ABELLA v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 71813 July 20, 1987, PARAS, J.
(Labor Standards: Proper Construction and Interpretation of labor Laws)

FACTS:
PETITIONER Abella leased a farmland from Ramona for a period of 10 years and
renewable for another 10 years at the option of the former. Abella hired the private
respondents Quitco and Dionele. Abella renewed the lease for another ten years. At
the expiration of the lease, she dismissed both private respondents and turned over
the hacienda to the owners. Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner.
For overtime pay, reinstatement, and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that
the dismissal was warranted by the cessation of business, but the respondents are
entitled to separation pay, invoking Art. 284 of the Labor Code, as amended.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay.

RULING:
The Court upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that Article 284 is the applicable
law in this case. Art 284, as amended refers to employment benefits to farm hands
who were not parties to petitioner's lease contract with the owner of Hacienda
Danao-Ramona. That contract cannot have the effect of annulling subsequent
legislation designed to protect the interest of the working class.
It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should
be the primordial and paramount consideration. It is the kind of interpretation which
gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as
provided for in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor." The policy is
to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees who can
avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy
of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.

Euro-Linea Phil, Inc. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 78782
December 1 , 1987

Laborers Welfare: Liberal Approach

Facts:
Petitioner Euro-Linea Phil, Inc hired private respondent Pastoral as shipping
expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six months. Prior to hiring by
petitioner, Pastoral had been employed by Fitscher Manufacturing Corporation also
as shipping expediter. On 4 February 1984, Pastoral received a memorandum
terminating his probationary employment in view of his failure to meet the
performance standards set by the company. Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioner. On 19 July 1985, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner
guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC on 5 August
1985 but the appeal was dismissed. Hence the petition for review seeking to
reverse and set aside the resolution of public respondent NLRC, affirming the
decision of the Labor Arbiter, which ordered the reinstatement of complainant with
six months backwages.

Issue:
Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ruling against the dismissal of the
respondent, a temporary or probationary employee, by his employer.

Ruling:
Although a probationary or temporary employee has a limited tenure, he still enjoys
the constitutional protection of security of tenure.

Furthermore, what makes the dismissal highly suspicious is the fact that while
petitioner claims that respondent was inefficient, it retained his services until the
last remaining two weeks of the six months probationary employment. No less

important is the fact that private respondent had been a shipping expediter for
more than one and a half years before he was absorbed by petitioner. It therefore
appears that the dismissal in question is without sufficient justification.

It must be emphasized that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an

employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only
petitioner's position but also his means of livelihood. The right of an employer to
freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State,
basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit and decision by the NLRC is affirmed.

Manila Electric Company v. NLRC

175 SCRA 277
FACTS:
Private respondent Signo was employed in petitioner company as supervisorleadman since January 1963 up to the time when his services were terminated
onMay 18, 1983. In 1981, a certain Fernando de Lara filed an application with the
petitioner company for electrical services at his residence. Private respondent Signo
facilitated the processing of the said application as well as the required
documentation for said application. In consideration thereof, private respondent
received from De Lara the amount of P7,000. Signo thereafter filed the application
for electric services with the Power Sales Division of the company. Since De Laras
residence was not yet serviceable, certain employees of the company, including
respondent Signo, made it appear in the application that the sari-sari store at the
corner of Marcos Highway, an entrance to the subdivision, is applicant de Laras
establishment, which, in reality is not owned by the latter. As a result of this
scheme, the electrical connections to de Laras residence were installed and made
possible. However, due to the fault of Power Sales Division of petitioner company,
Fernando de Lara was not billed for more than a year. Petitioner conducted an
investigation of the matter and found respondent Signo responsible for the said
irregularity in the installation. Thus, the services of the latter were terminated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Signo should be dismissed from petitioner company on
grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
HELD:

There is no question that herein respondent Signo is guilty of breach of trust and
violation of company rules, the penalty for which ranges from reprimand to
dismissal depending on the gravity of the offense. However, as earlier stated, the
respondent Commission and the Labor Arbiter found that dismissal should not be
meted to respondent Signo considering his20 years of service in the employ of
petitioner, without any previous derogatory record, in addition to the fact that
petitioner company had awarded him in the past, 2 commendations for honesty. If
ever the petitioner suffered losses resulting from the unlisted electric consumption
of de Lara, this was found to be the fault of petitioners Power Sales Division. We
find no reason to disturb these findings. Well established is the principle that
findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect
but even finality. Judicial review by this Court on labor cases does not go so far as to
evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor officer or
office based his or its determination but is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion. This Court has held time and again, in a number of decisions,
that notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach of
trust by an employee, nevertheless, dismissal should not be imposed, as it is too
severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable length of time in
the service of his employer.