Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Case Digest No.

A. Title:

G.R. No: 124617 April 28, 2000


B. Facts: On 5 October 1994 a memorandum was a issued by Ms. Myrna Palomares, Personnel Manager of petitioner corporation, addressed to private respondent Rosalinda C. Cortez requiring her to explain within forty-eight (48) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her (a) for throwing a stapler at Plant Manager William Chua, her superior, and uttering invectives against him on 2 August 1994; (b) for losing the amount of P1,488.00 entrusted to her by Plant Manager Chua to be given to Mr. Fang of the CLMC Department on 23 August 1994; and, (c) for asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card thus making it appear that she was in the office in the morning of 6 September 1944 when in fact she was not. The memorandum however was refused by private respondent although it was read to her and discussed with her by a coemployee. She did not also submit the required explanation, so that while her case pending investigation the company placed her under preventive suspension for thirty (30) days effective 9 October 1994 to 7 November 1994. On 20 October 1994, while Cortez was still under preventive suspension, another memorandum was issued by Petitioner Corporation giving her seventy-two (72) hours to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for allegedly failing to process the ATM applications of her nine (9) co-employees with the Allied Banking Corporation. On 21 October 1994 private respondent also refused to receive the second memorandum although it was read to her by a co-employee. A copy of the memorandum was also sent by the Personnel Manager to private respondent at her last known address by registered mail. Then After A while the private respondent submitted a written explanation with respect to the loss of the P1, 488.00 and the punching-in of her time card by a co-employee. On November 3, 1994 the 3rd memorandum was issued to the respondent to inform her about her termination that will be effective started from November 7, 1994 due to habitual neglects of duties, serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust. On December 6, 1994 private respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month

pay and damages against PAAUC and its president Francis Chua On July 10, 1995 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding the termination of Cortez as valid and legal, at the same time dismissing her claim for damages for lack of merit. Then on the appeal to the NLRC the public respondent reversed on Feb. 15, 1996 the decision of the Labor Arbiter and they found that the corporation is guilty of illegal dismissal of respondent Cortez. Thats why the NLRC petition to PAAUC to reinstate respondent Cortez to her former work with wages that is computed from the time of dismissal up to actual reinstatement.

C. Issue:

The Case is all about the Misconduct of the Respondent and whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of private respondent, and whether she is entitled to damages in the event that the illegality of her dismissal is sustained.

D. Decision:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission finding the dismissal of private respondent Rosalinda C. Cortez to be without just cause and ordering petitioners Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation and/or Francis Chua to pay her back wages computed from the time of her dismissal, which should be full back wages, is AFFIRMED. However, in view of the strained relations between the adverse parties, instead of reinstatement ordered by public respondent, petitioners should pay private respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service until finality of this judgment. In addition, petitioners are ordered to pay private respondent P25, 000.00 for moral damages and P10, 000.00 for exemplary damages. Costs against petitioners.

Case Digest No. 2 A. Title G.R. No. 130547. October 3, 2000

Name of the Case:


B. Facts

Petitioner Leah Alesna Reyes is the wife of the late Jorge Reyes. The other petitioners, namely, Rose Nahdja, Johnny, Lloyd, and Kristine, all surnamed Reyes, were their children. Five days before his death on January 8, 1987, Jorge had been suffering from a recurring fever with chills. After he failed to get relief from some home medication he was taking, which consisted of analgesic, antipyretic, and antibiotics, he decided to see the doctor. On January 8, 1987, he was taken by her wife to the Mercy Community Clinic. He was attended by the respondent Dr. Marlyn Rico, a resident physician and admitting physician on duty, who gave Jorge a physical examination and took his medical history. She noted that at the time of his admission, Jorge was conscious, ambulatory, oriented, coherent, and with respiratory distress. Since Typhoid Fever is now prevalent in the placed, he was suspected that he had this disease. Thats why Dr. Rico ordered a Widal Test, a standard test for typhoid fever, to be performed on Jorge. Blood count, routine urinalysis, stool examination, and malarial smear were also made.After about an hour, the medical technician submitted the results of the test from which Dr. Rico concluded that Jorge was positive for typhoid fever. As her shift was only up to 5:00 p.m., Dr. Rico indorsed Jorge to respondent Dr. Marvie Blanes. At evening Dr. Marvie Blanes attended to Jorge at around 6:00 pm. Just like Dr. Rico she also took Jorges history and gave him physical Examination. Just like Dr. Rico, she think that he have Typhoid Fever. Antibiotics was the accepted treatment for typhoid fever, she ordered a Compatibility test with the Antibiotic Chloromycetin . And it was administered by Nurse Josephine Pagente. As she did not observe any adverse reaction by the patient to chloromycetin, Dr. Blanes ordered the first five hundred milligrams of said antibiotic to be administered on Jorge at around 9:00 p.m. A second dose was administered on Jorge about three hours later just before midnight. At around 1:00 a.m. of Jan. 09, 1987. Dr. Blanes was called when Jorge temp. rise to 41C that he experienced chills and exhibited respiratory distress, nausea , vomiting and convulsions. Dr. Blanes put him under oxygen, used a suction machine, and administered hydrocortisone, temporarily easing the patients convulsions. When he regained consciousness, the patient was asked by Dr. Blanes whether he had a previous heart ailment or had suffered from chest pains in the past. Jorge replied he did not. Then after a while Jorge started again to have the same symptoms. At 2:00 am Jorge died. He was forty years old. The cause of his death was Ventricular Arrythemia Secondary to Hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever. And on June 3, 1987 petitioners filed a complaint against respondents Sisters of Mercy Community Clinic, in Regional Trail court of Cebu. The decision was absolving the respondents from the charges of negligence and dismissing petitioners action for damages. The trial court likewise dismissed respondents counterclaim, holding that, in seeking damages from respondents, petitioners were impelled by the honest belief that Jorges death was due to the latters negligence. But the petitioners brought the case on Court of appeals on July 31, 1997.

C. Issue

Their principal contention was that Jorge did not die of typhoid fever. Instead, his death was due to the wrongful administration of chloromycetin. Or in other words medical malpractice of the doctors.

D. Decision:

The instant petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Submitted by: Evangelista, Trixia T. BSN-4A

Submitted to: Mr. Arnel Rivera