Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lab Cases 2
Lab Cases 2
DE GRACIA
National Service Corporation (NASECO) vs. NLRC
G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988
FACTS: Eugenia C. Credo was an employee of the NASECO, a
domestic corporation which provides security guards to PNB and its
agencies. She was first employed with NASECO as a lady guard
through the years, she was promoted to Clerk Typist, then Personnel
Clerk until she became Chief of Property and Records.
Credo was administratively charged by Sisinio S. Lloren, Manager of
Finance and Special Project and Evaluation Department of NASECO,
stemming from her non-compliance with Lloren's memorandum,
regarding certain entry procedures in the company's Statement of
Billings Adjustment. Said charges alleged that Credo "did not comply
with Lloren's instructions to place some corrections/additional remarks
in the Statement of Billings Adjustment; and when [Credo] was called
by Lloren to his office to explain further the said instructions, [Credo]
showed resentment and behaved in a scandalous manner by shouting
and uttering remarks of disrespect in the presence of her coemployees."
Credo was called to meet Arturo L. Perez, then Acting General
Manager of NASECO, to explain her side in connection with the
administrative charges filed against her. After said meeting, on the
same date, Credo was placed on "Forced Leave" status for 15 days.
Before the expiration of said 15-day leave, Credo filed a complaint, with
the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and
Employment, Manila, against NASECO for placing her on forced leave,
without due process.
Likewise, while Credo was on forced leave, NASECO's Committee on
Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a number of past acts of
misconduct or infractions attributed to her. As a result of this
deliberation, said committee resolved that, Credo committed the
2. MARTIN
Facts:
Private respondent Central Philippine Union Mission
Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) is a religious
corporation under Philippine law and is represented by the other private
respondents. Petitioner was a pastor of SDA until 1991, when his
services were terminated. Austria worked with SDA for 28 years. He
started as a literature evangelist in 1963 then got promoted several
times. He became the Assistant Publishing Director in the West
Visayan Mission of the SDA in 1968 and Pastor in the West Visayan
Mission in 1972.Finally in 1989, he was promoted as District Pastor of
the Negros Mission of the SDA.
On various occasions from August to October 1991, Austria
received several communications from Mr. Ibesate, treasurer of the
Negros Mission, asking the former to admit accountability and
responsibility for the church tithes and offerings collected by his wife,
Thelma Austria, in his district and to remit the same to the Negros
Mission. In his answer, petitioner said that he should not be made
accountable since it was private respondent Pastor Buhat and Mr.
Ibesate who authorized his wife to collect the tithes and offerings since
he was very sick to do the collecting at that time. Thereafter, petitioner
went to the office of Pastor Buhat, president of the Negros Mission, and
asked for a convention to settle the dispute between petitioner and
Pastor Rodrigo. Pastor Buhat denied the request of petitioner because
there was no quorum. The two exchanged heated arguments until
petitioner left the office. However, while on his way out, he heard Pastor
Buhat saying, "Pastor daw inisog na ina iya (Pador you are talking
tough) which prompted him to go back and overturn Pastor Buhat
table, scatter books in the office, bang Buhat attach case and throw
the phone. Petitioner received a letter inviting him and his wife to attend
the meeting to discuss the non-remittance of church collection and the
events that transpired between him and Pastor Buhat.
A fact-finding committee was created to investigate petitioner.
Subsequently, petitioner received a letter of dismissal citing
misappropriation of denominational funds, willful breach of trust, serious
misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and commission of an
3. MIRANDA
4. BARTOLOME
Agabon vs NLRC
Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is
engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and
construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and
Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2,
1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of
money claims and on December 28, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private respondent
to pay the monetary claims.
Issue: Whether or not respondents dismissal is illegal and if not,
entitles them benefits.
Ruling: The Court ruled that the dismissal is legal and entitles them of
payment of benefits.
Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions
attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized
causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the
employer to terminate employees. A termination for an authorized
cause requires payment of separation pay. When the termination of
employment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full back wages are
mandated under Article 279. If reinstatement is no longer possible
where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may be granted.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article
282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a
hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before
terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which
dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after
hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss;
income, the 13th month pay is included in the definition of wage under
Article 97(f) of the Labor Code.
An employer is prohibited under Article 113 of the same Code from
making any deductions without the employees knowledge and consent.
5. TALAY
COLUMBUS PHILIPPINES BUS CORPORATION
VS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation is engaged in
the business of operating passenger buses. Since the start of its
operation in 1990 it has maintained a list of drivers and conductors who
rendered service in bus units allegedly on a first come first served
basis and compensated purely on commission. The drivers and
conductress worked for about ten to fifteen days a month and were
allegedly not required to work everyday.
Private respondent Roman Domasig started working as a driver with
the petitioner on August 30, 1990 while his wife and respondent
ZenaidaDomasig was employed as a bus conductress. The
employment of private respondents with the petitioner was abruptly
terminated for their having alleged formed a labor union. Roman
Domasig narrated that on January 21, 1992, he was forced to vacate
the bus he was regularly driving because of the alleged formed labor
union and from that time was never allowed to work with the petitioner.
Zenaida and Roman also narrated that they planned to put up a labor
union because of illegal deductions, excessive work for 19 to 20 hours
per day, and unfair labor practice by the petitioner. Upon learning of the
alleged formed labor union, one of the officers of the petitioner
AttyCatabian called the attention of Roman for the alleged union labor
and informed him that he will surely dismissed him from work. Thus two
cases of unfair practice labor, illegal dismissal, non-payment of service
incentive leave pay and 13th month pay were instituted by private
respondents against petitioner. Labor Arbiter found for the private
respondents and ordered the petitioner to reinstate them to their former
positions, without loss of seniority rights and with backpay. Aggrieved
by the reversed judgment of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner appealed to
the NLRC. Petitioner alleges that private respondents are not regular
employees. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter that they
6. AGORILLA
DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, AND/OR MILAGROS
CHUAKAY and WILLIAM GO, petitioners,
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), et al.
Facts:
Private respondents are employees of petitioners. They formed
a labor organization, affiliating themselves with Federation of Free
Workers, calling themselves FFW-kapatirangManggagawasa De
Paul/King Philip customs Tailor. On march 1993, the union filed a notice
of strike due to unfair labor practice. On 6 April 1993, the union
president, private respondent Victoriano Santos, stopped working. This
was followed by the "walk out" of the other private respondents from
their jobs on 12 April 1993.
On 13 May 1993, the union filed against the petitioners a case
for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime
pay before the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch.
On 21 June 1993, private respondents disaffiliated from the FFW. The
disaffiliation was caused by the failure of FFW to send a representative
in two hearings of the case of the private respondents before the labor
arbiter.
Private respondents claimed that they were previously warned
by the petitioners not to organize a union, nor be a member of the
same. Otherwise, they will be dismissed. Nevertheless, they still formed
the said union.
Petitioners denied dismissing the respondents, arguing further
that the respondents walked out from their jobs to prepare for a strike to
extort money from them. Petitioners contend that they sent notices to
respondents to return to work, save two workers who refused to accept
the same.
Respondents denied having received any notice to return to
work. They alleged that they were even prevented to enter the
premises of the work place and were threatened by hired policemen
who possessed fake warrants of arrest.
7. BACALZO
HELD:
STA CATALINA COLLEGE VS NLRC
FACTS:
HilariaTercero was hired as a teacher in Sta Catalina College in
1955. She was granted a 1 year leave of absence without pay in 1970
for her to take care of her ill mother. She, however, failed to report back
to work after the expiration of her leave. She instead was employed as
a teacher at the San Pedro Parochial School during school year 19801981 and at the Liceo de San Pedro, Bian,Laguna during school year
1981-1982.
In 1982 she reapplied and was accepted to teach at Sta
Catalina College and on 1997 was awarded a Plaque of Appreciation
for 30 years of service. Upon her reaching the compulsory retirement
age of 65, the school computed her benefits on the basis of the 15
years of service from 1982 to 1997. The school claims that Tercero
abandoned her employment when she did not report back to work at
the expiration of her 1 year leave of absence in 1971. Tercero, however,
insisted the computation be based on her 30 years of service. For
failing to reach an agreement, Tercero filed a complaint against the
school. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the school but was reversed
by the NLRC.
Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the ruling of the NLRC. The CA held that petitioners failed to
prove that Hilaria had abandoned her position in 1970, as petitioner
school even gave her a Plaque of Appreciation for thirty years of
service "precisely because of her thirty year continuous service," and
that petitioner school never sent notice to her dismissing her, hence,
the employer-employee relationship was not severed and, therefore,
her services for petitioner school during the period from 1955-1970
should be credited in the computation of her retirement benefits.
ISSUE: WON Tercero abandoned her work.
8. OLORES
PAZ MARTIN JO AND CESAR JO V. NLRC AND PETER MAJILA
PREPARED BY EMMANUEL M. OLORES
FACTS:
1. 1970. Peter Majila was a barber in Dinas Barbershop
2. Dina Tan, the owner of Dinas Barbershop sold the Barbershop
to Paz Martin JO and Cesar JO
3. Paz JO and Cesar JO, being the new owner of Dinas
Barbershop, absorbed all the employees of Dinas Barbershop.
This includes Peter Mejila.
4. Winfield Barbershop is the new name of Dinas Barbershop.
Winfield is now owned by Paz Jo and Cesar JO
5. Peter Majila was paid on a commission basis. 2/3 to the Barber,
1/3 to the owner.
6. 1977. Peter was designated as caretaker of the shop because
he became unfit. As caretaker, he was paid a fixed monthly
honorarium
7. Peter Mejila was also asked to do other tasks i.e. to report to the
owner the malfunctioning aircondition, to call laundry woman to
wash dirty linen, to recommend applicants for interview and
hiring, attend to other needs of the shop.
8. 1986. Winfield Barbershop closed. Reason: Building was
demolished.
9. Later, a new barbershop opened. It is named as Cesars Palace
Barbershop.
10. 1992. Peter Mejila had an altercation with his co-barber named
Jorge Tinoy.
11. Peter Mejila filed before the NLRC for mediation.
12. The Labor Arbiterfound out that the dispute was not between
Paz Jo and Peter Mejila but between Peter and his coemployee.Further, Peter Mejila demanded a separation pay.
13. 1993. Peter Mejila turned over the duplicate keys to the cashier
and took away his belongings.
14. Peter Mejilabagan working at a newly opened barbershop
named Goldilocks Barbershop.
15. Peter Mejila filed before the NLRC an illegal dismissal case
against Paz Jo and Cesar Jo.
16. The complaint prayed for payment of separation pay and other
monetary benefits, attorneys fees and other damages.
DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC
17. Labor Arbiters Decision. (a) There is an employer-employee
relationship. (b) Peter Mejila left the job voluntarily because of
his misunderstanding with his co-employee.
18. NLRCs Decision. (a) There is an employer-employee
relationship. (b) Peter Mejila was illegally dismissed. NLRC
ordered the payment of the following:
1. Backwages
2. 13th Month Pay Peter was not only paid on a commission
basis but he also workedas caretaker or paid on a fixed
monthly honorarium
3. Separation Pay those paid on a commission basis are also
entitled to separation pay
4. Attorneys fees.
19. [CAs Decision. WALA probably because this case was decided
on 1994, when the 1997 Revised Rules of Court was not yet in
effect. Probably.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
1. Whether there is an employer-employee relationship
2. Whether Peter Mejila abandoned his employment.
The
9. RIVERA
A Prime Security Services Inc. vs National Labor Relation
Commission
G.R. No. 93476 March 19, 1993
Facts:
Certain Florentino Lising, the herein private respondent, was an
employee of the herein petitioner security agency (APPSI).
Regional Relay Facilities, a U.S. Mission Facility was one of its client
and located at Angles City where the private respondent was assigned
as shift supervisor.
During its service, sometime on Sept. 1988 Assistant Region Security
of the U.S Embassy wrote a letter in favor of the agency requesting for
the relief from service of the private respondent on the ground that he
was caught sleeping while on duty for at least (4)four times.
After conducting an investigation, the agency terminated the service
and assignment of the respondent on that client. After learning the
same, the respondent no longer reported for work but instead he was
declared on AWOL.
The employer wrote him that if he will not go back for work, he will be
dismissed.
Instead of complying with such order, the respondent filed an action for
illegal dismissal and prayed for a separation pay and full back wages.
Because of his continued absence, he was dismissed.s
Issues: 1. Is the respondent Illegally dismissed ?
2. Is he entitled for separation pay?
Held:
1. The respondent was not illegally dismissed. His dismissal is for valid
cause. Based on the facts, what is terminated is his assignment only in
the U.S Facility and not his employment with the APPSI and it is without
prejudice for reassignment to another or other client.
It is his own act, his continued absence without official leave, that
causes his termination.
10. ROXAS
11. ALOTA
Wenphil Corporation vs NLRC
Facts:
Roberto Mallare was hired by petitioner on January 18, 1984 as
a crew member at its Cubao Branch. He thereafter became the
assistant head of the Backroom department of the same branch. At
about 2:30 P.M. on May 20, 1985 private respondent had an altercation
with a co-employee, Job Barrameda, as a result of which he and
Barrameda were suspended on the following morning and in the
afternoon of the same day a memorandum was issued by the
Operations Manager advising private respondent of his dismissal from
the service in accordance with their Personnel Manual. The notice of
dismissal was served on private respondent on May 25, 1985. Roberto
Mallare filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice,
illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
A decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter on December 3,
1986 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) wherein in due
course a decision was rendered on October 16, 1987 setting aside the
appealed decision and ordering the reinstatement of private respondent
to his former position without loss of seniority and other related benefits
and one (1) year backwages without qualification and deduction.
Issue:
Whether or not, Mallare was illegally dismissed and his right to due
process was infringed when he was suspended and immediately
terminated without investigation as to the event?
Ruling:
It is a matter of fact that when the private respondent filed a
complaint against petitioner he was afforded the right to an
investigation by the labor arbiter. He presented his position paper as did
the petitioner. If no hearing was had, it was the fault of private
respondent as his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearings.
The labor arbiter concluded that the dismissal of private respondent
was for just cause. He was found guilty of grave misconduct and
insubordination. Under the circumstances the dismissal of the private
respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to
return to his former employer.
However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account
for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation
before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed.
The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and
after due process. 5 Petitioner committed an infraction of the second
requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a
formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before
dismissing petitioner from employment.
12. SALVADOR
JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION
vs.
PACOT, PAROHINOG, BISNAR, DOMINGO, LESCANO and
CAGABCAB
[G.R. No. 151378. March 28, 2005]
FACTS:
Private respondents were hired by JAKA but their services were
eventually terminated on August 29, 1997 due to dire financial straits, It
is not disputed by the parties that the termination was effected without
JAKA complying with the requirement under Article 283 of the Labor
Code regarding the service of a written notice upon the employees and
the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month
before the intended date of termination.
Respondents filed complaints at Regional Arbitration Branch NLRC for
illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and non-payment of service
incentive leave and 13th month pay
against JAKA and its HRD
Manager, Rosana Castelo.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the
termination illegal and ordering JAKA and its HRD Manager to reinstate
respondents with full backwages, and separation pay if reinstatement is
not possible.
There from, JAKA appealed to the NLRC,
August 30, 1999 decision: Affirmed in toto that of the Labor
Arbiters decision.
JAKA filed a motion for reconsideration:.
NLRCs decision on January 28, 2000: It reversed and set
aside the awards of backwages and service incentive leave pay. Each
of the complainants-appellees shall be entitled to a separation pay
equivalent to one month and the sum of P2,000.00 as indemnification
for its failure to observe due process in effecting the retrenchment.
JAKA filed again motion for reconsideration:
MR denied by the NLRC in its resolution of April 28, 2000.
asked the agent whether he made two deliveries on that day. When the
agent answered in the affirmative, DE GUZMAN paid the agent five
thousand five hundred twenty pesos (P5,520.00) corresponding to the
total amount of the receipts. She claimed that she failed and did not
have the opportunity to verify from Emmie Idio about the issuance of
the two receipts because on that day there were many customers.
DE GUZMAN contended that she cannot be held responsible for the
overpayment as she merely followed the usual procedure in the
company. It should be the sales clerk, Emmie Idion, who should be
held responsible for the issuance to the agent of two receipts.
Not satisfied with her explanation, REX, through Roque C. Solomon of
its Personnel Department, served on DE GUZMAN on 18 September
1995 a confidential memorandum informing her of the termination of
her services. The memorandum reads:
The decision on your case has been released under RBS-PRES 95001 dated September 14, 1995 the dispositive portion of which reads
as follows:
Management is left with no alternative but to affirm the
recommendation of the Fact Finding Committee not only to dismiss her
(referring to Miss Liza de Guzman) from the Company but to seek
recovery of the amount of P2,760.00 if not intentionally
misappropriated.
Earlier, on 5 August 1995, a day after she was placed under preventive
suspension, DE GUZMAN filed a complaint for illegal suspension with
the National Capital Region-Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
Immediately after her dismissal from the service, DE GUZMAN
amended her complaint to include illegal dismissal and claims for
thirteenth-month pay and attorneys fees.[7] The complaint was further
amended on 18 September 1995 and 10 October 1995 to include
claims for payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages.[8]
In its Answer to the complaint, REX alleged that the purported defect in
the disbursement procedure as claimed by DE GUZMAN cannot be
used by her as an excuse for her negligence and that the payment
made to the agent without proper authorization from the supervisor
violated REXs standard operating policy that no disbursement of fund
may be made by a cashier without the approval of his/her immediate
supervisor.
committed by an employee and she did not do it with malice, aside from
the fact that she was not solely responsible for the incidents. The
suspension of the employee would have sufficed.[24]
On the basis of the foregoing, the conclusion is inevitable that the total
withholding of full back wages is too harsh and severely
disproportionate to the offense committed by DE GUZMAN. In all
cases where punishment of any sort is imposed, the penalty shall be
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offense charged,
taking into consideration the varying circumstances surrounding each
particular case. The offender shall, however, be given the benefit of all
doubts that may exist as to his responsibility for the offense
charged. This dictum is in consonance with the policy of the State, as
embodied in the Constitution, to resolve doubts in favor of labor.[25]
As to the back wages, settled is the rule that the amount thereof to be
awarded to an illegally dismissed employee must be computed from the
time the compensation was withheld up to the time of actual
reinstatement, without deduction of earnings derived elsewhere
pending the resolution of the case.[31] But since in this case, separation
pay was awarded in lieu of reinstatement, the back wages must be
computed from the time of DE GUZMANs illegal dismissal until the
finality of this decision.[32]
14. TARIGA
GLOBE TELECOM, INC., DELFIN LAZARO, JR., and ROBERTO
GALANG, petitioners, vs. JOAN FLORENDO-FLORES, respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) is a corporation
duly
organized
and
existing
under
the
laws
of
the
Philippines. Petitioners Delfin Lazaro Jr. was its President and
Roberto Galang its former Director-Regional Sales. Respondent Joan
Florendo-Flores was the Senior Account Manager for Northern Luzon.
On 1 July 1998 Joan Florendo-Flores filed with the Regional
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
an amended complaint for constructive dismissal against GLOBE,
Lazaro, Galang, and Cacholo M. Santos, her immediate superior,
Luzon Head-Regional Sales. In her affidavit submitted as evidence
during the arbitration proceedings, Florendo-Flores bared that Cacholo
M. Santos never accomplished and submitted her performance
evaluation report thereby depriving her of salary increases, bonuses
and other incentives which other employees of the same rank had been
receiving; reduced her to a house-to-house selling agent (person-toperson sales agent or direct sales agent) of company products
("handyphone") despite her rank as supervisor of company dealers and
agents; never supported her in the sales programs and
recommendations she presented; and, withheld all her other benefits,
i.e., gasoline allowance, per diems, representation allowance, and car
maintenance, to her extreme pain and humiliation.[3]
GLOBE and its co-petitioners claimed that after receiving her
salary in the second week of May 1998 Florendo-Flores went AWOL
(Absent Without Leave) without signifying through letter or any other
means that she was resigning from her position; that notwithstanding
her absence and the filing of her case, respondent FlorendoFlores' employment was not terminated as shown by the fact that
salary was still provided her until July 1998 to be released upon her
presentation of the attendance-record sheet indicating that she already
returned and reported for work; that she continued to have the use a of
company car and company "handyphone" unit; that she was replaced
only when her absence became indefinite and intolerable as the
marketing operations in Northern Luzon began to suffer; that during the
pre-trial conference it was learned that Florendo-Flores' complaint
rested on her alleged personal and private disagreement with her
immediate superior Cacholo M. Santos; that there was no official act
from GLOBE or from other officers of the company, including
respondents Lazaro and Galang, which called for Florendo-Flores'
termination, diminution in rank, seniority and benefits, or would imply,
even remotely, any of the same; and, that Florendo-Flores filed the
complaint without going through the grievance process of GLOBE's
Human Resources Department and without informing its officers of her
problems with Cacholo M. Santos.
Labor Arbiter Monroe C. Tabingan declared Florendo-Flores to
have been illegally dismissed and ordered petitioners to reinstate her
without loss of seniority rights and full benefits; and to pay full back
wages, inclusive of basic pay, allowances and bonuses as prayed for in
the complaint amounting to P307,625.00, exemplary damages in the
sum of P200,000.00, and ten percent (10%) of the total monetary
award as attorney's fees. However, the Labor Arbiter set aside the
claim of abandonment as the company failed to send the requisite
notice to Florendo-Flores,[4] hence, there was no adherence to
procedural due process. Although he recognized that the problem
brewed and eventually boiled over due to the acts of Cacholo M.
Santos, GLOBE's former Head of Regional Sales, Luzon Area, the
Labor Arbiter found the company negligent in monitoring all its key
personnel, and thus assessed against it exemplary damages at the
same time deleting actual and moral damages.[5]
Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC which modified
the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC ruled that petitioners did
not dismiss Florendo-Flores but that the latter actually abandoned her
employment because of a disagreement with her immediate superior
which she failed to bring to the attention of GLOBE and its officers,
particularly petitioners Lazaro and Galang.[6] However, the NLRC
declared that if only as an act of gracefor the latter's past services with
the company, GLOBE, Lazaro and Galang should be held accountable
July 1997 and the months subsequent thereto all of respondent's other
benefits were withheld without any reason nor explanation from the
company.[21] Even as petitioners endeavored to lay the blame on Santos
alone, he would not have been able to single-handedly mastermind the
entire affair as to influence Sales Director Galang and manipulate the
payroll. It only stands to reason that Santos was acting pursuant to a
management directive, or if not, then petitioners had condoned it, or at
the very least, were negligent in supervising all of their employees. As
aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter x x x x it would appear however that the respondent company
was negligent in monitoring all its key personnel, which includes the
inter-personal relations of each and every key segment of the corporate
machinery. For such, it must be assessed with just and reasonable
exemplary damages.[22]
2.)No, The unauthorized absence of respondent should not lead to the
drastic conclusion that she had chosen to abandon her work. To
constitute abandonment, there must be: (a) failure to report for work or
absence without valid or justifiable reason; and, (b) a clear intention, as
manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee
relationship,[23] requisites that are negated by the immediate filing by
respondent Florendo-Flores of a complaint for constructive dismissal
against petitioners. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent
with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal; more so,
when it includes a prayer for reinstatement.[24]
The reduction of respondent's functions which were originally
supervisory in nature to a mere house-to-house sales agent or direct
sales agent constitutes a demotion in rank. For this act of illegal
dismissal, she deserves no less than full back wages .She shall
continue to enjoy her benefits, privileges and incentives including the
use of the company car and "handyphone."
In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of
proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for just and
valid grounds such as genuine business necessity.[26]
3.)No, It should be noted that the award of back wages in the instant
case is justified upon the finding of illegal dismissal, and not under the
15. SALVADOR
UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AMALIA P.
KAWADA
FACTS:
Amalia P. Kawada started her employment with Uniwide
sometime in 1981 as a saleslady. Over the years, she worked herself
within corporate ladder until she attained the rank of Full Assistant
Store Manager in 1995.
As a Full Assistant Store Manager, her primary function was to
manage and oversee the operation of the Fashion and Personal Care,
GSR Toys, and Home Furnishing Departments of to ensure its
continuous profitability so as to see to it that the established company
policies and procedures were properly complied with and implemented
in her departments.
v Sometime in 1998, Uniwide received reports from the other
employees regarding some problems in the departments managed by
the private respondent.
v March 15, 1998, Uniwide, through Store Manager Apduhan, issued a
Memo addressed to Amalia summarizing various reported incidents
signifying unsatisfactory performance by Amalia..Uniwide asked her for
concrete plans on how she can effectively perform her job.
v She answered all the allegations contained in the March 15, 1998
Memorandum but Apduhan was not satisfied with her answers which
were all hypothetical and did not answer directly the allegations
attributed to her.
v On June 30, 1998, Apduhan sent another Memo seeking from the
private respondent an explanation regarding the incidents reported by
from the
take five
from Dr.
a wrong
Uniwide and Apduhan filed a Petition for Review seeking to annul the
Decision1 dated November 23, 2001 and the Resolution dated July 23,
2002 of the Court of Appeals:
ISSUE: Whether or not Amalia Rawada was constructively dismissed
by UNIWIDE and Apduhan.
RULING:
No, she was not constructively dismissed because the Court
finds the records bereft of evidence to substantiate the conclusions of
the NLRC and the CA that private respondent was constructively
dismissed from employment.
Case law defines constructive dismissal as a cessation of work
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable
or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes unbearable to the employee.
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up
his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal
but made to appear as if it were not. In fact, the employee who is
constructively dismissed may be allowed to keep on coming to work.
Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise.
v In the present case, Amalia claimed that she had been subjected to
constant harassment, ridicule and inhumane treatment by Apduhan.
Supreme Court found the allegation of harassment was a specious
statement which contains nothing but empty imputation of a fact that
could hardly be given any evidentiary weight by this Court.
v The sending of several memoranda addressed to a managerial
concerning various violations of company rules and regulations,
committed, should not be construed as a form of harassment but
merely an exercise of managements prerogative to discipline its
employees. Precisely, petitioners gave private respondent successive
memoranda to give the latter an opportunity to controvert the charges
against her. Clearly, the memoranda are not forms of harassment, but
petitioners compliance with the requirements of due process.
v Private respondent's bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when
uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence
Therefore, the Decision dated November 23, 2001 and Resolution
dated July 23, 2002 of the CA together with the decision dated
December 27, 2000 of the NLRC were reversed and set aside. The
complaint of private respondent Amalia P. Kawada was dismissed,.
16. ALOTA
Ruling:
HYATT vs Catinoy
Facts:
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated December 27, 1999 in the case
entitled "RUSTOM M. CATINOY VS. HYATT TAXI SERVICES INC.,
HYATT TAXI EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION AND/OR MR. JAIME
DUBLIN" that ruled against herein petitioner Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc.
(hereafter petitioner) and of the Resolution dated May 11, 2000 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner.
Rustom Catinoy was hired on October 10, 1992 as a taxi driver
by the Respondent Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. On August 21, 1995 at
about past 10:00 a.m., complainant went inside the union office and to
his surprise found his drawer to have been forcibly opened. Catinoy
asked Saturnino who opened his drawer. Saturnino replied that he was
the one who forcibly opened the drawer to retrieve some documents
particularly the list of union members. An argument ensued and a fist
fight to which resulted to Catinoy being brought to the hospital. After
due investigation by the company the two was indefinitely suspended.
Aggrieved he filed a complaint before the NLRC.
On September 19, 1997, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision
finding petitioner guilty of illegal preventive suspension, requiring it to
pay the wage equivalent of the suspension, and further finding
petitioner guilty of illegal constructive dismissal, ordering petitioner to
reinstate respondent and to pay him backwages and attorney's fees.
The NLRC issued a Decision affirming the decision of the
Arbitration Branch
Upon Catinoys motion for reconsideration the NLRC modified
its earlier decision when it deleted the award of backwages on the
ground that there was "no concrete showing that complainant was
constructively dismissed".
Issue:
Whether or not the Rustom M. Catinoy was dismissed without cause
and without due process of law?
17. ROXAS
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK VS NLRC G.R. No. 188882 March 30,
2010
Facts:
Respondent Benigno Martinez was the manager of petitioner
Philippine Veterans Bank Dumaguete Branch from September 1, 2001
until January 8, 2003, the latter being the date when his supposed
resignation from petitioner bank became effective. Respondent claimed
that his resignation stemmed from a report published by the Philippine
Daily Inquirer regarding the anomalies hounding petitioner's highranking officials. Accordingly, this controversy resulted in huge
withdrawals of major depositors. Concerned, respondent Martinez
approached Mr. Wilfredo S. Anion, petitioner's Area Head for Visayas
and Mindanao, to discuss how to resolve the matter. When Mr. Anion
just brushed off the issue, respondent requested the Mayor of Valencia
(a known big depositor of the Dumaguete Branch) to talk to Mr. Anion.
The latter misinterpreted the respondent's actions and angrily
confronted him the next dayand told him that he would be replaced in
his position as manager.
On October 14, 2002, Mr. Anion went to the Dumaguete
Branch and brought along with him respondent's replacement. Mr.
Anion then instructed the respondent togo to the petitioner's head
office in Makati to report to Mr. Jose D. Lloren, Jr., the Vice President
and Head of Branch Banking Division. Respondent Martinez flew to
Manila and reported to the Makati Office where he was told by Mr.
Lloren that he would undergo training. However, no such training took
place. Instead, he was made to do clerical jobs. Respondent lamented
that he had to travel at least 4 hours daily from his rented house in
Cavite to Makati, and as a consequence thereof his travel and living
expenses consumed at least half of his salary. On January 8, 2003,
respondent tendered his resignation because it was so expensive for
him to be staying away from his family.
Issue: WON respondent was constructively dismissed
Held:
In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of
proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are
for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.
Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered a constructive dismissal,
the employer must be able to show that such transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.
Failure of the employer to overcome this burden of proof taints
the employee's transfer as a constructive dismissal. In the present
case, the petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The NLRC, as
affirmed by the CA, correctly found that the combination of the harsh
actions of the petitioner rendered the employment condition of
respondent hostile and unbearable for the following reasons:
First, the petitioner failed to show any urgency or genuine
business necessity to transfer the respondent to the Makati Head
Office. In fact, the respondent showed the actual motivation and the
bad faith behind his transfer.
Second, the respondents transfer from Dumaguete to Makati
City is clearly unreasonable, inconvenient and oppressive, since the
respondent and his family are residents of Dumaguete City.
Third, the petitioner failed to present any valid reason why it had
to require the respondent to go to Makati Head Office to undergo
branch head training when it could have just easily required the latter to
undertake the same training in the VISMIN area.
Finally, there was nothing in the order of transfer as to what
position the respondent would occupy after his training; the respondent
was effectively placed in a floating status.
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employees position would have felt compelled to give up
his position under the circumstances. Based on the factual
considerations in the present case, we hold that the hostile and
18. RIVERA
WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., UNITED LABORATORIES,
INC., AND/OR JOSE YAO CAMPOS, CARLOS EJERCITO,
ERNESTO SALAZAR, ELIEZER SALAZAR, JOSE SOLIDUM, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO C. SAMANIEGO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Ricardo Samaniego was initially hired by Unilab as Professional
Service Representative of its marketing arm, Westmont. Later, Unilab
promoted him as a Senior Business Development Associate and
assigned him in Isabela as Acting District Manager of Westmont and
Chairman of Unilab Special Projects. He was then transferred to Metro
Manila pending the investigation of his subordinate and physicians of
Region II involved in a sales discount and Rx trade-off controversy. He
was placed under floating status and assigned to perform duties not
connected with his position. This transfer resulted in the diminution of
his salary.
Ricardo Samaniego then filed with the Office of the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal and damages against Westmont and Unilab,
as well as Unilabs Officer
Westmont and Unilab filed a motion to dismiss Samaniegos
complaint on the ground of improper venue and lack of cause of action.
They argued that it should be filed with the NLRC in Manila, not with the
Office of the Labor Arbiter in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, and that the
action should be against Westmont, Samaniegos employer.
The Labor Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss, Citing Section
1, Rule IV, of the NLRC Rules and Procedure allowing the Labor Arbiter
to order a change of venue in meritous cases, he then set the case for
preliminary conference during which the petitioners expressly reserved
their right to contest the order denying motion to dismiss.
Petitioners filed with the NLRC an Urgent Petition to Change or
Transfer Venue. They also filed to suspend proceedings in view of the
pendency of their petition.
The Labor Arbiter issued an order directing parties to submit
their respective papers and supporting documents within 20 days from
notice, after which the case shall be submitted for decision.
19. OLORES
20. BACALZO
The law clearly spells out the manner with which an unjustified
refusal to return to work by an employee may be established. Thusly,
respondent should have given complainant a notice with warning
concerning her alleged absences (Section 2, Rule XIV, Book V,
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code). The notice
requirement actually consists of two parts to be separately served on
the employee to wit: (1) notice to apprise the employee of his absences
with a warning concerning a possible severance of employment in the
event of an unjustified excuse therefor, and (2) subsequent notice of
the decision to dismiss in the event of an employee's refusal to pay
heed to such warning. Only after compliance had been effected with
those requirements can it be reasonably concluded that the employee
had actually abandoned his job. In respondent's case, it is noted that
more than two (2) months had already lapsed since complainant
allegedly started to absent herself when the latter instituted her action
for illegal dismissal. During the said period of time, no action was taken
by the respondents regarding complainant's alleged absences,
something which is quite peculiar had complainant's employment not
been severed at all. Accordingly, we do not find respondents defense of
abandonment to be impressed with merit in view of an utter lack of
evidence to support the same. Hence, complainant's charge of illegal
dismissal stands uncontroverted
Having firmly established that petitioner dismissed respondent
without just cause, and without notice and hearing, then it is only proper
to apply Article 279 of the Labor Code which provides that an illegally
dismissed employee "shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive
of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement." In addition to full backwages, the
Court has also repeatedly ruled that in cases where reinstatement is no
longer feasible due to strained relations, then separation pay may be
awarded instead of reinstatement.
21. AGORILLA
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., NATALE DI COSMO, RENE
HORILLENO, and BENITO A. DE LEON, petitioners,
vs.
GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL, respondent.
Facts:
Respondent is a security guard in the Calamba plant for 13
years for petitioner company. Two incidents happened that lead to his
dismissal. First was when he failed to inspect a van before leaving the
plant, which was his duty and a company policy. Second was when he
allowed a van to leave the plant without a tarpaulin cover, thus
endangering the quality of the goods of the petitioner. Petitioners
contend that Daniel is guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of
company rules and regulations, or serious misconduct, or wilful breach
of trust and confidence, thus, respondents employment was
terminated. Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against CocaCola which the latter denied committing the same.
Issue:
1) whether a valid cause existed to justify the dismissal of respondent;
2) whether he is entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
Ruling:
1) None. Neither of the two infractions committed by Daniel caused
substantive loss or damage. Their company policy does not warrant
dismissal for such infractions. Also worth stressing are the following
facts: Daniel has served the company for 13 years; he was previously
granted a scholarship given only to employees with high performance
ratings; his infractions were minor; and there has been no showing that
he acted in bad faith or with malice. Under the circumstances, there is
every justification for tilting the scales of justice in favor of the
employee.
2) Yes. Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that
illegally dismissed employees are entitled to both 1) reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and 2) full back
22. TALAY
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION
VS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION AND IMELDA SALAZAR
MARCH 3, 1992
FACTS:
Imelda Salazar was employed by Globe Mackay Cable and
Radio Corporation as general systems analyst, also employed by
petitioner as manager for technical operations support was
DelfinSaldivar with whom Imelda was allegedly very close. Sometime in
1994, prompted by reports that company equipment and spare parts
worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing,
caused the investigation of the latters activities. The report prepared by
companys internal auditor, Mr Agustin Maramara, indicated that
Saldivar had entered into a partnership styled Concave Commercial
and Industrial Company with Richard Yambao. The report also
disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioners missing air conditioning
unit for his own personal use without authorization and also connived
with Yambao to defraud petitioner. It likewise appeared in the course of
Maramaras investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company
regulations by involving herself in transactions conflicting with the
companys interests. Evidence showed that she signed as a witness to
the articles of partnership between Yambao and Saldivar. It also
appeared that she had full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of
the air conditioner but failed to inform her employer.Consequently
petitioner company placed private respondent under suspensive
suspension for one month and giving her thirty days within which to
explain her side.But instead of submitting an explanation, private
respondent filed a complaint against illegal suspension which she
subsequently amended to include illegal dismissal, vacation and sick
leave benefits, 13th month pay and damages, after petitioner notified
her that she was considered dismissed.
Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner company to reinstate Salazar to her
former work or equivalent position and to pay her full backwages and
other benefits she would have received were it not for the illegal
23. BARTOLOME
Baguio Country Club Corporation vs NLRC
Facts:
Petitioner Baguio Country Club Corporation (corporation) is a
recreational establishment certified by the ministry of labor and
employment as an entertainment-service establishment. Private
respondent Jimmy Calamba was employed by corporation on a day to
day basis in various capacities as laborer and dishwasher for a period
of ten months. Calamba was hired again as a gardener and rehired as
such when he was dismissed by the petitioner corporation. Calamba
filed a complaint against petitioner corporation with the ministry of labor
(DOLE) for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and non-payment of
13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ruled in favor of Calamba,
declaring the latter as a regular employee and ordering petitioner
corporation to reinstate Calamba to the position of gardener without
loss of seniority and with full back wages, benefits and privileges from
the time of his dismissal up to therein statement including 13th Month
pay. Petitioner corporation filed an appeal to the NLRC contending that
Calamba was a contractual employee whose employment was for a
fixed and specific period as set forth and evidenced by Calambas
contracts of employment. However, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for
lack of merit. The latter argued that Calamba having rendered services
as laborer, gardener, and dishwasher for more than one year, was
a regular employee at the time his employment was terminated. Hence,
the petition.
of the employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for
at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment
is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and
while such activity exists. In the case at bar, the records reveal that
Calamba was repeatedly re-hired to perform tasks ranging from
dishwashing and gardening, aside from performing maintenance work.
Such repeated rehiring and the continuing need for his service are
sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his service to
the petitioners business or trade. Owing to Calambas length of service
with the petitioners corporation, he became a regular employee, by
operation of law, one year after he was employed. The employment
contracts entered into by Calamba with the petitioner have the purpose
of circumventing the employees security of tenure. The court therefore,
rigorously disapproves said contracts which demonstrate a clear
attempt to exploit the employee and deprive him of the protection
sanctioned by the labor code. It is noteworthy that what determines
whether a certain employment is regular or casual is not the will and
word of the employer, it is the nature of the activities performed in
relation to the particular business or trade considering all
circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its performance
and its continued existence.
Issue:
Whether or not Calamba is a regular employee at the time his
employment was terminated?
Held:
YES. The court held that an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
24. MIRANDA
25. MARTIN
HELD
the supposed Memorandum was not presented. Third, the action form
did not bear the respondents signature.
In the absence of any evaluation or valid extension, we cannot
conclude that respondent failed to meet the standards of performance
set by the hotel for a chief steward. At the expiration of the three-month
period, Gatbonton had become a regular employee. It is an elementary
rule in the law on labor relations that a probationary employee engaged
to work beyond the probationary period of six months, as provided
under Article 281 of the Labor Code, or for any length of time set forth
by the employer (in this case, three months), shall be considered a
regular employee. This is clear in the last sentence of Article 281. Any
circumvention of this provision would put to naught the States avowed
protection for labor.
Since respondent was not dismissed for a just or authorized
cause, his dismissal was illegal, and he is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges as well as to full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Petition is denied.
26. DE GRACIA