ACESITE CORPORATION, HOLIDAY INN, JOHANN ANGERBAUER and  May 2: Leo’s father Anacleto sends Acesite a telegram notifying
o sends Acesite a telegram notifying the latter that
PHIL KENNEDY vs. NLRC (Second Division) and LEO A. GONZALES
LEO A. GONZALES, vs.
ACESITE (PHILIPPINES) HOTEL CORPORATION,
HOLIDAY INN MANILA, JOHANN ANGERBAUER and PHIL KENNEDY
January 26, 2005| Carpio-Morales, J. | fringe benefits
Santiago, Senando Angelo
SUMMARY: Leo A. Gonzales used to be the Head of Security of Holiday Inn
Manila until his illegal dismissal. Relevant to the topic in class, the CA, in awarding
backwages to Gonzales, deletes the award of fringe benefits. The Court holds that
that is not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
DOCTRINE: ART. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE.·In cases of regular
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed
from work 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.
FACTS:
 1993. Oct. 18: Leo Gonzales is hired as Chief of Security of Manila Pavillion
Hotel.
 1995. January 1: The hotel is renamed Holiday Inn Manila and Leo is retained in
his post when Acesite takes over the operations.
 1998: Leo takes leave from work for the following dates:
o March 25-28: four-day sick leave
o March 30: emergency leave
o April 16-29: 12-day vacation leave.
 April 23 or 27: However, before the expiry of the 12-day VL, he files an
application for 10 days from April 30-May 13.
o This time, however, his leave is not approved.
o Acesite claims to have telegrammed him notifying him of the
disapproval and asking him to report back for work on April 30.
 Leo claims he received it late; hence his April 30 absence.
 April 30: Leo does not report for work.
o He receives a telegram advising him that he is on unauthorized
leave and asking him to provide a written explanation within the
next 24 hours why he was not reporting for work.
o Moreover, he is required to report for work on May 1.
Leo was still recovering from severe stomach disorder and would report back for
work two days after.
o A medical certificate is issued to prove that he had been treated for
such sickness.
 May 4: He reports for work and presents himself to Johann Angerbauer, then
Resident Manager of the hotel.
o Johann claims that Leo’s explanation for his April 30 and May 1
absences despite orders to report back to work it that he had to go
home to Abra.
o Leo claims that Johann had provisionally approved his request for
absence without pay from May 5-9
 On the condition that Leo send his explanation via email.
 May 4. 5:33 PM: Leo sends an explanation via email.
o In addition, he said he had to go to Abra that night.
 May 4. 7:55 PM: Security staff receive an interoffice memo to Leo from Johann
notifying him of another meeting the next day “regarding the turnover of the
outgoing Security Agency” and that he expects Leo’s presence during said
meeting.
o Leo claims he belatedly got hold of a copy on May 8.
 May 5: With Leo being absent, Johann sent Leo’s Abra address a telegram, their
“final advice” for him to report back to work due to very urgent matters regarding
work that needed his personal attention.
o Leo claims to have received it only on the afternoon of May 7.
 May 7: Johann, through an inter-office memo, a notice of termination, dismissing
Leo’s services on the ground of violation of company rules, as well as willful
disobedience.
 May 8: On Leo’s return to work, he was “humiliatingly and ignominiously barred
by the guard from entering the premises.”
 May 27: Leo files a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was dismissed for his
failure to appear in 2 consecutive hearings despite notice.
 September 17: He re-files his complaint.
LA: Complaint dismissed for lack of merit. Leo was validly terminated.
NLRC: Leo was illegally terminated. Leo to be reinstated. Backwages to be paid,
inclusive of all his other fringe benefits or their monetary equivalent; damages and
attorney’s fees due him.
CA: NLRC affirmed with modification. Leo to be reinstated or separation pay may be
given in lieu of reinstatement; full backwages, damages and attorney’s fees to be paid
him.
 This time, however, fringe benefits were deleted.
RULING: CA decision modified. Complaint against Angerbauer and Phil Kennery
dismissed. Acesite to pay Leo:
a) his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent, to be computed from the time he was illegally
dismissed until the finality of this Decision less 3 days in view of his
suspension;
b) separation pay equivalent to his 1 month salary for every year of service
computed from the time Gonzales was first employed by Acesite until the
finality of this Decision;
c) P10,000 as attorney’s fees.
Whether the CA was correct in deleting “fringe benefits or their monetary
equivalent.”—NO.
 This is not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
 ART. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE.·In cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for just cause or
when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
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. (Emphasis and
italics supplied)
*Digester’s note: Do take notice of conjunction “and”, connecting backwages and
other benefits.
*Also bear in mind a finding of illegal dismissal, as in this case, should be had before
backwages and fringe benefits are awarded.
(Other issues the court discussed.)
Whether Leo was illegally dismissed—YES.
 There was no just cause to dismiss Leo from employment on the ground of
willful disobedience.
 His assailed conduct has not been shown to have been characterized by a
perverse attitude, hence the first requisite needed to validly terminate under this
ground is wanting.
o His receipt of the telegram disapproving his application for emergency
leave starting April 30, 1998 has not been shown. And it cannot be said
that he disobeyed the May 5, 1998 telegram since he received it only on
May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he immediately went back to Manila
upon receipt thereof negates a perverse attitude.
 As to his alleged concealment of his candidacy (for provincial board member) as
a ground for Acesite’s loss of trust and confidence in him, the same is not
impressed with merit. This is a mere afterthought to further justify his illegal
dismissal
o It should be noted that Acesite’s ground for terminating the services of
Gonzales as stated in the Notice of Termination is his alleged acts of
insubordination/disobedience—not loss of trust and confidence
 With regard to Gonzales’ perceived feigning of illness, the same is purely
speculatory.
 If there is anything that Gonzales can be faulted for, it is his being too
presumptuous that his application for leave would be approved.
o For Leo’s unauthorized absences, the Court finds that he violated
company rules.
Whether the CA was correct in giving Acesite the choice to reinstate him or pay
him separation pay instead.—NO.
 The principle of “strained relations” may be invoked against employees:
o whose positions demand trust and confidence, or
o whose differences with their employer are of such nature or degree as
to preclude reinstatement.
 It cannot be gainsaid that Leo’s position is one of trust and confidence, he being
in charge of the over-all security of said hotel.
o Thus, reinstatement is no longer possible.
Whether moral and exemplary damages are warranted—NO.
 Leo has not sufficiently proven the grounds for granting him either damage.
Whether Johann & Phil, Leo’s superiors are solidarily liable with Acesite.—
NO.
 Bogo-Medellin Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. v. NLRC: Unless they have
exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not personally
liable for their official acts. X x x In cases of illegal dismissal, corporate
directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation, where
terminations of employment are done with malice or in bad faith.
 Bad faith or malice was not proven.
 Johann, acting on behalf of Acesite, was, like Leo, perhaps also too
presumptuous in thinking that the telegrams ordering the latter to report for work
were all received on time, drawing him to hastily conclude that Leo intentionally
disobeyed the orders contained therein.