11/20/2019 G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL.

: FEBRUARY 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - …

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > February 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 132805 February 2,
1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL.:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132805. February 2, 1999.]

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

LABOR ARBITER ROMULUS PROTACIO and DR. HERMINIO A. FABROS, Respondents.

DECISION

PUNO, J.:

Petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. assails the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
dismissing its appeal from the decision of Labor Arbiter Romulus S. Protacio which declared the
suspension of private respondent Dr. Herminio A. Fabros illegal and ordered petitioner to pay private
respondent the amount equivalent to all the benefits he should have received during his period of
suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages.

The facts are as follow:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private respondent was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company. He was assigned at the PAL
Medical Clinic at Nichols and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon until 12:00 midnight.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On February 17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, private respondent left the clinic to have his dinner
at his residence, which was about five-minute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an
emergency call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its employees, Mr. Manuel Acosta, had suffered a
heart attack. The nurse on duty, Mr. Merlino Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of
the emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening and Mr. Eusebio immediately
rushed him to the hospital. When private respondent reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the evening,
Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient. Mr. Acosta died the following day.

Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director Dr. Godofredo B. Banzon ordered the Chief Flight
Surgeon to conduct an investigation. The Chief Flight Surgeon, in turn, required private respondent to
explain why no disciplinary sanction should be taken against him.

In his explanation, private respondent asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break; that
he immediately left his residence upon being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency and he
arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the patient to the
hospital without waiting for him.

Finding private respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private respondent with
abandonment of post while on duty. He was given ten days to submit a written answer to the
administrative charge.

In his answer, private respondent reiterated the assertions in his previous explanation. He further denied
that he abandoned his post on February 17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have his dinner
at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic at 7:51 in the evening upon being informed of the emergency.

After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private respondent, petitioner company decided to

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999februarydecisions.php?id=75 1/4
11/20/2019 G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - …
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
February-1999
Jurisprudence                  drive away from the clinic. His whereabouts were known to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily
A.M. No. RTJ 98-1400 February 1, 1999 - CARLOS
DIONISIO v. ZOSIMO V. ESCANO
G.R. Nos. 107964-66 February 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 122161 & 120991 February 1, 1999 - CIR,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LARRY MAHINAY
G.R. No. 125959 February 1, 1999 - JOSE MARIA M.
ASUNCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128508 February 1, 1999 - DANIEL G.
FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.
A.M. No. P-97-1253 February 2, 1999 - AIDA
RANGEL-ROQUE v. GERARDO S. RIVOTA
G.R. No. 123215 February 2, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL
CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128287 February 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RIZAL ESPIRITU
G.R. No. 131277 February 2, 1999 - ANGELA C.
TANKIKO, ET AL. v. JUSTINIANO CEZAR, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 111027 February 3, 1999 - BERNARDINO
RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Adm. Case CBD No. 190 February 4, 1999 -
CORAZON T. REONTOY v. LIBERATO R. IBADLIT
G.R. No. 128364 February 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. NESTOR JIMENEZ
G.R. No. 131977 February 4, 1999 - PEDRO
MENDOZA v. RAY ALLAS, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177 February 8, 1999 -
GREGORIO LORENA, ET AL. v. ADOLFO V.
ENCOMIENDA
G.R. No. 116281 February 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMULO GUTIERREZ
G.R. No. 129397 February 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. NORBERTO SOLEMA LOPEZ
G.R. No. 122787 February 9, 1999 - JUAN CALMA,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 119077 February 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL v. MARIANO VERDE
G.R. No. 120450 February 10, 1999 - ASSOC.
LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999februarydecisions.php?id=75
suspend private respondent for three months effective December 16, 1994.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.
On July 16, 1996, Labor Arbiter Romulus A. Protasio rendered a decision 1 declaring the suspension of
private respondent illegal. It also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount equivalent to
all the benefits he should have received during his period of suspension plus P500,000.00 moral
damages. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the suspension of
complainant as illegal, and ordering the respondents the restitution to the complainant of all employment
benefits equivalent to his period of suspension, and the payment to the complainant of P500,000.00 by
way of moral damages. 2
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal after finding that the decision
of the Labor Arbiter is supported by the facts on record and the law on the matter. 3 The NLRC likewise
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 4
Hence, this petition raising the following arguments: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. The public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion in nullifying the 3-month suspension of private respondent despite the fact that the private
respondent has committed an offense that warranted the imposition of disciplinary action.
2. The public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion in holding the petitioner liable for moral damages: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Despite the fact that no formal hearing whatsoever was conducted for complainant to substantiate his
claim;
(b) Despite the absence of proof that the petitioner acted in bad faith in imposing the 3-month
suspension; and
(c) Despite the fact that the Labor Arbiter’s award of moral damages is highly irregular, considering that
it was more than what the private respondent prayed for. 5
We find that public respondents did not err in nullifying the three-month suspension of private
Respondent. They, however, erred in awarding moral damages to private Respondent.
First, as regards the legality of private respondent’s suspension. The facts do not support petitioner’s
allegation that private respondent abandoned his post on the evening of February 17, 1994. Private
respondent left the clinic that night only to have his dinner at his house, which was only a few minutes’
reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed of Mr. Acosta’s conditions, private respondent
immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These facts belie petitioner’s claim of abandonment.
Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company
premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not leave the company premises during such
time, even to take his meals.
We are not impressed.
Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ARTICLE 83. Normal hours of work. — The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight
(8) hours a day.
Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in
hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for
eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies
of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case
they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular
wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, "health personnel" shall include: resident
physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians,
paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel.
(Emphasis supplied)
ARTICLE 85. Meal periods. — Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall
be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their
regular meals.
Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further states: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 7. Meal and Rest Periods. — Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not
less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not
less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is
credited as compensable hours worked of the employee;
(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day;
(c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries,
equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as
compensable working time.
Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be inferred
that employees must take their meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from
going out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on time. Private respondent’s act,
therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.
We now go to the award of moral damages to private Respondent.
Not every employee who is illegally dismissed or suspended is entitled to damages. As a rule, moral
damages are recoverable only where the dismissal or suspension of the employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy. 6 Bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It involves
a state of mind dominated by ill will or motive. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a
wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity. 7 The person claiming moral damages
2/4
11/20/2019 G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - …
must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good
G.R. No. 124791 February 10, 1999 - JOSE RAMON faith. 8
CARCELLER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the management of petitioner company was moved by some
G.R. No. 104726 February 11, 1999 - VICTOR YAM evil motive in suspending private Respondent. It suspended private respondent on an honest, albeit
& YEK SUN LENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
erroneous, belief that private respondent’s act of leaving the company premises to take his meal at home
G.R. No. 106947 February 11, 1999 - PLDT CO. v. constituted abandonment of post which warrants the penalty of suspension. Also, it is evident from the
NLRC, ET AL. facts that petitioner gave private respondent all the opportunity to refute the charge against him and to
defend himself. These negate the existence of bad faith on the part of petitioner. Under the
G.R. No. 117385 February 11, 1999 - BPI v. COURT circumstances, we hold that private respondent is not entitled to moral damages.
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of the assailed decision awarding
G.R. No. 117963 February 11, 1999 - AZCOR moral damages to private respondent is DELETED. All other aspects of the decision are AFFIRMED.
MANUFACTURING INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 119509 February 11, 1999 - ENRIQUE A.
ARBOLEDA v. NLRC, ET AL. Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 121696 February 11, 1999 - C. PLANAS
COMMERCIAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 122248 February 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROGER DORADO
1. Rollo, pp. 19-32.
G.R. No. 123099 February 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO OLIVER 2. Rollo, p. 32.
G.R. No. 123969 February 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
3. Rollo, p. 43.
THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAVAS

G.R. No. 125298 February 11, 1999 - CMP FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126717 February 11, 1999 - GREAT
PACIFIC LIFE EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. GREAT
PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP.
4. Rollo, p. 46.
5. Rollo, p. 8.
6. Ford Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 320 (1997); Equitable Banking
Corporation v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 352 (1997); Tumbiga v. NLRC, 274 SCRA 338 (1997).

G.R. No. 130906 February 11, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF 7. Ibid.; citing Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 671 (1996).
THE PHIL. v. FELIX S. IMPERIAL, JR.
8. Ibid.
A.M. No. 97-1-03-MTC February 15, 1999 - REPORT
OF THE FINANCIAL AUDIT

A.M. No. 98-8-246-RTC February 15, 1999 - RE:

ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE OF DARLENE A.
JACOBA
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 76276 February 15, 1999 - ASIAN
TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96685 February 15, 1999 - CARLOS A. QUICK SEARCH

GOTHONG LINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127578 February 15, 1999 - MANUEL DE

ASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 132753 February 15, 1999 - MARIO 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
SIASOCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 133502 February 15, 1999 - HEIRS OF 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
FELICIDAD DIZON, ET AL. v. JAIME D. DISCAYA 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
A.M. No. 98-1-12-RTC February 17, 1999 - RE: 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
RTC-BR. 24
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 121099 February 17, 1999 - FIDEL T. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
SALAMERA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 122737 February 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
THE PHIL. v. SERGON MANES, ET AL.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
A.M. No. P-93-794 February 18, 1999 - OFFICE OF 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ANASTACIA DIAZ
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1365 February 18, 1999 - ROBERT 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
G. YOUNG v. PASTOR V. DE GUZMAN

A.M. No. RTJ-98-1409 February 18, 1999 - ROSE

GODINEZ v. ANTONIO S. ALANO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-41621 February 18, 1999 - PASTORA

VALMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 112941 February 18, 1999 - NEUGENE
MARKETING INC., ET. AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.
AL.

G.R. No. 125498 February 18, 1999 - CONRADO B.

RODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126027 February 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL v. BUENAVENTURA BATIDOR

G.R. No. 127494 February 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. MARIO MARABILLAS

G.R. No. 131909 February 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CABRAL, ET AL.

G.R. No. 110554 February 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROMY SAGUN

G.R. No. 113253 February 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ARNEL ALMACIN

G.R. No. 118311 February 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANTONIO, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999februarydecisions.php?id=75 3/4
11/20/2019 G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - …
G.R. No. 124630 February 19, 1999 - JANG LIM, ET
AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127139 February 19, 1999 - JAIME C.

LOPEZ v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128072 February 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. HENRY BENITO

G.R. No. 131552 February 19, 1999 - ARSENIO V.

VILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47380 February 23, 1999 - DIRECTOR OF

LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 107135 February 23, 1999 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 117666 February 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO M. VILLALUNA

G.R. No. 121422 February 23, 1999 - NOEL CRUZ v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. 123880 February 23, 1999 - MARANAW

HOTELS AND RESORT CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 104171 February 24, 1999 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. B.F.
GOODRICH PHILS. INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 127659 February 24, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS BAHENTING

A.M. No. 98-3-112-RTC February 25, 1999 - RE:

REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN
RTC-Br. 162

G.R. No. 91999 February 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ANTONIO PIAMONTE

G.R. No. 107364 February 25, 1999 - FELIPE

BUÑAG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 115624 February 25, 1999 - ANTONIO

MAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 115712 February 25, 1999 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 116535-36 February 25, 1999 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN TABARANGAO

G.R. No. 116909 February 25, 1999 - VIVENCIO M.

RUIZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 117439 February 25, 1999 - CONRADO

COLARINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122178 February 25, 1999 - DANILO

DIMABAYAO v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122507 February 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROMEO LAPINOSO

G.R. No. 126405 February 25, 1999 - JOSEFA E.

NEPOMUCENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126707 February 25, 1999 - BLANQUITA E.

DELA MERCED, ET AL. v. JOSELITO P. DELA MERCED

G.R. No. 127697 February 25, 1999 - ALEX DEMATA

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127177 February 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROMEO AMBRAY

G.R. No. 127570 February 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. MELANIO BOLATETE

G.R. No. 130138 February 25, 1999 - MACARIO

MISENA, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO RONGAVILLA

A.M. No. P-99-1292 February 26, 1999 - JULIETA

BORROMEO SAMONTE v. ROLANDO R. GATDULA

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999februarydecisions.php?id=75 4/4