40 Deles V NLRC (Full Text)

3/6/2020 G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.
LRC, ET AL. : March 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence
March 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Custom Search
Court Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000

> March 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 121348 March 9,
ChanRobles On- 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.:
Line Bar Review
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 121348. March 9, 2000.]
ANGELITO P. DELES, JR., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST PHIL.
INDUSTRIAL CORP. and/or FLAVIANO C.
SANTOS, Respondents.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=343 1/26
3/6/2020 G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL. : March 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the

decision promulgated on April 21, 1995, by public
respondent in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-04-02733-93
and its resolution dated May 31, 1995 which denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary
Respondent company operates a pipeline system which

transports petroleum products from the refineries by
Caltex (Phil.) Inc. and Shell (Phil.) Inc. in Batangas to
terminal receiving facilities in Metro Manila. Petitioner
was employed by respondent company as shift
supervisor. He was assigned at its joint terminal facility
in Pandacan, Manila, where he was the highest ranking
officer at the terminal during his shift. His primary task
was to oversee the entire pipeline operation in the
terminal. Admittedly, he was a member of the
management team. 1
On the night of March 19, 1993, petitioner was the

shift supervisor on duty while Eduardo Yumul and
Leonardo Espejon were the assigned shift operator and
gauger, respectively. During this shift, there was a
scheduled delivery for Shell through respondent
company’s pipeline of about 3,000 barrels of kerosene
(KE), to be followed by a delivery of aviation turbine
fuel (AV). Forthwith, petitioner instructed his chief
operator (Yumul) to effect a batch change 2 from the
forestry jobs kerosene tank to the aviation fuel tank when the joint
terminal facility turbine meter registers 2,944 barrels
labor board of kerosene delivered. Apparently, Yumul failed to
execute correctly petitioner’s order. Instead of effecting
civil cases
the batch change at the prescribed reading of 2,944
barrels, Yumul caused the batch change when the
cases law o ce
reading already reached 3,341 barrels. Thus, about
gr case 397 barrels of the succeeding batch of aviation turbine
fuel went to the kerosene batch thereby downgrading
the former.
When informed of the incident, respondent company

required petitioner to explain why he should not be
charged administratively for neglect of duty in view of
his failure: (a) to witness the actual batch change
3 court cases cutting of S83-KE/S84-AV; (b) to see to it that a batch

change checklist was prepared and followed, and; (c)
business lawyer to see to it that a batch change report was prepared.
Concomitantly, petitioner was placed under preventive
pipeline jobs
suspension pending the outcome of the investigation.
Similarly, Yumul and Espejon were asked to explain for
forestry jobs
having been remiss in their duties.
labor board
On March 30, 1993, respondent company conducted a
joint formal investigation of the cases of the three
shell jobs aforementioned personnel. The next day, respondent

company found petitioner, Yumul and Espejon guilty as
supreme court charged. Accordingly, private respondent Flaviano
Santos, respondent company’s assistant vice president,
pipe line
informed petitioner that he was found to have violated
the section on Neglect of Duty of respondent
3 court cases
company’s Code of Discipline and for this violation he
business lawyer was meted the penalty of three (3) months
suspension. For their part, Yumul was meted the
penalty of dismissal while Espejon was suspended for
one and a half months.
March-2000
Jurisprudence Believing that suspension for three months was too
harsh, petitioner sought reconsideration of the penalty
imposed. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the
G.R. No. 104930 NLRC, questioning the legality of his suspension.
March 1, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. While petitioner was under suspension, respondent
v. ALEX K BELLO, ET company received reports that petitioner allowed the
AL. entry of two "bar girls" at the terminal at an unholy
hour (4:00 A.M.) on February 23, 1993. This belied
G.R. No. 111928 petitioner’s previous claim that the two female visitors
March 1, 2000 - are his relatives. Thus, respondent company required
ALMARIO SIAPIAN v. petitioner to explain in writing why he should not be
COURT OF APPEALS, held liable for: (1) neglect of duty as he allowed
ET AL. unauthorized persons in a restricted area, and; (2)
dishonesty as he misrepresented to management that
G.R. No. 116464 the two women are his relatives. Unfortunately,
March 1, 2000 - petitioner failed to submit his written explanation.
Nonetheless, respondent company conducted a formal
RODENTO NAVARRO, inquiry on the matter which was attended by petitioner.

ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.
During the aforesaid proceeding, it was discovered that
G.R. No. 117691 petitioner tampered with the automatic shutdown
March 1, 2000 - feature of Gravitometer No. 5 at the terminal on March
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 19, 1993. Likewise, respondent company learned that
v. EDUARDO B. petitioner opened the terminal’s motor operated valve
SAMPIOR (MOV #10) between 6:00 A.M. and 6:35 A.M. on said
date which caused the gravitation of the contents of
G.R. Nos. 119958- Shell kerosene tank to aviation fuel tank.
62 March 1, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. The abovementioned gravitometer is equipped with a
v. ALEJANDRO safety feature which triggers the automatic closure of
MARQUITA, ET AL. the joint terminal facility pressure control valve which
in turn cause a shutdown of the pipeline operations. It
G.R. No. 124895 prevents the entry of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or
March 1, 2000 - a product mixture containing LPG, through the motor
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. operated valve and onwards to the other product tanks
v. RUBEN DE LOS such as gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel.
REYES Hence, by disabling the automatic shutdown feature of
said gravitometer, LPG could pass through the line to
G.R. No. 134286 the gasoline tank undetected, and since the gasoline
March 1, 2000 - tank is not designed to accommodate LPG, the
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. possibility of an explosion is enhanced. 3
v. LORETO AMBAN
In view of these newly unearthed violations,
respondent company again asked petitioner to explain
Adm. Matter No. why he should not be administratively sanctioned for:
MTJ-99-1184 March (1) tampering with an operating equipment (MOV#10),
2, 2000 - AMPARO S. and; (2) tampering with the installation of a safety
FARRALES, ET AL. v. device of gravitometer. Consequently, petitioner was
RUBY B. CAMARISTA placed under preventive suspension effective June 24,
1993, pending the outcome of the probe on the latest
A.M. No. RTJ-99- charges against him. Meanwhile, on July 24, 1993,
1454 March 2, 2000 - petitioner was reinstated in the payroll. 4
NESCITO C. HILARIO
v. CRISANTO C. After conducting formal investigation, respondent
CONCEPCION company terminated the employment of petitioner. The
termination letter reads: chanrobles.com.ph:red
G.R. Nos. 115239-

40 March 2, 2000 - "We have meticulously reviewed your records with
MARIO C.V. particular indulgence, especially the records of the

JALANDONI v. investigation conducted by Management last July 23
FRANKLIN M. and August 3, 1993 in connection with the reported
DRILON, ET AL. tampering of the JTF Gravinometer No. 5 (GR-5) and
the opening of the two (2) MOVs last March 19, 1993.
G.R. No. 125332
March 2, 2000 - We were appalled by your admission during the
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. aforesaid investigation that you tampered with the JTF
v. HERACLEO MONTE, Gravinometer No. 5 (GR-5) by taping the needle
ET AL. thereof to disable its shutdown feature.
G.R. No. 126212 By your admitted act, you had exposed JTF, the
March 2, 2000 - SEA- Pandacan installations of Caltex and Shell, and the
LAND SERVICE v. adjacent communities to the danger of a major
COURT OF APPEALS, catastrophic tank explosions and untold loss of lives
ET AL. and unquantifiable damage to properties.
G.R. No. 126814 Certainly, your act is punishable under Section 7.10 of
March 2, 2000 - JUDY our Code of Employees Discipline.
CAROL L. DANSAL, ET
AL. v. GIL P. This and your other violations and breach of existing
FERNANDEZ, ET AL. policies/regulations concerning safety and other as well
as your other established acts or omissions left us with
G.R. No. 127718 no alternative but to terminate your services for loss of
March 2, 2000 - confidence effective September 14, 1993." 5
NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF Having been dismissed, petitioner amended his
LABOR v. NLRC, ET complaint by including the charge of illegal dismissal
AL. with a claim for unpaid wages.
In a decision 6 dated May 30, 1994, Labor Arbiter

G.R. No. 128360 Potenciano Cañizares, Jr., dismissed petitioner’s
March 2, 2000 - complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. upheld the labor arbiter’s finding that petitioner’s
v. EDGAR CRISPIN suspension for three months is a reasonable
disciplinary measure. The labor tribunal also ruled that
G.R. No. 128677 respondent company has sufficient basis to lose its
March 2, 2000 - trust and confidence on petitioner. However, it modified
SANTIAGO ABAPO v. the decision of the labor arbiter by including therein an
COURT OF APPEALS, indemnity in an amount equivalent to petitioner’s one
ET AL. month salary for alleged failure of herein respondent
company to strictly comply with due process

G.R. Nos. 133343- requirements prior to termination, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
44 March 2, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. "WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 30, 1994 is
v. ILDEFONSO hereby MODIFIED. Respondent is hereby directed to
BAYONA indemnify the petitioner the amount equivalent to his
one (1) month salary or the amount of thirteen
G.R. Nos. 104769 thousand three hundred [pesos] (P13,300.00) for
& 135016 March 3, failure to comply strictly with due process prior to
2000 - AFP MUTUAL termination." 7
BENEFIT
ASSOCIATION v. His motion for reconsideration having been denied,
COURT OF APPEALS, petitioner filed the instant petition, raising the following
ET AL. issues: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
G.R. No. 120656

"I
March 3, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ARNEL FERDINAND
WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC
A. OMAR
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
ACCEPTED AS TRUE, HOOK, LINE AND SINKER IN
G.R. No. 126021
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER
March 3, 2000 -
BASED ON THE BARE AND SELF-SERVING
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S FPIC
v. RENE SIAO
AND IN THRUSTING ASIDE THE ASSERTIONS,
EVIDENCE, JURISPRUDENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL
G.R. No. 135802
MANDATES FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER.
March 3, 2000 -
PRISCILLA L. TAN v.
II
NORTHWEST
AIRLINES
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC

G.R. No. 108381
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IGNORING
March 7, 2000 -
THAT THE SEVERAL CUMULATIVE CHARGES BELATEDLY
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
S[U]RFACED AFTER THE FILING OF ILLEGAL
v. AMADEO I. ACAYA
DISMISSAL CASE BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT IS AN OBVIOUS INDICATION THAT THE
G.R. No. 108951
SAME CAUGHT THE IRE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT
March 7, 2000 -
AND/OR APPARENT INSTANCE OF HARASSMENT.
JESUS B. DIAMONON
v. DOLE, ET AL.
III
G.R. No. 109992

March 7, 2000 - WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY
HEIRS OF THE LATE SUSPENDED AND DISMISSED." 8
HERMAN REY
SANTOS v. COURT OF The issue for resolution now is whether or not public
APPEALS, ET AL. respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
affirming the decision of the labor arbiter finding that
G.R. No. 110899 petitioner’s suspension is legal and that his dismissal is
March 7, 2000 - for valid and just cause on account of loss of
ELIZARDO D. DITCHE confidence.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. First, regarding the legality of petitioner’s suspension,
we note that petitioner was found remiss in his duties
G.R. No. 115192 in connection with the wrong batch change operation
March 7, 2000 - on March 19, 1993. He contends though that his
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. suspension for three months is too harsh, whimsical
v. ELMER D. SALAS and biased. 9 In essence, he decries the penalty
imposed on him which he considered too severe.
G.R. No. 128046
March 7, 2000 - However, petitioner loses sight of the fact that the right
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment
v. RAMON CHUA UY is well settled. This right, aptly called management
prerogative, gives employers the freedom to regulate,
G.R. No. 128102 according to their discretion and best judgment, all
March 7, 2000 - aspects of employment, including work assignment,
AZNAR BROTHERS working methods, processes to be followed, working
REALTY COMPANY v. regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision,
COURT OF APPEALS, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and
ET AL. recall of workers. 10 In general, management has the
prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose
G.R. No. 129644 appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to
March 7, 2000 - company rules and regulations. Thus, we find
CHINA BANKING petitioner’s protestation unfounded. For, based on the
CORP. v. COURT OF record, respondent company imposed said penalty
APPEALS, ET AL. pursuant to the Company Code of Discipline which the
labor agencies find to be fair and in accordance with
G.R. No. 138291 law. In fact, the penalty for violating the provision on
March 7, 2000 - Neglect of Duty ranges from warning to dismissal
HECTOR C. depending on the gravity of the offense. 11
VILLANUEVA v. Respondent company explained that mishandling the
UNITED COCONUT delivery of highly flammable petroleum products could

PLANTERS BANK result in enormous damage to properties and loss of
lives at the terminal and surrounding areas. Hence, it
G.R. Nos. 139573- has to exercise extraordinary diligence in conducting
75 March 7, 2000 - its operations in view of the delicate nature of its
JUNE GENEVIEVE R. business. Considering the attendant circumstances, we
SEBASTIAN v. are constrained to agree that the penalty of suspension
COMELEC, ET AL. first imposed on petitioner is reasonable and
appropriate as well as legally unassailable. chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary
A.M. No. 96-1-25-

RTC March 8, 2000 - Next, petitioner challenges the legality of his dismissal
REPORT ON THE from the service. He insists that respondent company
FINANCIAL AUDIT IN has no ground to lose trust and confidence on him to
RTC justify his dismissal. He vehemently denies tampering
with the gravitometer, much less admitting doing it. He
A.M. No. RTJ-99- also avers that it is inconceivable for him to do so since
1446 March 9, 2000 - he was with his co-workers, Noel Valle and Edgardo
CONCERNED Yumul, at the time of said incident. Further, he claims
EMPLOYEES OF THE that there is no reason for him to commit such
RTC OF DAGUPAN transgression. 12
CITY v. ERNA
FALLORAN-ALIPOSA On its face, petitioner’s contention would require the
Court to delve into the findings of fact a quo. This we
G.R. No. 111174 cannot do. In the review of NLRC decisions through a
March 9, 2000 - special civil action for certiorari, we are confined only
REPUBLIC OF THE to issues of want of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
PHIL. v. BERNARDO discretion on the part of the labor tribunal. We are
V. SALUDARES, ET precluded from inquiring unto the correctness of the
AL. evaluation of that evidence that underpins the labor
tribunal’s conclusion on matters of fact. Nor could we
G.R. No. 111806 re-examine the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of
March 9, 2000 - the witnesses, nor substitute our findings of fact for
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. those of an administrative body which has the
v. BENJAMIN G. authority and expertise in its specialized field.
GALANO, ET AL. Arguably, there may even be an error in judgment.
This however is not within the ambit of the
G.R. Nos. 114299 extraordinary remedy of certiorari. 13
& 118862 March 9,
2000 - TRADERS Nevertheless, in this case, we note that the labor
ROYAL BANK v. arbiter used every reasonable means to ascertain the
facts by giving the parties ample opportunity to
COURT OF APPEALS, present evidence. After both parties were heard, they
ET AL. filed their respective affidavits, position papers and
memoranda. In our view, the labor arbiter properly
G.R. Nos. 116044- found that despite considering these documentary
45 March 9, 2000 - evidence, averments of Flaviano Santos in his affidavit
AMERICAN AIRLINES indicting petitioner for tampering with the gravitometer
v. COURT OF and admitting the wrongdoing 14 stand on solid
APPEALS, ET AL. ground. Further, petitioner did not quite succeed to
convince the respondent NLRC to rule otherwise.
G.R. Nos. 116084-
85 March 9, 2000 - Now, it must be emphasized that loss of trust and
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. confidence constitutes a valid ground for dismissing an
v. DAMASO JOB employee. As provided for in the Labor Code: "ART.
282. Termination by employer. — An employer may
G.R. No. 118216 terminate an employment for any of the following
March 9, 2000 - causes: . . . (c) Fraud or willful breach by the
DELTAVENTURES employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
RESOURCES v. or duly authorized representative. . ." Of course, it
FERNANDO P. must be stressed also that loss of confidence as a just
CABATO, ET AL. cause for termination of employment is premised on
the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of
G.R. No. 120060 trust and confidence. This situation holds where an
March 9, 2000 - employee or official of the company is entrusted with
CEBU WOMAN’S CLUB responsibility involving delicate matters, such as the
v. LORETO D. DE LA custody, handling, or care and protection of the
VICTORIA, ET AL. employer’s property. In the case of company personnel
occupying such positions of responsibility, the Court
G.R. No. 121348 has repeatedly held that loss of trust and confidence
March 9, 2000 - justifies termination. 15
ANGELITO P. DELES
v. NLRC, ET AL. As regards a managerial employee, moreover, mere
existence of a basis for believing that such employee
G.R. No. 121998 has breached the trust of his employer would suffice
March 9, 2000 - for his dismissal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for
v. TEODORICO such loss of confidence, such as when the employer
CLEOPAS, ET AL. has reasonable ground to believe that the employee
concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct,
G.R. No. 125233 and the nature of his participation therein renders him
March 9, 2000 - unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his
Spouses ALEXANDER position. 16
and ADELAIDA CRUZ

v. ELEUTERIO LEIS In the case at bar, Petitioner, is tasked to perform key
functions; he is bound by an exacting work ethic. He
G.R. No. 126125 should have realized that his position requires the full
March 9, 2000 - trust and confidence of his employer in every exercise
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. of managerial discretion insofar as the conduct of his
v. ARMANDO employer’s business is concerned. However, as found a
GAVIOLA quo, he committed acts which betrayed the trust and
confidence reposed on him by tampering with very
G.R. No. 126210 sensitive equipment at the joint terminal facility. In
March 9, 2000 - doing so, he exposed the terminal complex and the
CRISTINA PEREZ v. residents in adjacent communities to the danger of a
HAGONOY RURAL major disaster that may be caused by tank explosions
BANK, ET AL. and conflagration. Verily, he committed acts inimical to
the interest of his employer which is mandated by law
G.R. No. 127439 to observe extraordinary diligence in its operations to
March 9, 2000 - ensure the safety of the public. Indeed, we are
ALFREDO PAZ v. constrained to conclude that petitioner’s admitted
ROSARIO G. REYES infraction as well his past violation of safety regulations
is more than sufficient ground for respondent company
G.R. No. 127749 to terminate the employment of petitioner.
March 9, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. In sum, public respondent NLRC could not be faulted
v. BEN GAJO for any grave abuse of discretion in ruling that
petitioner’s suspension is legal and his dismissal well
G.R. No. 131925 justified on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
March 9, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. As regards the procedural aspect of petitioner’s
v. DARIO CABANAS dismissal, it appears clear to us that petitioner was
CUAL, ET AL. given ample opportunity to present his side and to
defend himself against the charges against him.
G.R. No. 132745 Respondent company sent petitioner a letter dated
March 9, 2000 - June 2, 1993, requiring him to answer the charges
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. hurled against him. He participated in the formal
v. ROMEO UGIABAN investigation conducted by respondent company on
LUMANDONG July 23 and August 3, 1993. After the investigation was
concluded, petitioner was notified of his dismissal.
G.R. No. 133323 Under these attendant circumstances, we find no basis
March 9, 2000 - for public respondent’s ruling that respondent company
ALBERTO AUSTRIA v. breached legal procedure prior to termination.
Consequently, the award of indemnity for non-
COURT OF APPEALS, observance of due process is bereft of legal basis and

ET AL. must be deleted.
G.R. Nos. 133345 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
& 133324 March 9, merit. The assailed decision of public respondent NLRC,
2000 - JOSEFA CH. which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision dismissing
MAESTRADO v. petitioner’s complaint, is AFFIRMED with the
COURT OF APPEALS, MODIFICATION that the award of indemnity in the
ET AL. amount equivalent to petitioner’s one (1) month salary
is DELETED. No pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 133382
March 9, 2000 - SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. EFREN MENDOZA Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
G.R. No. 135613
March 9, 2000 -
ARTHUR V. VELAYO v. Endnotes:
COMELEC, ET AL.
1. Rollo, p. 81.
A.M. No. 99-9-11-
SC March 10, 2000 -
2. A pipeline operation to separate two
RE: DISCIPLINARY
adjacent oil products passing through the
ACTION AGAINST
pipeline to the respective storage tanks in
RICARDO BANIEL III
the terminal facility.
A.M. No. 99-9-12-

3. Rollo, pp. 91-92.
SC March 10, 2000 -
ROSA J. MENDOZA v.
4. Id. at 54.
RENATO LABAY
5. Id. at 55.
G.R. No. 127845
March 10, 2000 -
6. Id. at 96-105.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LODRIGO BAYYA
7. Id. at 119.
G.R. No. 127673

8. Id. at 22.
March 13, 2000 -
RICARDO S.
9. Id. at 23.
MEDENILLA, ET AL. v.
10. Tierra Int’l. Construction Corp. v. NLRC,

PHIL. VETERANS 256 SCRA 36, 42 (1996).

BANK, ET AL.
11. Rollo, p. 67.
G.R. No. 130769
March 13, 2000 - 12. Id. at 418-420.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CHRISTOPHER 13. Jardine Davies, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R.
GEGUIRA 76272, July 28, 1999, p. 5.
G.R. No. 132624 14. Id. at 99.

March 13, 2000 -
FIDEL M. BAÑARES 15. Caoile v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 76, 82
II, ET AL. v. (1998).
ELIZABETH
BALISING, ET AL. 16. Supra, at 83.
G.R. No. 140179

March 13, 2000 -
ROQUE FERMO v.
COMELEC, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main
A.M. No. RTJ-99-

1443 March 14, 2000
- EVAN B. CALLEJA v.
RAFAEL P.
SANTELICES
G.R. No. 109271

March 14, 2000 -
RICARDO CASTILLO,
ET AL. v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 110524

March 14, 2000 -
DOUGLAS MILLARES,
ET AL. v. NLRC, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 123509

March 14, 2000 -
LUCIO ROBLES, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133778

March 14, 2000 -
ENGRACE NIÑAL v.
NORMA BAYADOG
G.R. No. 135087

March 14, 2000 -
ALBERTO SUGUITAN
v. CITY OF
MANDALUYONG
A.M. No. RTJ-00-

1544 March 15, 2000
- ROMEO DE LA CRUZ
v. CARLITO A. EISMA
G.R. No. 124453

March 15, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSEPH PAMBID
G.R. No. 130602

March 15, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MICHAEL FRONDA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 130809

March 15, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MAXIMO
HERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 131814

March 15, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA
A.M. No. MTJ-99-

1221 March 16, 2000
- JOSEFINA M.
VILLANUEVA v.
BENJAMIN E.
ALMAZAN
A.M. No. RTJ-00-

1542 March 16, 2000
- ROLANDO M.
ODOÑO v. PORFIRIO
G. MACARAEG, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 115949

March 16, 2000 -
EVANGELINE J.
GABRIEL v.
SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124372

March 16, 2000 -
RENATO CRISTOBAL,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125536

March 16, 2000 -
PRUDENTIAL BANK v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 126805

March 16, 2000 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128550

March 16, 2000 -
DIGITAL MICROWAVE
CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129904

March 16, 2000 -
GUILLERMO T.
DOMONDON v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 133226

March 16, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LOCSIN FABON
A.M. No. 99-8-

286-RTC March 17,
2000 - REPORT ON
THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED IN THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES
A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-

1484 (A) & 99-1484
March 17, 2000 -
JOSELITO RALLOS,
ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE
GAKO JR.
G.R. No. 113433

March 17, 2000 -
LUISITO P. BASILIO
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115221

March 17, 2000 -
JULIUS G. FROILAN v.
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 116754

March 17, 2000 -
MORONG WATER
DISTRICT v. OFFICE
OF THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121780

March 17, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RAMON SUMALDE,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 122510-

11 March 17, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. HERACLEO
MANRIQUEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124224

March 17, 2000 -
NEW PACIFIC TIMBER
& SUPPLY COMPANY
v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124526

March 17, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JIMMY SAPAL
G.R. No. 124874

March 17, 2000 -
ALBERT R. PADILLA v.
FLORESCO PAREDES,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 125059

March 17, 2000 -
FRANCISCO T. SYCIP
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129284

March 17, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROSALINO FLORES
G.R. No. 129297

March 17, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROMULO SAN
DIEGO
G.R. No. 131270

March 17, 2000 -
PERFECTO PALLADA
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.
G.R. No. 134504

March 17, 2000 -
JOSELITO V.
NARCISO v. FLOR
MARIE STA. ROMANA-
CRUZ
G.R. No. 134986

March 17, 2000 -
CAMPO ASSETS
CORP. v. CLUB X. O.
COMPANY
G.R. No. 138218

March 17, 2000 -
CLAUDIUS G.
BARROSO v.
FRANCISCO S.
AMPIG, ET AL.
A.M. No. 98-8-

262-RTC March 21,
2000 - REPORT ON
THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED IN
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
A.M. No. 99-2-79-

RTC March 21, 2000 -
REQUEST of Judge
IRMA ZITA
MASAMAYOR v. RTC-
Br. 52
G.R. Nos. 130568-

69 March 21, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CHE CHUN TING
G.R. No. 130685

March 21, 2000 -
FELIX UY, ET AL. v.
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133434

March 21, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. BERNABE E. ADILA
A.C. No. 4807

March 22, 2000 -
MANUEL N.
CAMACHO v. LUIS
MEINRADO C.
PANGULAYAN, ET AL.
Adm. Case No.

5235 March 22, 2000
- FERNANDO C.
CRUZ, ET AL. v.
ERNESTO C. JACINTO
A.M. No. 00-1258-

MTJ March 22, 2000 -
Spouses CONRADO
and MAITA SEÑA v.
ESTER TUAZON
VILLARIN
G.R. No. 122540

March 22, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. NOEL SAPINOSO,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 123206

March 22, 2000 -
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132551

March 22, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSE DEDACE
Adm. Case No.

4083 March 27, 2000
- LEONITO GONATO,
ET AL. v. CESILO A.
ADAZA
Adm. Matter No.

P-96-1204 March 27,
2000 - MILA
MARTINEZ v.
ALEXANDER
RIMANDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120150

March 27, 2000 -
ADRIAN DE LA PAZ v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 123560

March 27, 2000 - YU
ENG CHO, ET AL. v.
PAN AMERICAN
WORLD AIRWAYS
G.R. No. 124118

March 27, 2000 -
MARINO ADRIANO,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127240

March 27, 2000 -
ONG CHIA v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. and COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 128073

March 27, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RENE MAMALIAS
G.R. No. 130669

March 27, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILSON MITRA
G.R. No. 130722

March 27, 2000 -
REYNALDO K.
LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L
& R CORPORATION,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 131074

March 27, 2000 -
CENTRAL BANK OF
THE PHIL. v.
ALFONSO BICHARA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 132929

March 27, 2000 -
COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS v. COURT
OF TAX APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 135962

March 27, 2000 -
METROPOLITAN
MANILA
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY v. BEL-
AIR VILLAGE
ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. 136478

March 27, 2000 -
ARSENIO P. REYES,
JR. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-

1528 March 28, 2000
- ROMULO SJ
TOLENTINO v.
ALFREDO A. CABRAL
G.R. No. 79679

March 28, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. ENRIQUE
CABINGAS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 117145-

50 & 117447 March
28, 2000 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v.
LEONIDA MERIS
G.R. No. 131472

March 28, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROMEO TIPAY
G.R. No. 132518

March 28, 2000 -
GAVINA MAGLUCOT-
AW, ET AL. v.
LEOPOLDO
MAGLUCOT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133146

March 28, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MANUEL CULA, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 133832

March 28, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ZOSIMO BARREDO
A.M. No. P-98-

1284 March 30, 2000
- ABRAHAM D. CAÑA
v. ROBERTO B.
GEBUSION
G.R. No. 106671

March 30, 2000 -
HARRY TANZO v.
FRANKLIN M.
DRILON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 109773

March 30, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ELBERTO BASE
G.R. No. 123112

March 30, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ARTURO CAVERTE
and TEOFILO
CAVERTE
G.R. No. 125355

March 30, 2000 - CIR
v. COURT OF
APPEALS and
COMMONWEALTH
MANAGEMENT AND
SERVICES CORP.
G.R. No. 129288

March 30, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOEY AQUINO, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 129433

March 30, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 138081

March 30, 2000 -
BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS (BOC), ET
AL. v. NELSON
OGARIO, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-98-

1167 March 31, 2000
- EMILY M
SANDOVAL. v.
FELICISIMO S.
GARIN
A.M. No. P-96-

1211 March 31, 2000
- PACIFICO S.
BULADO v. DOMINGO
TIU
G.R. No. 100152

March 31, 2000 -
ACEBEDO OPTICAL
COMPANY v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 114734

March 31, 2000 -
VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO v.
NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115181

March 31, 2000 -
MARIA SOCORRO
AVELINO v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115990

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSELITO
BALTAZAR y ESTACIO
@ "JOEY"
G.R. No. 121517

March 31, 2000 - RAY
U. VELASCO, ET AL.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121572

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOEL ELAMPARO
G.R. No. 123113

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JERRY ABALDE
G.R. No. 123636

March 31, 2000 -
JOSELITO LAGERA v.
NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125280

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILSON SUITOS
G.R. Nos. 128056-

57 March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARCOS PARAMIL
G.R. No. 128647

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ANTONIO
SALONGA
G.R. No. 132053

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DANILO TAYAG
G.R. No. 132192

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. ROGELIO NOROÑA
and FREDDIE
NOROÑA
G.R. Nos. 133387-

423 March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EXPEDITO ABAPO
G.R. No. 133857

March 31, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOEY AMIGABLE
G.R. No. 139137

March 31, 2000 -
ALFREDO
ARQUELADA, ET AL v.
PHIL. VETERANS
BANK
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

40 Deles V NLRC (Full Text)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

40 Deles V NLRC (Full Text)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

40 Deles V NLRC (Full Text)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/6/2020 G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.

LRC, ET AL. : March 2000 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

March 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000

[G.R. No. 121348. March 9, 2000.]

ANGELITO P. DELES, JR., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the

Respondent company operates a pipeline system which

On the night of March 19, 1993, petitioner was the

When informed of the incident, respondent company

his failure: (a) to witness the actual batch change

3 court cases cutting of S83-KE/S84-AV; (b) to see to it that a batch

shell jobs aforementioned personnel. The next day, respondent

RODENTO NAVARRO, inquiry on the matter which was attended by petitioner.

G.R. Nos. 115239-

MARIO C.V. particular indulgence, especially the records of the

In a decision 6 dated May 30, 1994, Labor Arbiter

company to strictly comply with due process

G.R. No. 120656

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC

G.R. No. 109992

UNITED COCONUT delivery of highly flammable petroleum products could

A.M. No. 96-1-25-

and ADELAIDA CRUZ

COURT OF APPEALS, observance of due process is bereft of legal basis and

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

A.M. No. 99-9-12-

G.R. No. 127673

10. Tierra Int’l. Construction Corp. v. NLRC,

PHIL. VETERANS 256 SCRA 36, 42 (1996).

G.R. No. 132624 14. Id. at 99.

G.R. No. 140179

A.M. No. RTJ-99-

G.R. No. 109271

G.R. No. 110524

G.R. No. 123509

G.R. No. 133778

G.R. No. 135087

A.M. No. RTJ-00-

G.R. No. 124453

G.R. No. 130602

G.R. No. 130809

G.R. No. 131814

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

A.M. No. MTJ-99-

A.M. No. RTJ-00-

G.R. No. 115949

G.R. No. 124372

G.R. No. 125536

G.R. No. 126805

G.R. No. 128550

G.R. No. 129904

G.R. No. 133226

A.M. No. 99-8-

A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-

G.R. No. 113433

G.R. No. 115221