdrew from the complaint and returned to work on
other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state the ground that their misunderstanding with management was already settled.
that such documents, pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed - Pedro Barrientos Jr. was left as the sole complainant who amended the complaint by
resolution, judgment or orders. impleading Lumbia Agricultural and Development Corporation (LADCOR), the real
2. YES owner of Hda. Dapdap I, as co-respondent with its President Magdalena Fermin.
- Petitioners claimed that all five private respondents were guilty of abandoning their - LADCOR denied that complainant was terminated and alleged that complainant
jobs. Thus, it was incumbent upon petitioners to show that the two requirements for a voluntarily abandoned his work to transfer to the adjacent farm of a certain Mr. Ramos.
valid dismissal on the ground of abandonment existed in this case. Specifically, - In addition, LADCOR alleged that it had a personality separate and distinct from its
petitioners needed to present, for each private respondent, evidence not only of the president, Magdalena Fermin, hence the latter could not be held personally liable for the
failure to report for work or that absence was without valid or justifiable reasons, but also alleged illegal dismissal.
of some overt act showing the private respondent’s loss of interest to continue working in - The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of complainant.] While LADCOR was absolved from the
his or her job. charge of unfair labor practice it was held liable for illegal dismissal on the ground that its
- It was true that private respondents abandoned their jobs, then petitioners should have claim of voluntary abandonment by complainant of his work was not credible in view of
served them with a notice of termination on the ground of abandonment as required the immediate institution of the case for illegal dismissal.
under Sec. 2, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulation Implementing the Labor Code, in - LADCOR appealed to the NLRC.
effect at that time. Said Section 2 provided that: - The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in toto. The defense that complainant
Notice of Dismissal. Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall furnish him a voluntarily abandoned his work was similarly rejected on the additional grounds that no
written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his notice of dismissal was sent by LADCOR to complainant as required by Sec. 2, Rule 14,
dismissal. In cases of abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker’s Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code and no concurrence of the intention
last known address. to abandon on the part of complainant and overt acts from which it could be inferred that
- But petitioners failed to comply with the foregoing requirement, thereby bolstering he was no longer interested in working for LADCOR.
further private respondents’ claim that they did not abandon their work but were illegally
dismissed. ISSUE
- None of the private respondents in this case had any intention to sever their working WON petitioner was illegally dismissed
relationship. Just days after they were dismissed, private respondents Calimlim, Rico,
Bautista, Abalos and Lopez filed complaints to protest their dismissals. The well- HELD
established rule is that an employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said YES
to have abandoned his work. That private respondents all desired to work in the hotel is - The Court is not a trier of facts. Whether respondent voluntarily abandoned his work
further shown by the fact that during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, shortly issue of credibility best left to the determination of the Labor Arbiter. Great respect and
after private respondents received petitioners’ position paper where the latter averred even finality is accorded the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in
that private respondents were never terminated, private respondents filed a manifestation accordance with the well-settled rule that findings of fact of labor arbiters affirmed by the
and motion asking that petitioners be ordered to allow them back to work. This is nothing NLRC are binding on the Supreme Court.
if not an unequivocal expression of eagerness to resume working. - Judicial review in such cases is limited only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
3. YES (should have reinstated) discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
- Article 279 of the Labor Code gives to Calimlim and Rico the right to reinstatement - No such grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC as it correctly applied
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges or separation pay in case the consistent ruling in labor cases that a charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent
reinstatement is no longer possible, and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.
and other benefits. It was thus error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the NLRC decision - It is indeed inconceivable that an employee like herein respondent who has been
to award Calimlim and Rico indemnity in addition to the measure of damages provided in working at Hda. Dapdap I since 1977 and cultivating a substantial portion of a 6-hectare
lot therein for himself would just abandon his work in 1992 for no apparent reason.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 234 - Disini
- Nor could intent to abandon be presumed from private respondent's subsequent - April 7, 1986: the bank officials received a letter from Labanda through her counsel
employment with another employer as petitioner alleges. The fact that the start of such demanding payment of actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for their alleged
employment, i.e., after 1 March 1992 as petitioner alleges, coincides with the date of the arbitrary, illegal and oppressive acts. Petitioners did not heed the demand.
original complaint strongly indicates that such employment was only meant to help - May 23, 1986: Labanda filed a complaint for damages before the court. Petitioners’
respondent and his family survive during the pendency of his case. motion to dismiss, and subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied. The
- It has been said that abandonment of position cannot be lightly inferred, much less petition for certiorari was also dismissed by CA, without prejudice to the refiling of the
legally presumed from certain equivocal acts such as an interim employment. complaint with the labor arbiter. The decision became final and executory on July 30,
Disposition Petition was dismissed. 1987.
- Eight months from the finality of the CA decision and two years from the alleged
termination of her employment, Labanda filed an illegal dismissal case before the Labor
SPECIFIC ACTS Arbiter on the ground that her dismissal was without lawful cause and without due
process. After trial, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the labor case, ruling that Labanda was
not illegally dismissed, and that she abandoned her job when she filed a complaint for
PREMIERE DEVT BANK V NLRC (LABANDA)
compensatory damages with the regular court.
293 SCRA 49 - NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter ruling that Labanda’s indefinite
MARTINEZ; July 23, 1988 preventive suspension amounted to constructive dismissal. It ordered PDB to
immediately reinstate Labanda to her former position with backwages and other benefits
NATURE for a period not exceeding three (3) years without qualifications and deductions
Petition for certiorari computed on the amount of P87,750.00. It denied the subsequent MFR.
FACTS ISSUES
- August 8, 1985: Ramon T. Ocampo, a depositor of Premiere Devt Bank (PDB), issued a 1. WON there was legal cause in placing Labanda under preventive suspension
check in the amount of P6,792.66 in favor of and for deposit to the account of Country 2. WON the filing of an action for damages against one's employer is tantamount to
Banker's Insurance Corporation (CBISCO), also a depositor of PDB. On the same day, abandonment of job
after the check and the deposit slip were presented to respondent Teodora Labanda, 3. WON PDB violated due process requirements in dismissing Labanda
who was employed as teller at PDB Taytay Branch, they were turned over to the Branch 4. WON Labanda’s action is barred by laches
cashier for verification of the fund balance and signature of the drawer. There was a
confirmation of the check and the same was accepted by Labanda for deposit to the HELD
current account of CBISCO. 1. NO
- The check was posted by Manuel S. Torio, the Taytay Branch bookkeeper. But instead - Labanda's preventive suspension is without valid cause since she was outrightly
of posting it to CBISCO's account, the same was posted to the account of Ocampo suspended by petitioner. As of the date of her preventive suspension on March 13, 1986
treating it as "On-Us Check," that is, drawn against the Taytay Branch where the check until the date when the last investigation was rescheduled on April 23, 1986, more than
was deposited. 30 days had expired. The preventive suspension beyond the maximum period amounted
- January 13, 1986: the wife of Ocampo, together with the auditor from CBISCO, went to to constructive dismissal.
PDB and complained to PDB Chairman Dr. Procopio C. Reyes that her husband was - The question of whether or not an employee has abandoned his/her work is a factual
being held accountable for the amount. It was only then that PDB discovered the issue, not reviewable by this Court.
misposting of the check issued by Ocampo, resulting in the overstatement of his 2. NO
outstanding daily balance by P6,792.66. The overstatement remained undetected until - Labanda did not abandon her job. To constitute abandonment, two elements must
Ocampo withdrew the money from PDB. concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason,
- Due to this incident, PDB Asst VPres Pacita M. Araos sent a demand letter to Labanda and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second
requesting her to explain in writing the misposting and erroneous crediting of the subject element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
check in issue as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident within three (3) Abandoning one's job means the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to
days from receipt thereof, and in case she fails to do so, necessary action shall be taken resume his employment and the burden of proof is on the employer to show a clear and
against her. deliberate intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment.
- PDB Exec VPres Renato G. Dionisio, upon instructions of Reyes, sent the internal - The law, however, does not enumerate what specific overt acts can be considered as
auditors of the bank to investigate and make a detailed report about the incident. strong evidence of the intention to sever the employee-employer relationship. An
- January 22, 1986: the auditors came out with a report finding Labanda and bookkeeper employee who merely took steps to protest her indefinite suspension and to
Torio primarily liable for the incident. These findings prompted Dionisio to send a letter to subsequently file an action for damages, cannot be said to have abandoned her work nor
Labanda requiring her to shoulder 20% of the amount lost via salary deduction. Labanda is it indicative of an intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Her failure to
replied, objecting to such move, reasoning out that she is the breadwinner in the family. report for work was due to her indefinite suspension. Petitioner's allegation of
She further asked the bank to furnish her a copy of the audit report and requested for a abandonment is further belied by the fact that Labanda filed a complaint for illegal
full-dress investigation. For this reason, petitioners held in abeyance the salary dismissal. Abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of said complaint.
deductions. 3. YES
- March 13, 1986: Labanda was placed under preventive suspension pending - The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
investigation of the incident. She was requested to report on April 4, 1986 so that she process which are set out in Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
can present her side of the story. Labanda then wrote a letter to Reyes requesting Labor Code.
information on the duration of her suspension and at the same time asking for an - Granting arguendo that there was abandonment in this case, it nonetheless cannot be
expeditious investigation. In response thereto, she was informed that the period of her denied that notice still has to be served upon the employee sought to be dismissed, as
suspension shall last until the investigation is completed and a decision is made thereon. the second sentence of Section 2 of the pertinent implementing rules explicitly requires
- On the date of said inquiry, Labanda executed a statement. However, she manifested service thereof at the employee's last known address. While it is conceded that it is the
before Atty. Revelo during the inquiry that she will not sign any of the preliminary employer's prerogative to terminate the services of an employee, especially when there
statements she made unless the same is with the consent and advice of her husband. is a just cause therefor, the requirements of due process cannot be taken lightly. The
She also told the inquiring officer that she could not inform petitioners of the dates when law does not countenance the arbitrary exercise of such a power or prerogative when it
she would be available for investigation. has the effect of undermining the fundamental guarantee of security of tenure in favor of
- April 8, 1986: another letter was sent to Labanda by Reyes informing the former that the employee.
her refusal to sign or authenticate preliminary statements given on April 4, 1986 was a 4. NO
clear indication of her unwillingness to cooperate or an effort to hide something or - Laches is the failure for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
suppress the truth. which in exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is
- The dates of the hearing were rescheduled by petitioners several times. The first negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the
rescheduled hearing was on April 14, 1986 where Labanda sent her lawyer bringing with presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or has declined to
him a letter asking that she be given time to confer with her counsel for which she was assert it. A party cannot be held guilty of laches when he has not incurred undue delay in
given until April 23. Notices were sent to inform her of the rescheduled dates with the assertion of his rights.
warning that failure to attend the same shall be taken as a tacit admission of her liability - Under the law, an illegal dismissal case is an action predicated on the injury to the
and the case shall be resolved based on the evidence available. In the meantime, rights of the dismissed employee which prescribes in four (4) years. On April 4, 1988 or
Bookkeeper Torio admitted liability and was allowed to resign. eight months from the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision and two years from the
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 235 - Disini
alleged termination of employment by respondent Labanda, she filed her complaint with
the Labor Arbiter which is within the four-year reglementary period. She did not sleep on
AQUINO [dissent]
her rights for an unreasonable length of time.
- Nicolas A. Zarate, the chief of the public information assistance division, apprised the
- SolGen: Labanda never intended to abandon her job. First, after her indefinite
Makati Medical Center of Evelyn's conduct. Zarate alleged that Evelyn "has the habit of
suspension, she requested that the "full-dressed" investigation be done at the quickest
borrowing money from OPD patients of that hospital." Evelyn allegedly borrowed P100
time possible, and appealed to petitioner Reyes to consider that she was the
from Leticia Lavapiez after she delivered a baby. She attempted to borrow money from
breadwinner in the family. Second, she actively fought for her right to security of tenure
Teofila Luzon and tried to ask for lunch from another patient, Mrs. Fabian. A copy of the
by filing first with the RTC an action for damages, and later with the Labor Arbiter a
denunciation was furnished Mayor Nemesio Yabut.
complaint for illegal dismissal. Moreover, Labanda's inability to report for work was not
- To have more time for investigating the charge, Evelyn's probationary appointment was
voluntary but was rather the result of her indefinite suspension, which in reality was a
extended by one month or up to February 15, 1976. After due investigation, Consolacion
constructive dismissal. Petitioners never took the initiative to notify Labanda to report
Briones, the supervisor of the Outpatient Charity Department, submitted a report
back to work or charge the latter with abandonment of work. These show that Labanda
exonerating Evelyn. The Barangay Secretariat of Makati also recommended Evelyn's
did not abandon her job but was illegally dismissed from employment without due
exoneration.
process of law.
- Eloña should not be reinstated or placed under permanent status because, as correctly
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. The challenged NLRC Resolution is AFFIRMED.
observed by Commissioner Villatuya of NLRC, she was dismissed when she was still a
probationary employee. It is true that the probationary status does not exceed six months
1. LOANS but under the peculiar circumstances of this case Evelyn's probationary or temporary
status was extended for one month due to the investigation. This may well be considered
an exceptional case. Evelyn is not the kind of employee who can invoke security of
BORROWING MONEY tenure.
MEDICAL DOCTORS INC V NLRC (MAGLAYA, ELOÑA) PEARL S. BUCK FOUNDATION V NLRC
136 SCRA 1 182 SCRA 446
MAKASIAR; April 24, 1985 GUTIERREZ; February 21, 1990
NATURE NATURE
An appeal of the decision of the NLRC. Appeal from the decision of the NLRC as well as the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration
FACTS
- Evelyn Eloña (complainant) was given a probationary appointment as Clerk by the FACTS
Makati Medical Center from July 16, 1975 to January 15, 1976, and assigned at the Out- - Petitioner Pearl S. Buck Foundation, Inc. extends financial, education and medical
Patient Charity Department of said Medical Center. assistance to indigent "Amerasian" youth through funds provided by individuals and
- Two of the conditions embodied in the appointment: church groups in the US. Private respondent Rubini Gosiaco Querimit was employed by
'Comply with all existing policies, rules and regulations and those that may be adopted the petitioner as a case worker in the Olongapo City branch. One of the wards assigned
or promulgated in the future deemed necessary in the internal affairs of the employer; to Mrs. Querimit as such case worker was Richard Aliarte, Amerasian son of Andrea
'If at anytime during the probationary employment of the employee her services are Aliarte.
judged to be unsatisfactory, the employer may terminate such employment.' - It appears that Mrs. Querimit borrowed P300 from Andrea Aliarte. It is not clear from the
- The termination or dismissal was and is predicated mainly on the fact that Evelyn Elona records when she paid said debt but Mrs. Querimit once again borrowed P3,000.00 from
borrowed P50 from one of the patients, Mrs. Leticia Lavapiez, allegedly in violation of Aliarte, who requested assistance from petitioner for the collection of the indebtedness.
respondent's policies, rules and regulations against solicitation of any consideration from Mrs. Querimit paid the amount allegedly only after the petitioner had exerted incessant
indigent patients. The borrowing took place at Mrs. Lavapiez’s house and after she was pressure on her. Thereafter, she received a letter dated from the petitioner's resident
discharged from the OPCD. The amount of P50 that was borrowed was also returned, director informing her that her services would be terminated. Mrs. Querimit filed in the
remitted or paid by complainant to Mrs. Lavapiez NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, overtime pay and maternity
- Eloña worked in this capacity of clerk continuously until February 14, 1976 when she benefits.
was dismissed or terminated. - The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC opined
- NLRC: “Borrowing money and paying the same is not an act of dishonesty, of that borrowing money is not a ground for termination of employment under the Labor
immorality, of illegality, or of omissions punishable by law as to be a ground for dismissal Code and that the loan is a "personal transaction" between Andrea Aliarte and Mrs.
as in this case. We so hold that the Rules and Regulations & Policies of respondent Querimit "the respondent not being a privy to (the) transaction and hence, had no cause
Medical Center are whimsical, capricious, arbitrary and oppressive… The facts and the to dismiss the complainant from her job more so that the loan had earlier been paid and
law point unerringly to her side. She has completed her probationary period. Her settled." The petitioner filed an MFR. After it was denied, the petitioner filed the instant
employment contract is not covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer petition.
period.”
ISSUE
ISSUE WON private respondent was illegally dismissed
WON Eloña was justly dismissed on sole reason of borrowing money from the patients
HELD
HELD 1. NO
NO, Eloña was not dismissed justly. Ratio Borrowing money is neither dishonest, nor immoral, nor illegal, much less criminal.
Ratio Borrowing money is neither dishonest, nor immoral nor illegal, much less criminal. However, said act becomes a serious misconduct that may justly be asserted as a
Reasoning ground for dismissal when reprehensible behavior such as the use of a trust relationship
- Private respondent paid the money she borrowed from the hospital patient. She was as a leverage for borrowing money is involved.
even recommended for permanent appointment from her probationary status, from clerk Reasoning
to secretary, by her immediate superior, Sis. Consolacion Briones. - The fact that Aliarte has retracted her complaint is of no moment. She loaned money to
- It may be added that she must have been compelled to borrow P50.00 from her patient the respondent, not once but twice and there can be no other assumption where the
because of economic necessity, which circumstance should evoke sympathy from this money came from except from the trust funds intended for the ward. The NLRC should
Court, the very constitutional organ mandated by the fundamental law to implement the have considered that a higher degree of prudence is required of the foundation's
social justice guarantee for the protection of the lowly, efficient and honest employee, employees especially when it comes to financial matters affecting the petitioner's wards.
who is economically disadvantaged, like herein petitioner.” The petitioner solicits or "begs" for money from abroad to support its wards. It cannot be
Disposition Petition is dismissed, and decision of the labor arbiter is affirmed, with the a third person where that money is involved.
modification that backwages should cover three (3) years. Disposition The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the NLRC is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED.
SEPARATE OPINION
2. COURTESY RESIGNATION
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 236 - Disini
495 SCRA 123
BATONGBACAL V ASSOCIATED BANK CORONA; July 14, 2006
168 SCRA 600
FERNAN; December 21, 1988 NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari from a decision and a resolution of the Court of Appeals.
NATURE
FACTS
Review of the decision of the NLRC
- Cabanban worked with GSP Manufacturing Corporation (GSP) as a sewer from
February 7, 1985 until her alleged termination on March 1, 1992.
FACTS
- On June 16, 1992, respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Commission
- Bienvenido Batongbacal, a lawyer, worked for Citizens Bank and Trust Company from
(NLRC), National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, a complaint against petitioners for
1961. On 1975, Citizens Bank and Trust Company merged with the Associated Banking
illegal dismissal, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th
Corporation. The merged corporate entity later became known as Associated Bank. In
month pay. She claimed she was terminated by petitioners because she failed to
the new bank, petitioner resumed his position as assistant vice-president.
dissuade her daughter from continuing her employment at the Sylvia Santos Company, a
- On March 1982, he learned that his salary was very much below compared to the other
business competitor of petitioners.In their defense, petitioners argued that respondent
Asst. VPs of the bank. He wrote to the Board of Directors asking that he be paid the
abandoned her work on March 14, 1992 and that they reported this to the Department of
proper amount. Apparently, said letter fell on deaf ears.
Labor and Employment on May 15, 1992.
- On March 15, 1982, the board approved the following resolution:
- Labor arbiter found petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioners appealed to the
“BE IT RESOLVED that the new management be given the necessary flexibility in
NLRC, it was dismissed. Petition to CA was also dismissed. They claim that these
streamlining the operations of the Bank and for the purpose it is hereby resolved that
findings, based solely on statements made by respondent in the affidavit attached to her
the Bank officers at the Head Office and the Branches with corporate rank of Manager
position paper, were arrived at arbitrarily.
and higher be required, as they hereby are required to submit IMMEDIATELY to the
President their courtesy resignations.”
ISSUE
- Petitioner did not submit his courtesy resignation. On May 3, 1983, he received a letter
WON respondent is guilty of abandonment
from the Board saying that his resignation has been accepted. Petitioner wrote to the
executive VP asking for reconsideration. He stated therein that he thought the call for the
HELD
submission of courtesy resignations was only for erring "loathsome" officers and not
NO
those like him who had served the bank honestly and sincerely for sixteen years.
- Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal
- Starting May 4, 1983, he was not paid. He filed for illegal dismissal and damages with
of the employee to perform his employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to
the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioner. On MFR, the NLRC reversed.
work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment. The records are
bereft of proof that petitioners even furnished respondent such notice.
ISSUE
- Furthermore, it is a settled doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is
WON the bank may legally dismiss for refusal to tender the courtesy resignation which
inconsistent with abandonment of employment. An employee who takes steps to protest
the bank required in line with its reorganization plan
his dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work. The filing of such
complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of
HELD
abandonment.
NO
- Clearly, petitioners’ claim that respondent’s complaint was “an afterthought,” having
- While it may be said that the private respondent's call for courtesy resignations was
been filed a long time after the date of the supposed abandonment, was utterly without
prompted by its determination to survive, we cannot lend legality to the manner by which
merit. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, citing the case of Pare v. NLRC,
it pursued its goalBy directing its employees to submit letters of courtesy resignation, the
respondent had four years within which to institute her action for illegal dismissal.
bank in effect forced upon its employees an act which they themselves should voluntarily
Compared to the six months it took the aggrieved employee in that case to file his
do. It should be emphasized that resignation per se means voluntary relinquishment of a
complaint for illegal dismissal, respondent’s 84 days was not unreasonably long at all.
position or office. 11 Adding the word "courtesy" did not change the essence of
Disposition petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court
resignation. That courtesy resignations were utilized in government reorganization did
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51161 are hereby AFFIRMED.
not give private respondent the right to use it as well in its own reorganization and
rehabilitation plan. There is no guarantee that all employers will not use it to rid
themselves arbitrarily of employees they do not like, in the guise of "streamlining" its 4. TERM EMPLOYMENT
organization. On the other hand, employees would be unduly exposed to outright
termination of employment which is anathema to the constitutional mandate of security of
tenure BRENT SCHOOL V ZAMORA
- The record fails to show any valid reasons for terminating the employment of petitioner. [PAGE 94]
There are no proofs of malfeasance or misfeasance committed by petitioner which
jeopardized private respondent's interest.
- However, we agree with the Solicitor General and the NLRC that petitioner is not
entitled to an award of the difference between his actual salary and that received by the ROMARES V NLRC
assistant vice-president who had been given the salary next higher to his. There is a
294 SCRA 411
semblance of discrimination in this aspect of the bank's organizational set-up but we are
not prepared to preempt the employer's prerogative to grant salary increases to its MARTINEZ; August 19, 1998
employees. In this connection, we may point out that private respondent's claim that it
needed to trim down its employees as a self-preservation measure is belied by the NATURE
amount of salaries it was giving its other assistant vice-presidents Appeal from a decision of NLRC
Disposition Remanded to the NLRC to determine WON the petitioner is a managerial
employee FACTS
- Complainant-petitioner Romares has been hired and employed by respondent PILMICO
3. WORK ATTITUDE since Sept 1, ‘89 to Jan 15, ‘93, in a broken tenure but all in all totalled to over a year's
service. Complainant's period of employment started on Sept 1, ‘89 up to Jan 31, ‘90 or
for a period of 5 months. Then on Jan 16 ‘91, he was hired again up to June 15, ‘91, or
ABSENCES for a period covering another 5 months. Then on Aug 16, ‘92, he was hired again up to
Jan 15, ‘93 or for a period of another 5 months. Thus, from Sept 1, 1989 up to January
15, 1993, complainant has worked for 15 months more or less and has been hired and
MANILA ELECTRIC CO V NLRC terminated 3 times. In all his engagements by respondent, he was assigned at
[PAGE 186] respondent's Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Dept performing maintenance work,
particularly the painting of company buildings, maintenance chores, like cleaning and
GSP MANUFACTURING CORP V CABANBAN sometimes operating company equipment and sometimes assisting the regulars in the
Maintenance/ Engineering Dept.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 237 - Disini
- Petitioner’s arguments: That having rendered a total service of more than 1 year and by - Petitioners were employees of the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB). On June 15, 1985,
operation of law, complainant has become a regular employee of respondent; That their services were terminated as a result of the liquidation of PVB. On the same day of
complainant has performed tasks and functions which were necessary and desirable in their termination, petitioners were rehired through PVB's Bank Liquidator.
the operation of respondent's business which include painting, maintenance, repair and - All of them were required to sign employment contracts which provided that:
other related jobs; That complainant was never reprimanded nor subjected to any (1) The employment shall be strictly on a temporary basis and only for the duration of the
disciplinary action during his engagement with the respondent; That without any legal particular undertaking for which a particular employee is hired; (3) The Liquidator
cause or justification and in the absence of any time to know of the charge or notice nor reserves the right to terminate the services of the employee at any time during the period
any opportunity to be heard, respondent terminated him; That his termination is violative of such employment if the employee is found not qualified, competent or, efficient in the
of the security of tenure clause provided by law; That complainant be awarded damages performance of his job, or have violated any rules and regulations, or such circumstances
and be reinstated to his former position, be awarded backwages, moral and exemplary and conditions recognized by law.
damages and atty's fees. - January 18, 1991 their employment was terminated. The reasons for which were "(a)
- Respondents’ arguments: That complainant was a former contractual employee of To reduce costs and expenses in the liquidation of closed banks in order to protect the
respondent and as such his employment was covered by contracts; That complainant interests of the depositors, creditors and stockholders of Bank. (b) The employment were
was hired as mason in the Maintenance/Project Department and that he was engaged on strictly temporary basis."
only for a specific project under such department; That when his last contract expired on - Petitioners filed for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter found for employees. NLRC however
Jan 15, 1993, it was no longer renewed and thereafter, complainant filed this instant reversed decision
complaint; and; That since petitioner's employment contracts were for fixed or temporary
periods, as an exception to the general rule, he was validly terminated due to expiration ISSUES
of the contract of employment. 1. WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that the employment contract
- LA ruled in favor of petitioner finding him to be a regular employee and hence should be entered into by the complainants and the Liquidator of PVB was for a fixed-period
reinstated. NLRC reversed LA decision ruling that petitioner was engaged in a fixed term 2. WON NLRC act with grave abuse of discretion in finding that there was no illegal
employment and as such, his termination was valid due to expiration of employment dismissal
contract. Hence, this appeal.
HELD
ISSUE 1. NO
WON dismissal of complainant (under the just cause that such employment was of term - Employment contract between parties states that:
employment) was justified (1) The employment shall be on a strictly temporary basis and only for the duration of the
particular undertaking for which you are hired and only for the particular days during
HELD which actual work is available as determined by the Liquidator or his representatives
NO since the work requirements of the liquidation process merely demand intermittent and
[a] Petitioner was deemed a regular employee. Petitioner’s work with PILMICO as a temporary rendition of services."
mason was definitely necessary and desirable to its business. PILMICO cannot claim - The Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of fixed-term employment. Philippine
that petitioner's work as a mason was entirely irrelevant to its line of business in the National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation vs. NLRC gave two guidelines
production of flour yeast feeds and other flour products. During each rehiring, the by which fixed contracts of employment can be said NOT to circumvent security of
summation of which exceeded 1 year, petitioner was assigned to PILMICO's tenure:
Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Dept performing the same kind of maintenance work 1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
such as painting of company buildings cleaning and operating company equipment, and parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon
assisting the other regular employees in their maintenance works. Such a continuing the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent;
need for the services of petitioner is sufficient evidence of the necessity and or:
indispensability of his services to PILMICO's business or trade. 2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on
[b] Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was temporary EE, he was converted to more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the
regular employee ff this rule: If the employee has been performing the job for at least one former on the latter."
year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the - The employment contract entered into by the parties herein appears to have observed
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity the said guidelines. Furthermore, it is evident from the records that the subsequent re-
is not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also hiring of petitioners which was to continue during the period of liquidation and the
considered regular but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. process of liquidation ended prior to the enactment of RA 7169 entitled, "An Act to
[c] In rehiring petitioner, employment contracts ranging from 2 to 3 months with an Rehabilitate Philippine Veterans Bank”
express statement that his temporary job/service as mason shall be terminated at the 2. YES
end of the said period or upon completion of the project was obtrusively a convenient - The reason given by the Liquidator for the termination of petitioners' employment was
subterfuge utilized to prevent his regularization. It was a clear circumvention of the "in line with the need of the objective of the Supervision and Examination Sector,
employee's right to security of tenure and to other benefits. It likewise evidenced bad Department V, Central Bank of the Philippines, to reduce costs and expenses in the
faith on the part of PILMICO. liquidation of closed banks in order to protect the interest of the depositors, creditors and
[d] NLRC erred in finding that the contract of employment of petitioner was for a fixed or stockholders
specified period. From Brent v Zamora: The decisive determinant in "term employment" - In cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that there was a
should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform but the day valid ground for dismissal. Mere allegation of reduction of costs without any proof to
certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their substantiate the same cannot be given credence by the Court. As the respondents failed
employment relationship. But, if from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods to rebut petitioners' evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the dismissal in question
have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they was illegal.
should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals. - the failure of respondent bank to dispute complainants' evidence pertinent to the
Note however that, "term employment" cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law various unnecessary and highly questionable expenses incurred renders the termination
on security of tenure if: (1) The fixed period or employment was knowingly and voluntarily process as a mere subterfuge, as the same was not on the basis as it purports to see, for
agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being reason that immediately after the termination from their respective positions, the same
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his were given to other employees who appear not qualified. What respondent's counsel did
consent; or (2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with was merely to dispute by pleadings the jurisdiction of this Office and the claims for
each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the damages, which evidentiary matters respondent is required to prove to sustain the
former or the latter None of these requisites were complied with. validity of such dismissals."
Disposition Petition GRANTED. NLRC decision SET ASIDE. LA decision REINSTATED - As held by this Court, if the contract is for a fixed term and the employee is dismissed
without just cause, he is entitled to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the employment contract
MEDENILLA V PHIL VETERANS BANK
PURISIMA; March 13, 2000 MAGSALIN V NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF
WORKING MEN
FACTS
[PAGE 77]
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 238 - Disini
LABAYOG V MY SAN BISCUITS INC - There was substantial compliance with said company rule by private respondent. He
immediately informed his supervisor of the fact that he could not report for work by
[PAGE 89] reason of illness. At the hearing, it was also established without contradiction that Pepito
was able to talk by telephone to one Tirso Pamplona, foreman, and he informed the latter
5. PAST INFRACTIONS that he would be out for two weeks as he was not feeling well. Added to this is his letter
to the chief of personnel which states that, on November 2, 1990, he relayed to his
supervisor his reason for not reporting for work and that, thereafter, he made follow-up
PAST OFFENSES calls to their office when he still could not render services. As earlier noted, these facts
were never questioned nor rebutted by petitioner.
- While there is no record to show that approval was obtained by Pepito with regard to his
STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SERVICE INC V NLRC absences, the fact remains that he complied with the company rule that in case of illness
(PEPITO) necessitating absence of two days or more, the office should be informed beforehand
252 SCRA 323 about the same that is, on the first day of absence. Since the cause of his absence could
REGALADO; January 24, 1996 not have been anticipated, to require prior approval would be unreasonable. On this
score, then, no serious misconduct may be imputed to Pepito. Necessarily, his dismissal
NATURE from work, tainted as it is by lack of just cause, was clearly illegal.
Special Civil Action for Certiorari 2. NO
- Petitioner's reliance on Pepito's past infractions as sufficient grounds for his eventual
FACTS dismissal, in addition to his prolonged absences, is unavailing. The correct rule is that
- Stellar Industrial Services, Inc., an independent contractor engaged in the business of previous infractions may be used as justification for an employee's dismissal from work in
providing manpower services, employed private respondent Roberto H. Pepito as a connection with a subsequent similar offense.
janitor on January 27, 1975 and assigned the latter to work as such at the Maintenance - In the present case, private respondent's absences, as already discussed, were
Base Complex of the Philippine Airlines in Pasay City. incurred with due notice and compliance with company rules and fie had not thereby
- Pepito worked for 15 years. committed a "similar offense" as those lie had committed in the past. Furthermore, as
- According to petitioner, private respondent committed infractions of company rules correctly observed by the labor arbiter, those past infractions had either been
ranging from tardiness to gambling, but he was nevertheless retained as a janitor out of "satisfactorily explained, not proven, sufficiently penalized or condoned by the
humanitarian consideration and to afford him an opportunity to reform. respondent." In fact, the termination notice furnished Pepito only indicated that he was
- Stellar finally terminated private respondent's services on January 22, 1991 because of being dismissed due to his absences from November 2. 1990 to December 10, 1990
Absent Without Official Leave/Virtual Abandonment of Work Absent from November 2 - supposedly without any acceptable excuse therefor. There was no allusion therein that
December 10, 1990. his dismissal was due to his supposed unexplained absences on top of his past
- Private respondent had insisted that during the period in question he was unable to infractions of company rules. To refer to those earlier violations as added grounds for
report for work due to severe stomach pain and that, as he could hardly walk by reason dismissing him is doubly unfair to private respondent. Significantly enough, no document
thereof, he failed to file the corresponding official leave of absence. Attached was a or any other piece of evidence was adduced by petitioner showing previous absences of
medical certificate. Pepito, whether with or without official leave.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction and underpayment of Disposition Petition dismissed
wages with prayer for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
- LA was of the view that Pepito was not entitled to differential pay, or to moral and LA CARLOTA PLANTERS ASSN V NLRC
exemplary damages for lack of bad faith on the part of the company, he opined that
(COMPACION)
private respondent had duly proved that his 39-day absence was justified on account of
illness and that he was illegally dismissed without just cause. He ordered the respondent 298 SCRA 252
to immediately reinstate complainant to his former position as Utilityman, without loss of VITUG; October 27, 1998
seniority rights and with full backwages and other rights and privileges appurtenant to his
position until he is actually reinstated. NATURE
- The respondent is further ordered to pay the complainant reasonable attorney's fees Petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside and nullify the decision of the NLRC
equivalent to 10% of the amount recoverable by the complainant. promulgated on 25 September 1995 setting aside the LA’s decision and directing the
- LA’s decision was affirmed by NLRC respondent to pay complainant backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement,
computed at one (1) month per year of service.
ISSUES
1. WON serious misconduct for nonobservance of company rules and regulations may FACTS
be attributed to Pepito - Compacion alleges that he was a regular employee of petitioner since 1988 hired as
2. WON the extreme penalty of dismissal meted to him by Stellar may be justified under truck driver; that on December 14, 1992, at the instance of the petitioner, he drove the
the circumstances truck overloaded of sugarcane bound for La Carlota Sugar Central; that while driving
through Sitio Bacus, Ma-ao, Bago City, the road was very slippery causing the truck to be
outbalance (sic) resulting to the truck turning right side down; that he was not drunk when
he drove the truck on December 14, 1992; that the Security Guards of Central La Carlota
HELD issued a clearance to the effect that he is cleared from whatever issues against him; that
1. NO Rene Baylon reported the incident only on March 1993 when the incident happened on
- Stellar's company rules and regulations on the matter could not be any clearer, to wit: December 14, 1992 as shown by the Police Blotter; that because of his illegal dismissal,
"Absence Without Leave" he sought the help of a legal counsel who helped him in filing this case for which he
Any employee who fails to report for work without any prior approval from his claims for payment of attorney's fees.
superior(s) shall be considered absent without leave. - On the other hand, petitioner alleges that Compacion is a truck driver of Nature's
In the case of an illness or emergency for an absence of not more than one Beauty Trucking Services; as such, he was assigned to Ma-ao Transloading Station, a
(1) day, a telephone call or written note to the head office, during working loading station of sugarcanes bound for Central La Carlota located at Brgy. Ma-ao, Bago
hours, on the day of his absence, shall be sufficient to avoid being City, Negros Occidental; that on December 14, 1992, Compacion who was very drunk
penalized. and with a knife entered the Ma-ao Transloading Station and harassed the office
In the case of an Illness or an emergency for an absence of two (2) days or personnel to the extent of stabbing the person of Gerry Flores who fortunately was able
more, a telephone call to the head office, during regular working hours, on to escape the said assault; that despite the repeated warning made by the Shifting In-
the first day of his absence, or a written note to the head office, (ex. charge Rene Baylon not to drive the truck, he drove the ten wheeler truck loaded with 18
telegram) within the first three (3) days of his absence, and the submission tons of sugarcane bound for La Carlota Central in a reckless manner causing the truck to
of the proper documents (ex. medical certificate) On the first day he reports turn right side down resulting in a damage to property paid by the owner to Mr. Eulalio
after his absence shall be sufficient to avoid being penalized. Pagunsan, owner of the bananas and pig pen hit and destroyed by the truck; that the
1st offense- three (3) days suspension said Mr. Eulalio Pagunsan observed that the driver Felix Compacion, at the time of the
2nd offense- seven (7) days suspension accident, was very drunk; that because of this accident which happened because of
3rdoffense- fifteen (15) days suspension reckless driving, the truck underwent major repair; that after the accident, driver Felix
4th offense- dismissal with a period of one (1) year
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 239 - Disini
Compacion was nowhere to be found, never reporting the accident to the police Petition for certiorari
authorities or to the owner; that despite repeated calls, he refused to meet the owner nor
did he report to the office thus prompting the latter to write him a letter dated January 4, FACTS
1993 suspending him for 30 days; further requiring him to report to the office and explain - Mrs. Martin and Petitioner Santos were both teachers at the Hagonoy Institute. Both
why he should not be terminated. were married to different people. During the course of their employment, they fell in love,
- Petitioner further averred that during his employment, Compacion was paid wages and and rumors about their relationship spread.
other benefits in accordance with law; that at the time of the accident, there was no rain - Private respondent advised Mrs. Martin to take a leave of absence, which she ignored.
and the road was not slippery; that at the time he stopped reporting, he has an A week later, she was barred from reporting for work and was not allowed to enter
outstanding account with respondent in the amount of P3,650.00; that prior to this Hagonoy’s premises, effectively dismissing her from employment
accident on December 14, 1992, specifically on November 27, 1992, Felix Compacion - Mrs. Martin’s case for illegal dismissal was successful because the private respondent
was caught stealing diesel fuel from the drums owned by La Carlota Planters Association failed to accord her the necessary due process in her dismissal.
for which he was admonished and warned not to repeat the same. - Meanwhile, HI set up a committee to investigate the veracity of the rumors. After 2
weeks, the committee confirmed the illicit relationship
ISSUE - in view of this finding, petitioner was charged administratively for immorality and was
WON there was valid, legal and just cause for the dismissal of private respondent by required to present his side of the controversy. 5 months later, he was informed of his
petitioners dismissal. He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
- After a full blown trial was conducted, the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, but
HELD awarded him money as financial assistance.
NO - petitioner filed an appeal with the NLRC which was dismissed for lack of merit
Ratio The correct rule has always been that such previous offenses may be so used as
valid justification for dismissal from work only if the infractions are related to the ISSUE
subsequent offense upon which basis the termination of employment is decreed. The WON the illicit relationship between the petitioner and Mrs. Martin could be considered
previous infraction, in other words, may be used if it has a bearing to the proximate immoral as to constitute just cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the
offense warranting dismissal. Labor Code
Reasoning
- Petitioners contend that sufficient factual and legal bases exist to justify the dismissal of HELD
private respondent for misconduct. It cites various infractions allegedly committed in the YES
past by private respondent; to wit: Reasoning
a. Private respondent was caught twice stealing diesel fuel from the drum of the - Section 94 10 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools: Causes of Terminating
petitioner's association; Employment. In addition to the just cases enumerated in the Labor Code, the
b. He entered the transloading office on December 14, 1992 drunk, armed with bayonet employment of school personnels, including faculty, may be terminated for any of the
knife, and harassed the personnel therein, even unsuccessfully stabbing one Gerry following causes:xxx xxx xxx E. Disgraceful or immoral conduct.
Flores for two (2) times; and - To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically
c. Private respondent failed to report for work since December 14, 1992 which is an considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws.
obvious sign of guilt. America jurisprudence has defined immorality as a course of conduct which offends the
- The reliance by petitioners on the past offenses of private respondent supposedly morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is
dictating his eventual dismissal is unavailing. The complainant may have been at fault supposed to foster and to elevate, the same including sexual misconduct. Thus, in
when he figured in a vehicular accident causing damage to the company truck; that fault, petitioner's case, the gravity and seriousness of the charges against him stem from his
nevertheless, cannot be considered a just cause for dismissal. Indeed, it has once been being a married man and at the same time a teacher.
held that the penalty of dismissal would be grossly disproportionate to the offense of - Having an extra-marital affair is an affront to the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic
driving through reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. The claim of institution of society. Even our Family Code provides that husband and wife must live
drunkenness on the part of private respondent has not been substantiated; the allegation together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. This is rooted in the fact that both our
is based solely on the uncorroborated statement made by one Rene Baylon in his Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Our
affidavit executed on 24 April 1993, months after the accident had occurred in December laws, in implementing this constitutional edict on marriage and the family underscore
of 1992. their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
Disposition the Court is constrained to dismiss, as it hereby so DISMISSES, the instant - As a teacher, petitioner serves as an example to his pupils, especially during their
petition for certiorari. formative years and stands in loco parentis to them. To stress their importance in our
society, teachers are given substitute and special parental authority under our laws.
- Teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency. He must
freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by
ordinary citizens. The personal behavior of teachers, in and outside the classroom, must
be beyond reproach.
- Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal conduct which not only
proscribes the commission of immoral acts, but also prohibits behavior creating a
6. PROFESSIONAL TRAINING suspicion of immorality because of the harmful impression it might have on the students.
- Likewise, they must observe a high standard of integrity and honesty.
- From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher engages in extra-marital
RESIDENCY TRAINING relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behavior amounts to
immorality, justifying his termination from employment.
Disposition Petition DISMISSED
FELIX V BUENASEDA
[PAGE 55] LOVE
7. LOVE AND MORALS CHUA-QUA V CLAVE
189 SCRA 117
IMMORALITY REGALADO; August 30, 1990
ISSUE HELD
WON public respondents acted arbitrarily and/or with grave abuse of discretion NO
(considering that the criminal complaint was dismissed) connection with the grant of the - We find this contention to be without merit, Petitioner's participation in the illegal strike
application for clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner filed by AFI and his commission of illegal acts while the strike was in progress, i.e., he participated in
the barricade which barred people from entering and/or leaving the employer's premises,
HELD had been sufficiently established by substantial evidence, including the testimony of Mr.
YES Maniego, Personnel Supervisor at the Cabuyao Plant. Mr. Maniego testified, among
other things, that he was not able to report to work because of the presence of the
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 243 - Disini
barricade. The law prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing free - The SC held that the mere delay in the liquidation of the cash advance cannot sustain
ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes. a finding of loss of trust and confidence. It was based on mere suspicion, without
- While the criminal complaint where petitioner was included as one of the accused was evidence to show that Diamse misappropriated funds. In fact, all documents submitted
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the Court considers that the dismissal of the were found to be authentic. The evidence on record shows that Diamse was able to
criminal complaint did not preclude a finding by the competent administrative authorities, liquidate the cash advance and that the ensuing delay in its liquidation was attributable to
that petitioner had indeed committed acts inimical to the interest of his employer. ETPI.
- Private respondent's guilt or innocence in the criminal case is not determinative of the - It cannot be presumed that Diamse misappropriated the funds because to do so would
existence of a just or authorized cause for his dismissal. This doctrine follows from the do violence to her right to security of tenure and the well-settled rule that the burden of
principle that the quantum and weight of evidence necessary to sustain conviction in proof is on the employer to establish the ground for dismissal. Suspicion has never been
criminal cases are quite different from the quantum of evidence necessary for affirmance a valid ground for dismissal and the employee's fate cannot, in justice, be hinged upon
of a decision of the Labor Arbiter and of the NLRC. conjectures and surmises.
- Since petitioner's participation in the unlawful and violent strike was amply shown by - More suspicion with regard to the P86k in her ATM acct: The company suspected that it
substantial evidence, the NLRC was correct in holding that the dismissal of petitioner came from the P97k erroneously credited to her acct. They didn’t bother to prove it. They
was valid being based on lawful or authorized cause. weren’t able to show any bank statements to that effect.
Disposition Petition dismissed. Disposition Petition denied. CA decision affirmed and modified in that this case be
REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the sole purpose of computing Diamse's full
10. MOONLIGHTING backwages, etc.
AGABON V NLRC
14.06 TRANSFERS – DISCHARGE AND
[PAGE 35] SUSPENSION
11. SUSPICION LANZADERAS V AMETHYST SECURITY AND
GENERAL SERVICES INC
EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS INC V 404 SCRA 505
DIAMSE QUISUMBING; June 20, 2003
491 SCRA 239
FACTS
YNAREZ-SANTIAGO; June 16, 2006 - Amethyst has been supplying guard for Resin Industrial Chemical Corp (RICC) and its
sister company Phil. Iron Construction and Marine Works (PICMW) since 1968. One
FACTS condition was that Amethyst must supply guards between 25 – 45 years old.
- Maria Charina Damse is the Head of Building Services of ETPI. She requested a cash - In 1998, RICC/PICMW reminded Amethyst of this condition. Amethyst in turn required
advance of P150k for the renewal of ETPI’s business permits. The company’s policy is of the guards assigned to RICC/PICMW to submit copies of their birth certificates. Those
cash advances should be liquidated 15 days from the completion of the project or beyond the limit were told to report to the office for reassignment.
activity, or else it will be deducted from the employee’s salary, benefits or receivables. - Amethyst was able to renegotiate with RICC/PICMW to the effect that those beyond the
- She was able to use a total of P97,151. The last payment was made on Feb 26, 2001. age limit could be assigned as firewatch guards in the same company. (SO they had a
She wasn’t able to liquidate the cash advance within 15 days. choice of being assigned as firewatch guards in the same company or be transferred to
- On July 13, 2001, ETPI’s Finance Dept advised her to liquidate the amount. She Cagayan de Oro.)
submitted a liquidation report on August 13, 2001. This report was refused by the Fin - The petitioners chose neither option and didn’t report for work. They filed illegal
Dept for being late. She was told that the entire amount would just be deducted from her dismissal with the LA.
monthly salary starting Sept 2001. By Dec 2001, a total of P23k had been deducted from - LA held Amethyst and RICC/PICMW solidarily liable for P1.25M to the petitioners. On
her salary. She then requested for reimbursement for P97,151. This was reviewed by her appeal, NLRC reversed and set aside the LA’s decision on the ground that the relief of
supervisor and approved by HR and Fin Dept, and the amt was credited to her ATM petitioners from their posts was a legitimate exercise of prerogative on RICC/PICMW’s
payroll acct. part.
- The Internal Audit Dept (IAD) apparently didn’t know what was going on. In Jan 2002, - CA denied petitioners’ appeal on procedural grounds.
IAD found that her payroll acct had P86k. They required her to withdraw P52,533 for the
unliquidated amt minus the deductions. She complied. The next day, they asked her ISSUE
again for P74,462.82, which is the difference bet the P97k++ credited to her acct minus WON petitioners were illegally dismissed
the P23k deductions. She complied again. (I don’t understand how the computations
were made.)
- The next day, ETPI required Diamse to explain why she should not be disciplined for
unauthorized diversion or application of company funds, and for acts of dishonesty,
fraud, deceit and willful breach of trust. She explained what that the liquidation report HELD
wasn’t accepted by the Fin Dept and she was instead advised to do as she did. A month NO
later, she was dismissed. - In the first place, the petitioners knew of the age limit and acted in bad faith when they
- LA ruled in her favor. NLRC reversed. CA reversed NLRC and ordered separation pay weren’t honest about their ages.
etc instead of reinstatement because of the strained relations bet the parties. - The condition imposed by respondent RICC/PICMW, as a principal or client of the
contractor Amethyst, regarding the age requirement of the security guards to be
ISSUE designated in its compound, is a valid contractual stipulation. It is an inherent right of
WON Diamse was illegally terminated RICC/PICMW, as the principal or client, to specify the qualifications of the guards who
shall render service pursuant to a service contract. It stands to reason that in a service
HELD contract, the client may require from the service contractor that the personnel assigned to
NO the client should meet certain standards and possess certain qualifications, conformably
- Employer wasn’t able to prove that the employee was terminated for valid and just to the client's needs.
cause. - Security of tenure, although provided in the Constitution, does not give an employee an
LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE v. SUSPICION absolute vested right in a position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to
- To be a valid cause for dismissal, the loss of trust and confidence must be based on a change their assignment or transfer them where they will be most useful. When a
willful breach and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial to an employee; and it
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his pay, benefits, and other
an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Loss of trust and privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.
confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, - Case law recognizes the employer's right to transfer or assign employees from one
whims, caprices or suspicion, otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the area of operation to another, or one office to another or in pursuit of its legitimate
mercy of the employer. business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 244 - Disini
and other privileges and not motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith, or effected explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him, private respondent
as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This matter is a merely questioned the transfer order without submitting the required explanation.
prerogative inherent in the employer's right to effectively control and manage the 2. YES
enterprise. - It must be emphasized that this Court has recognized and upheld the prerogative of
- The petitioners were given an option to stay at RICC/PICMW as firewatch guards or to management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business
be transferred to CDO as security guards. The petitioners didn’t report to the office to establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary,
receive new deployment instructions. They have no excuse not to heed management’s benefits and other privileges.
exercise of management prerogative. - This is a privilege inherent in the employer's right to control and manage its enterprise
Disposition Petition denied. CA affirmed. effectively.
Note The SC also denied on procedural grounds but went into the issues to settle the - Besides, it is the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its
matter completely. employee's qualifications, aptitudes and competence, to move him around in the various
areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where the employee will function
with utmost efficiency and maximum productivity or benefit to the company.
WESTIN PHIL PLAZA HOTEL V NLRC (RODRIGUEZ) - An employee's right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his
306 SCRA 631 position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or
QUISUMBING; May 3, 1999 transfer him where he will be most useful.
- Petitioner is justified in reassigning private respondent to the linen room. Petitioner's
NATURE right to transfer is expressly recognized in the collective bargaining agreement between
Petition to review a decision of the NLRC the hotel management and the employees union as well as in the hotel employees
handbook. The transfer order was issued in the exercise of petitioner's management
FACTS prerogative in view of the several negative reports vis-a-vis the performance of private
- Private respondent Len Rodriguez was continuously employed by petitioner in various respondent as doorman. It was a lateral movement as the positions of doorman and linen
capacities (pest controller, room attendant, bellman, and doorman) from July 1, 1977 room attendant are equivalent in rank and compensation. It was a reasonable relocation
until his dismissal on February 16, 1993. from a guest contact area to a non-guest contact area.
- On December 28, 1992, private respondent received a memorandum from the Disposition Petition granted. NLRC decision reversed.
management transferring him from doorman to linen room attendant. The position of
doorman is categorized as guest-contact position while linen room attendant is a non- CASTILLO V NLRC (PCIB)
guest contact position.
308 SCRA 326
- The transfer was allegedly taken because of the negative feedback on the manner of
providing service to hotel guests by private respondent. GONZAGA-REYES; June 1999
- Instead of accepting his new assignment, private respondent went on vacation leave
- The President of the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied NATURE
Industries (NUWHRAIN) appealed to management concerning private respondent's Petition for certiorari seeking to annul the NLRC Decision
transfer, but the director for human resources development, clarified that private
respondent's transfer is merely a lateral movement. She explained that management FACTS
believed that private respondent was no longer suited to be in a guest-contact position, - Castillo was an employee of Philippine Commercial & International Bank (PCIB) as
but there was no demotion in rank or pay. Foreign Remittance Clerk. A Jordanian national, went to PCIB’s Ermita branch to claim a
- When private respondent reported back to work, he still did not assume his post at the foreign remittance in the amount of US$2T. He paid P450 as commission charges as
linen room. computed by petitioner. Upon re-computation, the correct amount of the charges
- On February 11, 1993, private respondent was served with a memorandum asking him amounted to only P248.75.
to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for - Because of this incident, Castillo received a Memorandum regarding her
insubordination. The memorandum noted that while private respondent regularly came to REASSIGNMENT. “In line with the Bank’s policy on flexibility employee development and
the hotel everyday, he just stayed at the union office. internal control, effective immediately, you are hereby reassigned temporarily as
- In his reply private respondent merely questioned the validity of his transfer without Remittance Clerk-Inquiry.”
giving the required explanation. - She then filed with the NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal
- On February 16, 1993, petitioner terminated private respondent's employment on the asking for her reinstatement as Foreign Remittance Clerk plus moral and exemplary
ground of insubordination. damages.
- Private respondent filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a complaint for - She received another memorandum: “Relative to your reassignment as Remittance
illegal dismissal against petitioner. Clerk-Inquiry, for internal control purposes, you are hereby instructed that your specific
- The labor arbiter declared that the dismissal was legal. Accordingly, the complaint was duties and responsibilities will be confined to handling of inquiring by phone, by walk-in
dismissed for lack of merit. clients over the counter and to assist the FX Supervisor-Inquiry & Investigation in
- On appeal, public respondent reversed the judgment of the labor arbiter. It held that verifying inquiries of correspondent banks, agencies, other banks and branches.”
there was no just cause in dismissing private respondent. - Castillo claimed that there was no legal basis for her transfer and demotion order. Also,
- Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this instant petition. PCIB immediately appointed another employee in her place and refused to allow
ISSUES petitioner to perform her usual functions as she became a mere fixture in the office
1. WON private respondent was guilty of insubordination, thus giving petitioner just and premises to her gross humiliation. She was allegedly barred from the office premises
valid cause for dismissal and was thereby constructively dismissed without any legal ground and without due
2. WON the order of transfer was legal process.
- Labor Arbiter ruled that Castillo was constructively dismissed , thus she was entitled to
HELD reinstatement with full backwages without loss of seniority rights, privileges and other
1. YES rights granted by law.
- Under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, an employer may terminate an - NLRC reversed LA: there was no demotion because the position to which she was
employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful being reassigned belongs to the same job level as her former position and both positions
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. But disobedience to have the same rate of compensation.
be a just cause for dismissal envisages the concurrence of at least two (2) requisites: (a)
the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness ISSUE
being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and, (b) the order violated must WON Castillo was constructively and illegally dismissed
have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the
duties which he has been engaged to discharge. HELD
- In the present case, the willfulness of private respondent's insubordination was shown NO
by his continued refusal to report to his new work assignment: 1. Upon receipt of the Ratio The Court, as a rule, will not interfere with an employer’s prerogative to regulate all
order of transfer, private respondent simply took an extended vacation leave; 2. When aspects of employment which includes among others, work assignment, working
he reported back to work, he did not discharge his duties as linen room attendant—while methods, and place and manner of work. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer
he came to the hotel everyday, he just went to the union office; 3. when he was asked to and reassign employees for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its
business, provided that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 245 - Disini
the employee, and that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and it involves a demotion in
and other privileges . An employee’s right to security of tenure does not give him such a rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges . In the case at bench,
vested right in his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his nowhere in the record does it show that that the transfer of Legaspi was anything but
assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful. done in good faith, without grave abuse of discretion, and in the best interest of the
- Constructive dismissal: The employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and business enterprise.
demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds. Where the employer fails - No malice should be imputed from the fact that Legaspi was relieved of her assignment
to overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s demotion shall no doubt be tantamount and, a day later, assigned a new post. We must bear in mind that, unlike other contracts
to unlawful constructive dismissal. of service, the availability of assignment for security guards is primarily at heart
Reasoning subservient to the contracts entered into by the security agency with its client-third
- PCIB was acting within its management prerogative to protect its interest and that of its parties. As such, being sidelined temporarily is a standard stipulation in employment
clients. NLRC upheld PCIB’s contention that the remittance clerk payment contracts. When a security guard is placed "off detail" or on "floating" status, in security
order/collection item is given the same weight in terms of duties and responsibilities as agency parlance, it means "waiting to be posted." Legaspi has not even been "off detail"
that of a remittance clerk inquiry. These positions are of “co-equal footing, co-important for a week when she filed her complaint.
and of the same level of authority” and that the transfer did not entail any reduction of - Evidence is wanting to support the Labor Arbiter's conclusion that petitioner
wages and other benefits. This is because both positions are in fact Remittance Clerks, discriminated against private respondent when it ordered her relief and transfer of
which, in PCIB’s classification system, are both slotted at level S-III. assignment. Petitioner proved that such transfer was effected in good faith to comply with
- It is not true that Castillo has become a mere fixture in the office premises without any the reasonable request of its client, Madrigal Condominium Corporation Incorporated
function and was given no responsibilities. As a matter of act, had she accepted her new (MCCI), for a more disciplined service of the security guards on detail. The renewal of the
position, she would have assumed a bigger responsibility, a big departure from her contract of petitioner with MCCI hinged on the action taken by the former on the latter's
former position where she merely did routine processing work. request. Most contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the
Disposition Petition dismissed. replacement of the guards assigned to it. Besides, a relief and transfer order in itself
does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and her agency. 29
Neither was the transfer for any ulterior design, such as to rid itself of an undesirable
OSS SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES INC V NLRC worker or to penalize an employee for his union activities and thereby defeat his right to
(LEGASPI) self-organization.
325 SCRA 157 - It appears that Legaspi declined the post assigned to her inasmuch as she considered it
DE LEON JR; February 9, 2000 "a booby trap of crippling and dislocating her from her employment". She lived in V.
Mapa, Sta. Mesa, Manila, and her new assigned post is in Taytay, Rizal, as against her
previous post at VM Condominium II in Makati. Her new assigned post would entail
NATURE
changes in her routine, something that she was not agreeable with. But the mere fact
Petition for certiorarii
that it would be inconvenient for her, as she has been assigned to VM Condominium II
for a number of years, does not by itself make her transfer illegal. Even Legaspi admitted
FACTS
that she was assigned to render security service to the different clients of petitioner. An
- Private respondent Eden Legaspi worked as a security guard of OSS Security Agency
employee has a right to security of tenure, but this does not give her such a vested right
from June 16, 1986. On January 17, 1986 petitioner Miguel and Victoria Vasquez
in her position as would deprive petitioner of its prerogative to change her assignment or
acquired the assets and properties of OSS and absorbed some of its personnel,
transfer her where her service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client.
including Legaspi, who was assigned to render security services to the different clients of
Thus, there was no basis to order reinstatement and back wages inasmuch as she was
petitioner. She was last assigned at the Vicente Madrigal Condominium II located in
not constructively dismissed. Neither is private respondent entitled to the award of money
Ayala Avenue, Makati. In a memorandum, to petitioner, the Building Administrator of VM
claims for underpayment, absent evidence to substantiate the same.
Condominium II, complained of the laxity of the guards in enforcing security measures
and requested that petitioner reorganize the men and women assigned to the building to
instill more discipline and proper decorum by changing, if need be, some of the MENDOZA V RURAL BANK OF LUCBAN
personnel, replacing, if possible, on a temporary basis, the women complement, to find 433 SCRA 756
out if it would improve the service.
PANGANIBAN; July 7, 2004
- In compliance therewith, petitioner issued Duty Detail Order, relieving Legaspi and
another lady security guard of their assignment at VM, for reassignment to other units or
detachments where vacancy exists. Thereafter, petitioner detailed Legaspi to the Minami NATURE
International Corporation in Taytay, Rizal for 1 month to replace lady security guard who Petition for Review under Rule 45, ROC
was on leave. However, Legaspi did not report for duty at her new assignment.
- Legaspi filed her complaint for under payment and constructive dismissal. The Labor FACTS
Arbiter upheld Legaspi’s position and ordered OSS to reinstate complainant to her former - April 1999, the Board of Directors of respondent bank (BANK) issued a Board
position and pay the latter backwages for 18 months. Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed Resolution announcing the reshuffling of assignments, without changes in compensation
said decision. Hence, this petition. and other benefits, of several officers and employees of the bank (in line with the bank’s
policy to familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and to
further strengthen the existing internal control system). One of the employees assigned
ISSUE to a new position is petitioner Elmer Mendoza, who was transferred from his post as an
WON the transfer of Legaspi was illegal and tantamount to unjust dismissal appraiser to a Clerk for Meralco collection.
- In May, Mendoza expressed his resentment on the reshuffling, saying that it was a
HELD demotion and that he heard intrigues that his “demotion” to a Clerk-Meralco collection
NO was due to the malicious machination of a certain public official who is the friend of the
- Service-oriented enterprises, such as petitioner's business of providing security Board chairman and with whom the relatives of Mendoza had filed a falsification case
services, generally adhere to the business adage that "the customer or client is always against. He also said that he had been working for 6 years in good standing in the bank
right". To satisfy the interests, conform to the needs, and cater to the whims and wishes and that the reshuffling is a blatant harassment on the part of the Board, an act which
of its clients, along with its zeal to gain substantial returns on its investments, employers implicitly forces him to resign, and which constitutes an unfair labor practice. He
adopt means designed towards these ends. These are called management prerogatives requested to have his position as an appraiser retained. However, Mr. Daya (Board
in which the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose, Chairman) explained in a reply that the reshuffling is not a demotion since his
takes from. Accordingly, an employer can regulate, generally without restraint, according compensation as an appraiser is retained and no reductions were made. Also, Mr. Daya
to its own discretion and judgment, every aspect of business. explained the objectives of the reshuffling, particularly the maintenance of an effective
- In the employment of personnel, the employer can prescribe the hiring, work internal control system recommended by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and that it was the
assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, bank’s management prerogative to do so. Also, Mendoza could retain position upon a
processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of formal request to the board.
employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of - In June, petitioner submitted 2 applications for LOA, and during his 2 nd LOA he filed a
work, subject only to limitations imposed by laws. complaint before the Arbitration Branch of NLRC for illegal dismissal, underpayment,
- Thus, the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit of management separation pay and damages.
prerogatives. However, a transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer is - LA: in favor of Mendoza (entitled to reinstatement + full backwages/ separation pay if
reinstatement not possible…moral + exemplary + atty’s fees)
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 246 - Disini
- NLRC: in favor of Bank: no bad faith or malice on bank’s part; petitioner only feel SHIE JIE CORP/SEASTER EX-IM CORP V NATIONAL
inconvenienced; petitioner not only employee reshuffled; no clear, competent, convincing
FEDERATION OF LABOR
evidence that he holds a vested right to the position of Appraiser.
- CA: affirm (Mendoza’s claims self-serving, no diminution, could retain title upon formal 463 SCRA 569
request, no bad faith/malice; no constructive dismissal – he was the one who separated SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; July 15, 2005
himself from the bank’s employ)
FACTS
ISSUES - Respondents were employed by petitioner as fish processors. Respondents staged a
1. WON Mendoza was constructively dismissed walk-out and abandoned their work, bringing operations to a standstill. They were
2. WON the transfer of employees/ reshuffling was a valid exercise of the bank’s suspended for a week. Petitioner claims that instead of coming to work, some of the
management prerogatives respondents submitted resignation letters and quitclaims. Petitioner then sent the rest a
(Secondary Issues) notice terminating their services for abandonment of work.
3. WON Serrano v. NLRC is applicable - the Labor Arbiter found petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice for illegally dismissing
4. WON NLRC and CA proceedings null respondents and awarding the latter claims. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision.
The CA later reversed the decision again based on Article 277 which requires that the
HELD employer prove that the termination was for a valid or just cause. Hence this petition.
1. NO
- Findings of NLRC and CA were supported by substantial evidence ISSUE
Ratio Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted to when WON respondents made valid resignations and were thus not illegally dismissed
continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution of pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or HELD
disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. NO
Reasoning - Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee, who finds himself in a
- Petitioner presented no evidence to support his claims. (More on the second issue) situation in which he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
2. YES exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his
Ratio In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative employment. Acceptance of a resignation tendered by an employee is necessary to
to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -- make the resignation effective, which was not shown in the instant case.
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other - To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as
privileges; and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied
effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is by an act of relinquishment.
inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The - It is illogical that respondents would file complaints of illegal dismissal 17 days after
right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions filing their resignation letters. Such acts negate any intention on their part to relinquish
to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or their jobs. It was held in Molave Tours Corp. vs NLRC, “By vigorously pursuing the
to transfer them. litigation of his action against petitioner, private respondent clearly manifested that he
-Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective has no intention of relinquishing his employment, which act is wholly incompatible to
bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice. petitioner’s assertion that he voluntarily resigned.”
-TEST of validity of transfer of employees (Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC): "The Disposition WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED
managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of
discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right
should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot 13. ABOLITION OF POSITION
be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In
particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V FIANZA
inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a
425 SCRA 41
diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to
overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to YNARES-SANTIAGO; March 9, 2004
constructive dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a NATURE
demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise, constructive dismissal exists when an Review on certiorari
act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so
unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued FACTS
employment." - Josephine Fianza had been employed with petitioner Benguet Electric Cooperative
- Employees may be transferred – based on their qualifications, aptitudes and (BENECO) as Property Custodian under the Office of the General Manager.
competencies – to positions in which they can function with maximum benefit to the - BENECO’s General Manager, Versoza, issued Office Order No. 42 addressed to
company. Fianza communicating that she is temporarily detailed to the Finance Department to
Reasoning assume the duties of a Bill Distributor without any change in salary rate. This is line with
- Mendoza’s transfer complied with the test. Transfer made in pursuit of valid objectives their efforts to reduce the cost of operation.
(see above, 1st paragraph – inside parenthesis); Mendoza was not singled out; no - Fianza acknowledged receipt of the letter under protest. She avers that it amounts to a
diminution of salary, privileges, and other benefits. demotion because there are significant differences in the educational qualifications, work
3. NO experience, skills and job description and the working conditions of a Bill Distributor are
- No constructive dismissal, not entitled to monetary benefits as awarded in the Serrano totally different and more strenuous and expose her to unfavourable and dangerous
case. circumstances, and therefore not similarly situated as that of Property Custodian.
4. NO - In response, Versoza issued a Memorandum informing her that the position of Property
- Petitioner’s arguments regarding the Bank’s appeal before the NLRC filed beyond the Custodian may eventually phased out upon approval of the already proposed Table of
reglementary period was not raised in CA, thus cannot be entertained if raised for the 1 st Organization as part of business decision.
time. - Still, Fianza refused to heed the order of the General Manager and continued to work
Disposition Petition is DENIED, and the June 14, 2002 Decision and the September 25, as Property Custodian despite successive issuance of Memorandum until the
2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. management no longer authorized her to perform the duties and functions of a Property
Custodian.
12. RESIGNATION AND EFFECTIVITY ISSUES
1. WON Fianza’s transfer from Property Custodian to Bill Distributor is valid
EMCO PLYWOOD CORP V ABELGAS 2. WON the position of Property Custodian is abolished and WON the abolition is valid
[PAGE 14] HELD
1. YES
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 247 - Disini
Ratio The management has a wide latitude to regulate, according to his own discretion the Company Code on Employee Discipline, dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
and judgment, all aspects of employment, including the freedom to transfer and reassign all rights and privileges.
employees according to the requirements of its business. However, the transfer of an - Naguit filed a complaint with the NLRC against MERALCO for illegal dismissal, he
employee may constitute constructive dismissal when it amounts to “an involuntary praying for reinstatement, backwages, damages, attorney’s fees and other awards he is
resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible, entitled to. Labor Arbiter found for Naguit.
unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay, or - Meralco appealed which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable Petitioner’s claims
to the employee. > the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter clearly show that he, as an Administrative
2. YES Officer, is covered by respondent MERALCO’s policy pertaining to field personnel,
Ratio The abolition of a position deemed no longer necessary is a management particularly when he is designated to perform field assignments. As such, he did not
prerogative, and this Court, absent any findings of malice and arbitrariness on the part of bother to correct the Overtime Notice which indicated that he worked from 8 a.m. to 5
management, will not efface such privilege if only to protect the person holding that p.m., albeit he actually worked until 12 noon, the company policy being that even if an
office. employee who had a field assignment did not actually render 8 hours of work, he is
Reasoning deemed to have worked for such duration provided he had completed the assigned task
- There was no showing that the position of Property Custodian was abolished in order to as he claims he did.
single out Fianza, or that malice and ill-will attended the phasing out of the position.
ISSUES
14. DISHONESTY 1. WON Naguit is guilty of falsification
2. WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when they gave full credence to
Cabuhat’s affidavits that he was induced to claim overtime pat despite Cabuhat’s failure
NAGUIT V NLRC (MANILA ELECTRIC) to affirm such in the arbitral proceedings
408 SCRA 617 3. WON there was valid ground for dismissal
CARPIO-MORALES; August 12, 2003 HELD
1. NO
NATURE - The petitioner was in good faith when he did not correct the entry in the Notice of
Petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision and resolution of the Overtime and Timesheet reflecting that he worked up to 5pm on June 6.
NLRC. - Petitioner advised his superior Ortega about his rendering overtime work the following
day, June 6, 1987, after which he would head for Pagbilao after concluding his work. If
FACTS petitioner had intended to do overtime work up to 5:00 p.m., there would have been no
- Petitioner Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr., an employee of respondent Manila Electric Company need for him to advise Ortega that he would thereafter go to Pagbilao. Since Ortega
(MERALCO) was dismissed after 32 years of service. At the time of his dismissal, he was never refuted petitioner’s claim about his advising him of his proceeding to Pagbilao and
Administrative Officer of MERALCO. in fact the grant and release of petitioner’s overtime pay was approved by Ortega, who
- On June 5, 1987, petitioner informed his Supervisor-Branch head Sofronio Ortega, Jr. had the discretion to “judge the number of hours that can be foregone” in light of his
that he would render overtime work on June 6, 1987, a Saturday, and that after (Ortega’s) explanation that office personnel on field assignment “forego the convenience
concluding his field work on that day, he would proceed to Pagbilao, Quezon to of the office, they [being] exposed to the heat of the sun” and the like, this Court would
accompany his wife who was a principal sponsor to a kin’s wedding. not, as the Labor Arbiter did not, attribute malice to petitioner. Thus, the Labor Arbiter
- On June 6 Naguit proceeded to his field assignment to conduct “supervisory survey on held that Ortega opined that half day would not be allowed. But, the fact remains that
re-sequence of customer’s account numbers”, and to supervise MERALCO’s “Operation such discretion is exercised, the limit of which was not shown to have been disseminated
FC” (apprehension of customers with illegally connected service). At 12:00 noon, he, to the employees, the qualifying factor being whether the job was satisfactory or not. If on
along with his co-employee Accounts Representative Fidel Cabuhat who drove his the contrary, there was indeed no such practice or, that complainant, being an office
(petitioner’s) jeep, proceeded to Pagbilao, Quezon. personnel, is removed from coverage thereof and governed strictly by the time-rule such
- On June 8, the timekeeper prepared an Overtime Notice and the corresponding that he would have been off at the actual completion of the assigned task, he would not
Timesheet[9] wherein it was reflected that petitioner worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. have bothered to inform his branch head - in effect a request for permission of his
on June 6 and 7. Petitioner corrected the documents by erasing the entries made for planned trip to Pagbilao, Quezon thereafter. That would have been meaningless gesture
June 7. The documents were approved by petitioner’s supervisor Ortega. Petitioner was on the part of the complainant.
thereafter paid for overtime work on June 6. - With the incentive scheme or tolerance of Naguit, there is no resulting prejudice to
- Documents including petty cash voucher covering Cabuhat’s alleged overtime work on Meralco so to speak of nor intention on the part of complainant to cause it. What was
June 6 were also prepared on account of which petitioner, as custodian of petty cash, done was consistent with management policy on covering the overtime work in the
released to Cabuhat the amount of P192.00 representing meal allowance and rental for a branch.
jeep. 2. YES
- More than two years later, petitioner received from the Legal and Investigation Staffs - In labor cases, where the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine
Head of MERALCO a letter stating that the Special Presidential Committee (SPC) is in affiants, affidavits are considered hearsay unless the affiants are placed on the witness
receipt of information that he caused reimbursement of transportation expenses for the stand to testify thereon. Cabuhat’s affidavits are inadmissible as evidence.
work of Cabuhat not actually rendered. It requested that he report to the Ortigas office
Feb 27, 1990 for the administrative proceedings. 3. YES
- During the administrative proceedings, Naguit wiaved his right to counsel and gave - Naguit, despite his knowledge that Cabuhat did not hire any jeep nor conduct field
sworn statements denying the charges. verification on June 6, released the petty cash representing Cabuhat’s meal allowance
- Evidence against petitioner consisted primarily of the sworn statements of Cabuhat who and rental fee for a jeep. As custodian of the petty cash fund, he had the duty to
was charged along with petitioner with falsification of time card; Olivia Borda, billings ascertain that the circumstances which brought about any claim therefrom were in order.
clerk; and five customers of MERALCO. The statements tried to establish that, petitioner He cannot now shirk from this responsibility by indirectly pinning the blame on the
induced Cabuhat to prepare a petty cash voucher covering expenses for meal and rental approving officer and asserting that the transgression was the result of mere
of a jeep for the June 6 alleged conduct by the latter of field verification of “Bill inadvertence, given his admission that he very well knew that Cabuhat did not conduct
Omissions;” that on petitioner’s invitation, Cabuhat also repaired to Pagbilao, Quezon on any field work on June 6, 1987, he (Cabuhat) having merely driven for him to Pagbilao.
June 6; and that petitioner gave the petty cash payable to Cabuhat making it appear that - Petitioner thus committed dishonesty and breached MERALCO’s trust, which
some collections for “bill omissions” were received from customers on June 6 when in dishonesty calls for reprimand to dismissal under MERALCO’s rules.
fact no such collections were ever received from the customers in whose name official - Dismissal is, however, too severe as a penalty in petitioner’s case, given his 32 years of
receipts were issued. service during which he had no derogatory record.
- SPC found Naguit and Cabuhat guilty of falsification of time cards under Sec. 7, par. 7 At the time petitioner was dismissed, he was still below the retirement age of employees
of the Company Code on Employee Discipline. Additionally, petitioner was found guilty of MERALCO at 60. However, he is now about 65. Imposing a penalty less harsh than
under Sec. 6, par. 24 of the Code for encouraging Cabuhat to commit an act constituting dismissal and ordering his reinstatement are thus functus oficio, the Labor Arbiter’s order
a violation of the Code. for his reinstatement not having been executed.
- MERALCO thus informed petitioner that he was, for falsification of time card and Disposition Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent
encouraging and inducing another employee to perform an act constituting a violation of MERALCO is, in light of the foregoing discussions, hereby ORDERED to pay petitioner
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 248 - Disini
Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr. his retirement benefits to be computed from the inception of his
service up to the time he reached 60 years of age, in accordance with its retirement plan. FACTS
The Case for Rowena Agoncillo
CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE - Agoncillo was employed by the Hotel. After some time, she was promoted as
Supervisor of Outlet Cashiers and later promoted as Senior Front Office Cashier.
- The Hotel decided to trim down the number of its employees from the original count of
DEFINED 820 to 750.
- The Hotel offered a Special Early Retirement Program (SERP) to all its employees. It
was stated therein that the program was intended to “provide employees financial
PHIL JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP V NLRC benefits prior to prolonged renovation period and, at the same time, to enable
(QUINANOLA) management to streamline the organization by eliminating redundant positions and
171 SCRA 164 having a more efficient and productive manpower complement.”
- Union president Rasing, sought “a commitment from the management that the
GRINO-AQUINO; March 8, 1989
employees terminated due to redundancy will not be replaced by new employees; nor will
their positions be given to subcontractors, agencies or casual employees.”
NATURE - A total of 243 employees, including Agoncillo, 161 of whom were Union officers and
A petition for review members, were separated from the Hotel’s employment. As a result, the membership of
the Union was substantially reduced.
FACTS - The Hotel wrote DOLE saying that the Hotel terminated the employment of 243
- Quinanola had been employed in Phil. Japan since January 19, 1982, as Assistant employees due to redundancy. On the same day, Agoncillo was summoned by Hotel
Secretary/Export Coordinator. He was promoted to the position of Executive Sec. to the Comptroller Reynaldo Casacop, who gave her a letter of even date informing the latter of
Executive Vice President and General Manager. On May 31, 1986, for no apparent her “separation from service due to redundancy effective close of office hours of April 30,
reason at all and without prior notice to her, she was transferred to the Production 1996.”
Department as Production Secretary, swapping positions with Ester Tamayo. Although - Casacop advised Agoncillo to just avail of the Hotel's SERP, as embodied in the inter-
the transfer did not amount to a demotion because her salary and workload remained the office memorandum of Masuda. He informed her that she had the option to avail of the
same, she believed otherwise so she rejected the assignment and filed a complaint for program and that, in the meantime, he will defer the processing of her termination papers
illegal dismissal. LA found that the transfer would amount to constructive dismissal and to give her time to decide. On April 3, 1996, Agoncillo finally told Casacop that she
her refusal to obey the order was justified. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the Commission would not avail of the SERP benefits. By then, she had decided to file a complaint for
approved the Labor Arbiter's decision but reduced to P10,000 the award of moral illegal dismissal against the Hotel.
damages and the attorney's fees to 10% of the judgment. - Meanwhile, the Hotel temporarily closed operations because of the renovation thereof.
- When news spread among the hotel employees that Agoncillo would contest her
ISSUE termination before the NLRC, she was summoned by Personnel Manager Leticia
WON Quinanola was constructively and illegally dismissed as a result of her transfer or Delarmente to a conference. Delarmente and Dizon repeatedly asked Agoncillo to give
assignment to the Office of the Production Manager even if she would have received the back the original copy of the April 1, 1996 termination letter. Agoncillo told them that the
same salary rank, rights and privileges letter was already in the possession of her counsel. Agoncillo was relieved when she
was given another letter of even date stating that, by reason of her non-availment of the
HELD SERP, she was still considered an employee but on temporary lay-off due to the ongoing
NO renovation of the Hotel and that she will just be advised accordingly of her work schedule
- A constructive discharge is defined as: "A quitting because continued employment is when the Hotel reopens.
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as, an offer involving a demotion in rank - Delarmente and Dizon offered to reinstate Agoncillo but not to her former position as
and a diminution in pay." In this case, Quinanola’s assignment as Production Secretary Senior Front Office Cashier. Agoncillo objected but informed them that she could accept
of the Production Department was not unreasonable as it did not involve a demotion in the position of Reservation Clerk. However, no response was received.
rank (her rank was still that of a department secretary) nor a change in her place of work - She was told by Dizon that the Hotel was willing to reinstate her but as an Outlet
(the office is in the same building), nor a diminution in pay, benefits, and privileges. It did Cashier. Dizon explained that the Hotel had already hired new employees for the
not constitute a constructive dismissal. positions of Reservation Clerks. Agoncillo, however, pointed out that she was already an
- It is the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its Outlet Cashier Supervisor before her promotion as Senior Front Office Cashier and that if
employees' qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the she accepted the position, it would be an unjustified demotion on her part. After
various areas of its business operations in order to "ascertain where they will function Agoncillo’s meeting with Dizon, the latter kept on promising to find a suitable position for
with maximum benefit to the company. An employee's right to security of tenure does not her. In those meetings, Dizon always offered reinstatement to positions that do not
give him such a vested right in his position as would deprive the company of its require guest exposure like Linen Dispatcher at the hotel basement or Secretary of
prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful. When Roomskeeping. When Agoncillo refused, Dizon just instructed her to return. Agoncillo
his transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial to him, and it does not had no specific position or assigned task to perform.
involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits, and other privileges, - When the Hotel resumed operations, the Union filed a Notice of Strike for unfair labor
the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. practice with the DOLE.
- On the other hand, we reject the petitioner's contention that the private respondent's
absence from work on June 2 to June 3, 1986 constituted an abandonment of her job in
the company resulting in the forfeiture of the benefits due her. While she was guilty of The Case for the Hotel
insubordination for having refused to move out of her position as Executive Secretary to - Pursuant to the reorganization program, a reclassification of positions ensued upon
the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of the company, dismissal from the resumption of the Hotel’s operation. Consequently, the position of Agoncillo as Senior
service would be a draconian punishment for it, as her complaint for illegal dismissal was Front Office Cashier was abolished and a new position of Guest Services Agent
filed in good faith. absorbing its functions was created. Considering that the new position requires skills in
Disposition the decision of the NLRC insofar as it orders the petitioner to reinstate the both reception and cashiering operations, respondent Hotel deemed it necessary to
private respondent is affirmed, but she shall be reinstated to her position as Production transfer Agoncillo to another position as Outlet Cashier, which does not require other
Secretary of the Production Department of petitioner's corporation without loss of skills aside from cashiering.
seniority rights and other privileges. The awards of backwages, moral damages and - The transfer of Agoncillo from Senior Front Office Cashier to Outlet Cashier does not
attorney's fees to the private respondent are hereby set aside. No pronouncement as to entail any diminution of salary or rank. Despite which, she vehemently refused the
costs. transfer and insisted that she be reinstated to her former position. Since Agoncillo was
not amenable to the said transfer, she did not assume her new position and since then
DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO V NUWHRAIN had stopped reporting for work despite the Hotel’s patient reminder to act on the
contrary. Instead, she filed a complaint to question the prerogative of the management
466 SCRA 374
to validly transfer her to another position as she considers the transfer an act of
CALLEJO; August 9, 2005 constructive dismissal amounting to illegal termination and unfair labor practice in the
form of union busting.
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals ISSUE
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 249 - Disini
WON Agoncillo was illegally dismissed - Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC reversed the
decision. The CA also dismissed the action for reconsideration, noting that there was no
HELD voluntariness in the acts of Ompad in submitting the resignation letters. Hence this
YES action.
- We agree with the contention of the petitioners that it is the prerogative of management
to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment ISSUE
based on its assessment and perception of the employee’s qualification, aptitude and WON Ompad was illegally dismissed
competence, and in order to ascertain where he can function with the maximum benefit to
the company. But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative HELD
to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in YES
mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused - The resignation letters of Ompad are dubious as they were written in a language
with the manner in which that right is exercised. obviously not his and “lopsidedly worded” to free the Agency from liabilities. The
- There is constructive dismissal when there is a demotion in rank and/or diminution in affidavits issued by the witnesses of Mobile are suspect considering that these witnesses
pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes were/are in fact employed by the petitioner.
unbearable to the employee. Reasoning
- In the present case, the Hotel recalled the termination of respondent Agoncillo when - All the documentary evidence proves that respondent was assigned to Valle Verde from
they learned that she was going to file a complaint against them with the NLRC for illegal September 29 to October 31, 1997 and that he stopped reporting for work on October 16,
dismissal. However, instead of reinstating her to her former position, she was offered the 1997. After this period, respondent did not seem to have be given any further
position of Linen Dispatcher in the hotel basement or Secretary of the Roomskeeping assignment.
Section, positions much lower than that of a Supervisor of Outlet Cashiers which the - The SC ruled that while it is true that security guards may be put on floating status the
respondent held before she was promoted as Senior Front Office Cashier. With the said same should last for only six months. In the case at bar, there was no showing that
positions, the respondent would not certainly be receiving the same salary and other Mobile lacked engagements to which they can post their guards. Absent any dire
benefits as Senior Front Office Cashier. exigency justifying their failure to give respondent further assignment, the only logical
- The offers by the petitioners to transfer Agoncillo to other positions were made in bad conclusion is that respondent was constructively dismissed.
faith, a ploy to stave off a suit for illegal dismissal. In fact, Agoncillo had not been - Even assuming that Mobile was justified in not immediately giving Ompad any
transferred to another position at all. assignment after October, the length of time that he was put on floating status is
- Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the hotel had a valid ground for tantamount to constructive dismissal.
dismissing [the] complainant and that it had merely spared her such fate, the hotel is still - In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi is on the employer to prove that the
guilty of illegal dismissal. Had the hotel made the transfer of complainant in good faith dismissal was in fact for valid cause. It was in this case also the burden of Mobile to
and in the normal course of its operation, it would have been justified. In this case, submit evidence that the resignation was voluntary on the part of Ompad.
however, the supposed transfer was made only after complainant had been earlier Disposition Petition dismissed.
terminated. Complainant’s statement in her affidavit that she was summoned by the hotel
after news of her plan to contest her dismissal circulated remains unrefuted. Furthermore,
DUNCAN ASSOCIATION V GLAXO WELLCOME
the hotel has not explained why there was no official memorandum issued to complainant
formally informing her of her “transfer”. All these lead to only one conclusion – that the [PAGE 43]
alleged transfer was not made in good faith as a valid exercise of management
prerogative but was intended as a settlement offer to complainant to prevent her from R.P. DINGLASAN CONSTRUCTION INC V ATIENZA
filing a case.
433 SCRA 263
Disposition Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
PUNO; June 29, 2004
MOBILE PROTECTIVE AND DETECTIVE AGENCY V NATURE
OMPAD This is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated January
458 SCRA 308 17, 2001 and October 30, 2002, respectively, upholding the finding of constructive
dismissal against petitioner.
PUNO; May 9, 2005
FACTS
NATURE - Petitioner R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. provided janitorial services to Pilipinas
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA Shell Refinery Corporation (Shell Corporation) in Batangas City. Private respondents
Mariano Atienza and Santiago Asi served as petitioner’s janitors assigned with Shell
FACTS Corporation since 1962 and 1973, respectively.
- Private respondent, Alberto Ompad, was employed by the petitioner as a security guard - July 7, 1994 - Dinglasan called for a meeting and informed them and 3 other employees
in 1990. He was assigned to the various clients of Mobile. In June 1997, respondent was that their employment with Shell Corporation would be terminated effective July 15, 1994.
assigned as a security guard at Manila Southwoods when he inquired from the project They were told that Dinglasan lost the bidding for janitorial services with Shell. Dinglasan
manager of Southwoods if they have already paid their backwages to the security notified them that they may reapply as helpers and redeployed in other companies where
agency. Ompad claims that when the Agency found out about his query, he was relieved DInglasan had subsisting contracts but they would receive only a minimum wage.
from his post and never given another assignment. Atienza refused as the offer would be a form of demotion --- they would lose their
- The petitioner on the other hand claims that Ompad was assigned to another client, seniority status and would not be guaranteed to work at regular hours.
Valle Verde Country Club from August 29 to October 31, 1997 after he was relieved from - December 1994 – Atienza et al filed a complaint against Dinglasan for non-payment of
his post at the Manila Southwoods. Petitioner further claims that one of the guards at salary with the DOLE district office in Batangas City.
Valle Verde attested that Ompad had told her that he would earn better if he just drives - February 1995 - during the conciliation proceedings with the DOLE, Dinglasan sent
his tricycle full time. On October 15, 1997, Ompad reported for work but he was limping notices to Atienza et al informing them that they would be reinstated with Shell
due to an accident he suffered while driving his tricycle. Petitioner claims that he stopped Corporation as soon as they submit their barangay clearance, medical certificate, picture
reporting for work after that date. On September 23, 1998, Domingo Alonzo, operations and information sheet as per the new identification badge requirements of Shell
manager of Mobile saw respondent and inquired as to whether he was still interested in Corporation. Barangay officials met with Dinglasan to signify Atienza et al’s willingness to
reporting for work. The petitioner allegedly answered in the negative and it was at that to be reinstated bringing with them said requirements
time that Alonzo advised him to resign. Ompad, he claims, submitted his hand written - May 1995 – Atienza et al demanded the payment of their backwages starting from July
resignation which also was a quit claim. 15, 1994.
- Petitioner contended that the letter of resignation was forced on him in return for monies - June 1, 1995 – Dinglasan notified Atienza et al they have been declared absent without
owed him. As he needed the money, he had no choice but to comply. He however was leave (AWOL) as they allegedly failed to signify their intention to return to work and
only being given Pesos 5,000 which he rejected. He filed this case the following day. submit the badge requirements for their reinstatement.
- Ompad alleged that he was illegal terminated and claimed underpayment or non- - June 13, 1995 – Atienza et al wrote Dinglasan and insisted that they had complied with
payment of wages, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, separation pay, the badge requirements. Accompanied by the barangay officials, Atienza et al attempted
etc. to meet with the officers of Dinglasan but the latter refused to dialogue with them. As
proof of their compliance with the Shell requirements, Atienza et al submitted to the
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 250 - Disini
DOLE their x-ray results, dated May 17 and 19, 1995 and their barangay certification, a demotion in status and diminution in pay. Thereafter, for six (6) months, Atienza et al
dated May 13, 1995. were in a floating status. Interestingly, it was only after Atienza et al filed a complaint
- NLRC > Atienza et al charged DInglasan with illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th with the DOLE that Dinglasan backtracked in its position and offered to reinstate Atienza
month pay, with a claim for payment of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, and a et al to their former job in Shell Corporation with no diminution in salary. Eventually,
prayer for reinstatement with payment of full backwages from July 15, 1994. however, Dinglasan unilaterally withdrew its offer of reinstatement, refused to meet with
> Dinglasan gave a different version of the incident. It allegedly informed Atienza et al the Atienza et al and instead decided to dismiss them from service.
and the other affected employees that they would be deployed to petitioner’s other Disposition petition is DISMISSED and the impugned decision and resolution of the
principal companies but that their work would be different. Except for Atienza et al, all Court of Appeals, dated January 17, 2001 and October 30, 2002, respectively, are
the affected employees accepted its offer of redeployment and reported back to work. AFFIRMED in toto.
Atienza et al failed to submit a resignation letter to signify their intention not to return to
work.
GO V CA (MOLDEX PRODUCTS INC)
- during the pendency of the labor case – Dinglasan in 2 separate notices informed
Atienza et al that they could be reinstated at Shell Corporation with no diminution in their 430 SCRA 358
salary provided that they submit the documents for the new identification badge YNARES-SANTIAGO; May 28, 2004
requirement of Shell Corporation. Atienza et al, however, refused to return to work until
they were paid their backwages. Consequently, Dinglasan was constrained to consider NATURE
them as having abandoned their work and to terminate their employment on September Petition for review decision of CA (which set aside resolutions of NLRC)
19, 1995. Dinglasan, thus, justified the dismissal of Atienza et al on the grounds of gross
and habitual neglect of duties and abandonment of work. FACTS
- LABOR ARBITER > September 3, 1998, LA Andres Zavalla rendered a decision finding - Fernando Go was hired by Moldex Products Inc. in 1986 as a salesman, then, over the
that private respondents were illegally dismissed from service and ordering their years, was promoted to a Senior Sales Manager. As such officer, he was responsible for
reinstatement. overseeing and managing the sales force of the company such as dealing with clients,
- NLRC > the decision of the labor arbiter was affirmed getting orders, entering into an agreement with clients (subject to approval of higher
- CA > PROCEDURAL: petition could not prosper as petitioner failed to move for a management).
reconsideration of the NLRC decision; SUBSTANTIVE: upheld the findings of the labor - Sometime in 1998, the EVP o Moldex called the attention of Go regarding the discovery
arbiter and the NLRC that: (1) private respondents were constructively dismissed as of alleged anomalies purportedly committed by the sales people under Go’s control.
petitioner’s offer of reassignment involved a diminution in pay and demotion in rank that Such anomalies stemmed from the disbursement of funds by Moldex to gov’t officials to
made their continued employment unacceptable; and, (2) private respondents could not secure big supplpy contracts from the gov’t.
be considered to have abandoned their work; DInglasan’s motion for reconsideration was - Because of the issue, a number of employees were dismissed, including those under
denied Go’s supervision. Go himself was terminated, allegedly “on account of command
responsibility”. Moldex claimed that Go, “obviously feeling guilty for not exercising
ISSUES effective supervision over his subordinates, submitted a letter of resignation dated
1. WON there is valid dismissal on the ground that they failed to report back to the office October 12, 1998 but effective on November 16, 1998.” Moldex added that Go went on
and this abandoned their work leave from Oct 12, 1998 to Nov 16, 1998. While on leave, he worked for the release of
2. WON there was constructive dismissal his clearance and the payment of 13 th month pay and leave pay benefits. On the other
hand, Go contends that he was not investigated. The investigation only involved other
HELD sales people. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. LA ruled for Go (there was
1. Ratio In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove illegal dismissal), NLRC affirmed, but CA set aside the decisions, relying on evidence
that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause. In the case at bar, Dinglasan failed that Go was actively performing his normal duties and functions during the months
to discharge its burden. It failed to establish that Atienza et al deliberately and immediately prior to his resignation, contrary to the finding of constructive dismissal.
unjustifiably refused to resume their employment without any intention of returning to
work. ISSUE
- To constitute abandonment of work, two (2) requisites must concur: first, the employee WON there was constructive dismissal
must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason;
and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever HELD
the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts. Abandonment as a just NO
ground for dismissal requires deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume Ratio Constructive dismissal exists where there is a cessation of work because
his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. It is present
enough to amount to abandonment. when an employee’s functions, which were originally supervisory in nature, were
Reasoning reduced, and such reduction is not grounded on valid grounds such as genuine business
- the evidence negates the theory that they abandoned their work. necessity.
(1) Atienza et al reported back to Dinglasan’s office a number of times expressing their Reasoning
desire to continue working without demotion in rank or diminution of salary. This fact was - Apparently, Go still fully exercised the prerogatives and the responsibilities of his office
established by the corroborating testimony of barangay officials, accompanied Atienza et as the Senior Sales Manager during the time that the said functions were supposedly
al to Dinglasan’s office at least ten (10) times to negotiate their redeployment on more removed from him. Therefore, there can be no constructive dismissal to speak of.
acceptable terms. - Go claims that his separation from employment with Moldex was a case of constructive
(2) in seeking reinstatement, Atienza et al also sought the intervention of the DOLE to dismissal, an allegation which the company refutes with its own set of evidence pointing
arbitrate the labor issue between the parties. to the Go’s voluntary resignation.
(3) Atienza et al submitted the barangay clearances and x-ray results required from them - It should be remembered that Go has submitted a letter of resignation. It is thus
by petitioner for their reinstatement as witnessed by the barangay officials. incumbent upon him to substantiate his claim that his resignation was not voluntary but in
(4) the records would bear that Atienza et al lost no time and sought their reinstatement truth was actually a constructive dismissal. This the petitioner failed to do. His bare
by filing an illegal dismissal case against Dinglasan, which act is clearly inconsistent with allegations, when uncorroborated by evidence, cannot be given credence.
a desire to sever employer-employee relations and abandon their work. - on the other hand, Moldex presented confidential sales evaluation forms that prove that
- All these overt acts on the part of Atienza et al negate Dinglasan’s claim of Go was still performing his duties and responsibilities one month prior to his resignation.
abandonment of work and prove beyond doubt their steadfast desire to continue their - While on leave, he worked for the release of his clearance and the payment of his 13 th
employment with petitioner and be reinstated to their former position. month pay and leave pay benefits. In doing so, he in fact performed all that an employee
2. YES normally does after he resigns. Resignation is the formal pronouncement or
Ratio Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting when continued employment is relinquishment of an office. The voluntary nature of Go’s acts has manifested itself
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a clearly belie his claim of constructive dismissal.
demotion in rank and diminution of pay. The totality of the evidence indubitably shows that Go resigned from employment without
Reasoning any coercion or compulsion from respondent. His resignation was voluntary.
- Dinglasan committed constructive dismissal when it offered to reassign Atienza et al to Disposition: Petition denied, and decision of CA AFFIRMED.
another company but with no guaranteed working hours and payment of only the
minimum wage. The terms of the redeployment thus became unacceptable for private
respondents and foreclosed any choice but to reject petitioner’s offer, involving as it does ACUNA V CA
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 251 - Disini
[PAGE 12] - GLOBE et al., on the other hand, claimed that FLORENDO abandoned her work; that
her complaint rested on a purely private disagreement with her immediate superior, and
that she filed the complaint without consulting the company’s grievance process.
POSEIDON FISHING V NLRC
[PAGE 98] ISSUE
WON FLORENDO can be constructively dismissed from service
CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND ILLEGAL HELD
DISMISSAL YES
Ratio Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because "continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a
MARK ROCHE V NLRC demotion in rank and a diminution in pay." All these are discernible in FLORENDO’s
313 SCRA 356 situation. She was singularly edged out of employment by the undesirable treatment she
BELLOSILLO; August 31, 1999 received from her superior, who discriminated against her without reason . (See above for
SANTOS’ acts against FLORENDO.) And although FLORENDO continued to have the
rank of a supervisor, her functions were reduced to a mere direct sales agent. This was
FACTS
tantamount to a demotion. She might not have suffered any diminution in her basic salary
- On different dates, private respondents filed separate complaints for underpayment of
but GLOBE et al. did not dispute her allegation that she was deprived of all benefits due
wages and non-payment of overtime pay against petitioners Mark Roche International
to another of her rank and position, benefits which she apparently used to receive.
(MRI), Eduardo Dayot and Susan Dayot. Private respondents sought the assistance of a
- Far from blaming SANTOS alone, FLORENDO also attributes her degraded state to
labor organization which helped them organize the Mark Roche Workers Union (MRWU).
GLOBE et al. She cited GLOBE et al.'s indifference to her plight as she was twice left out
Apparently irked by the idea of a union within the company, petitioners ordered private
in a salary increase, without GLOBE et al. giving her any reason. It eludes belief that
respondents to withdraw the petition and further threatened them that should they insist
GLOBE et al. were entirely in the dark as the salary increases were granted across-the-
in the organization of a union they would be dismissed. Unfazed, private respondents
board to all employees except FLORENDO. It is highly improbable that the exclusion of
refused. As expected, private respondents were discharged from work. Petitioners
FLORENDO had escaped GLOBE et al.'s notice. The absence of an evaluation report
disclaimed knowledge of any deficiency owing to private respondents since all the
from SANTOS should have been looked into by GLOBE et al. for proper action. If a
benefits due them as required by law were fully paid, except overtime pay which they
salary increase was unwarranted, then it should have been sufficiently explained by
were not entitled to on account of their being piece-rate workers. The Labor Arbiter
GLOBE et al. to FLORENDO. And despite GLOBE et al.’s claim that FLORENDO did not
rendered his decision declaring as illegal the constructive dismissal of private
brought her problem against SANTOS to the company's grievance machinery, it remains
respondents and ordered their reinstatement, payment of backwages, salary differentials
uncontroverted that FLORENDO had inquired from GLOBE et al. why her other benefits
and proportionate 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. On appeal, the
had been withheld and sought clarification for her undeserved treatment but GLOBE and
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
SANTOS remained mum.
but set aside the award of service incentive leave on the ground that private respondents
- Thus, the dispute was not a mere private spat between FLORENDO and her superior;
were not entitled thereto as they were piece-rate workers. Petitioners moved for
the case overflowed into the realm of FLORENDO's employment. And at the very least,
reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, the present petition.
GLOBE et al. were negligent in supervising all of their employees.
- In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and
ISSUE
demotion of an employee are for just and valid grounds such as genuine business
WON the dismissal of private respondents was a constructive dismissal or an illegal
necessity. The transfer must not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and
dismissal
other benefits. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee's
demotion shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal. The award of back
HELD
wages in the instant case is justified upon the finding of illegal dismissal.
- Constructive dismissal or a constructive discharge has been defined as a quitting
Disposition CA decision that FLORENDO abandoned her work, SET ASIDE. GLOBE et
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an
al. to pay FLORENDO full back wages from the time she was constructively dismissed
offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. In the instant case, private
until her reinstatement, and to cause immediate reinstatement of FLORENDO to her
respondents were not demoted in rank nor their pay diminished considerably. They were
former position, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits.
simply told without prior warning or notice that there was no more work for them. After
receiving the notice of hearing of the petition for certification election on 27 October
1992, petitioners immediately told private respondents that they were no longer
employed. Evidently it was the filing of the petition for certification election and
organization of a union within the company which led petitioners to dismiss private
respondents and not petitioners' allegations of absence or abandonment by private
respondents. The formation of a labor union has never been a ground for valid
termination, and where there is an absence of clear, valid and legal cause, the law
considers the termination illegal.
HELD
- Decorion’s preventive suspension has already ripened into a constructive dismissal.
- Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules provide:
VALIAO V CA Section 8. Preventive suspension. — The employer may place the worker
[PAGE 11] concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a
serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or his co-
workers.
CADIZ V CA Section 9. Period of Suspension — No preventive suspension shall last longer
[PAGE 224] than thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his
former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the
period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the
MARICALUM MINING CORP V DECORION wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not
487 SCRA 182 be bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the
TINGA; April 12, 2006 employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss the worker.
- Preventive suspension is justified where the employee's continued employment
poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of
NATURE
the employee's co-workers. Without this kind of threat, preventive suspension is
Appeal from decision of CA
not proper.
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 254 - Disini
- Decorion was suspended only because he failed to attend a meeting called by - The mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of
his supervisor. There is no evidence to indicate that his failure to attend the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
meeting prejudiced his employer or that his presence in the company's premises - Clearly, respondent Vargas's position involves a high degree of responsibility requiring
posed a serious threat to his employer and co-workers. The preventive trust and confidence. Her position carries with it the duty to observe proper company
suspension was unjustified. procedures in the fulfillment of her job as it relates closely to the financial interests of the
- Decorion's suspension persisted beyond the 30-day period allowed by the company.
Implementing Rules. In Premiere Development Bank v. NLRC the Court ruled that 2. YES
preventive suspension which lasts beyond the maximum period allowed by the Notice and Hearing
Implementing Rules amounts to constructive dismissal. - The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due
- At the time Decorion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, he had already been process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform
suspended for 103 days. Decorion's preventive suspension had already ripened the employee concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the
into constructive dismissal at. While actual dismissal and constructive dismissal proposed dismissal; upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the
do take place in different fashion, the legal consequences they generate are employee an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him accordingly to
identical. His employment may not have been actually terminated in the sense defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements
that he was not served walking papers but there is no doubt that he was can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the 1987
constructively dismissed as he was forced to quit because continued employment Constitution.
was rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely by Maricalum Mining's act of - In the instant case, the records are bereft of any indication that a formal notice of the
preventing him from reporting for work. charge was given to the respondent prior to the suspension or that the said investigation
- Article 286 of the Labor Code, which provides that the bona fide suspension of gave adequate opportunity to the respondent to defend herself. It is important to stress
the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) that an employee whose services are sought to be terminated, has the right to be
months shall not terminate employment, may not be applied in this case. The informed beforehand of his proposed dismissal or suspension as well as of the reasons
instant case involves the preventive suspension of an employee not by reason of therefor and to be afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself from the charges
the suspension of the business operations of the employer but because of the leveled against him. We give respect to the following conclusions of the labor arbiter and
employee's failure to attend a meeting. The allowable period of suspension in respondent Commission:
such a case is only 30 days as provided by the Implementing Rules. “It is patent from the respondent's submission that written notice specifying the causes
Disposition Petition denied. CA’s decision affirmed. for termination was never furnished to complainant. Neither does it appear that she
was given enough opportunity to explain her side and defend herself with the
assistance of a representative of her choice is she so desires. “
RATIONALE Preventive Suspension
- Further, the preventive suspension of respondent Vargas for an indefinite period
KWIKWAY ENG’G WORKS V NLRC (VARGAS) amounted to a dismissal and is violative of Section 4, Rule XIV of the Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code which limits the preventive suspension to thirty (30) days. The
195 SCRA 526 said rule also provides that "the employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his
MEDIALDEA; March 22, 1991 former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of
suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other
FACTS benefits due to the worker." (Pacific Cement Company Inc. v. NLRC
- Respondent Vargas was formerly employed by Kwikway as bookkeeper and secretary. Disposition the petition GRANTED. The questioned decision of the respondent NLRC
As bookkeeper, it was her duty to fill up the check vouchers and indicate therein the insofar as it ordered the reinstatement of respondent Rosalinda Vargas with payment of
name of the customer agent and the amount payable to each before they are presented three (3) years backwages is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
to the agents for signing. - Petitioner company is ordered to pay an indemnity of P1,000.00 to respondent Vargas
- The new branch manager (BM) discovered that several blank vouchers already (For failure of the employer to comply with the requirements of due process in
contained the signatures of the mechanic agents. BM confronted the branch cashier in terminating the employees service, it shall be liable to indemnify the employee in the sum
charge of the vouchers, Marina Corpus, concerning the irregularity. Corpus explained of P1,000.00 as damages)
that Vargas was aware of this practice. When asked for an explanation, Vargas stated
that the procedure has been the practice in that office since the time of the former branch GATBONTON V NLRC (MIT, CALDERON)
manager who had knowledge thereof.
- BM informed the head office with his discovery. Kwikway’s VP conducted an
479 SCRA 416
investigation. On the following day, Vargas and Corpus were placed under preventive AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; January 23, 2006
suspension for an indefinite period of time on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
- Vargas was informed of the result of the investigation. Kwikway offered her a chance to NATURE
resign with separation pay, which she accepted. Petition for review on certiorari
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision directing the reinstatement of respondent Vargas
to her former position with backwages. NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. FACTS
- Petitioner: the nature of the position of Vargas involves trust and confidence. That - Gatbonton is a professor at the Mapua Institute of Technology, a member of the Faculty
private respondent's acts of dishonesty as well as her active participation in violating and of Civil Engineering. In November 1998, a student filed a complaint of sexual
infringing company accounting procedure which allowed the cashier to personally harassment against Gatbonton. He was then placed under preventive suspension for 30
misappropriate sums of money provide sufficient basis for dismissing respondent. That days pending investigation.
Vargas was aware that her cashier Corpus was committing acts of dishonesty and - Gatbonton filed a complaint against MIT for illegal suspension.
misappropriation of company funds but she did not report the matter to her superiors in - Petitioner questioned the validity of the administrative proceedings with the Manila RTC
the company. That the actuations of Vargas were in violation of the company's code of but the case was terminated on May 21, 1999 when the parties entered into a
conduct, which is punishable by dismissal. compromise agreement wherein MIT agreed to publish in the school organ the rules and
regulations implementing the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. The Labor Arbiter later
ISSUES declared that the preventive suspension imposed was illegal.
1. WON the dismissal of respondent Vargas was for a just and valid cause - Both respondents and petitioner filed their appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s Decision,
2. WON respondent Vargas was deprived of her constitutional right to due process with Gatbonton questioning the dismissal of his claim for damages. The NLRC favorable
granted the appeal of respondent MIT. Gatbonton.
HELD
1. YES ISSUE
- The rule is settled that if there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee has WON the NLRC erred in dismissing Gatbonton’s claim for damages stemming from an
been guilty of breach of trust or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the alleged illegal suspension
labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such employee.
- Jurisprudence abounds with cases recognizing the right of the employer to dismiss the HELD
employee on loss of confidence. More so in the case of supervisors or personnel YES
occupying positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination Ratio Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the
company’s property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance
Labor Law 1 A2010 - 255 - Disini
committed by the employee. The employer may place the worker concerned under
preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat
to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers. However, when it is
determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify an employee’s preventive
suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of preventive
suspension.
Reasoning
- R.A. No. 7877 imposed the duty on educational or training institutions to “promulgate
rules and regulations in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or
students or trainees, through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the
procedures for the investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative
sanctions therefor.”
- Petitioner’s preventive suspension was based on respondent MIT’s Rules and
Regulations for the Implemention of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act which provides that
“any member of the educational community may be placed immediately under preventive
suspension during the pendency of the hearing of the charges of grave sexual
harassment against him if the evidence of his guilt is strong and the school head is
morally convinced that the continued stay of the accused during the period of
investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal operations of the institution or poses
a risk or danger to the life or property of the other members of the educational
community.”
- But the said rules and regulations were published only on February 23, 1999.
- The Mapua Rules is one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity,
since its purpose is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general
application. Thus, at the time of the imposition of petitioner’s preventive suspension on
January 11, 1999, the Mapua Rules were not yet legally effective, and therefore the
suspension had no legal basis.
- The Court also finds that there is insufficient legal basis to justify the preventive
suspension because of the absence of the required requisites. Under the Mapua Rules,
an accused may be placed under preventive suspension during pendency of the hearing
under any of the following circumstances:
(a) if the evidence of his guilt is strong and the school head is morally convinced that the
continued stay of the accused during the period of investigation constitutes a distraction
to the normal operations of the institution; or
(b) the accused poses a risk or danger to the life or property of the other members of the
educational community.
Disposition petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of Labor Arbiter is
reinstated while the decisions of the CA and the NLRC are set aside.
NUMBER OFFENSES
APARENTE V NLRC
[PAGE 240]