COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. vs. OPLE. (G.R. No. 73681.

June 30, 1988)

FACTS:

The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations against petitioner for unfair labor practice
consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers, members; and coercing employees to retract their
membership with the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union. Failure to amicably settle the dispute,
the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) assumed the jurisdiction over the dispute.

Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union membership were false. It also
averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees were due to infractions committed by them and
that the management reserves the right to discipline erring employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union,
contending that the union is not the certified agent of the company salesman.

The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Union’s complaint. It also ruled that the three
dismissed employees were “not without fault” but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement of the same.  At the same time,
respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner
company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first
offenders.

Hence this petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the Order of the respondent Minister of Labor and
Employment.

ISSUE:
WON MOLE committed error in reinstating the three salesmen despite its own finding that there is indeed a just cause in
dismissing them.

RULING:
YES. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in
conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was
sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees, the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between
a first offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect
not only the labor or worker's side but also the management and/or employer's side. The law, in protecting the rights of the
laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring
employees would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the
employees. The court rendered the decision of the minister reversed and set aside, ordering petitioners to give the three
employees their separation pay.

GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILS., INC., vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 85668, August 10, 19890

FACTS:

Private respondent Felix Francis started working as an auto-mechanic for petitioner Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc.

On April 11, 1987, private respondent was caught by the security guards taking out of GELMART’s premises one (1) plastic
container filled with about 16 ounces of “used’ motor oil, without the necessary gate pass to cover the same as required under
GELMART’s rules and regulations and was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation for violation of company
rules and regulations specifically, rules on theft and/or pilferage of company property. Consequently, Felix Francis was found
guilty in violating such rules and was terminated.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. In a decision dated February 26, 1988, Labor Arbiter
Ceferina J. Diosana ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed and, accordingly respondent filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal before the NLRC and ordered the latter’s reinstatement with full backwages from April 13, 1987 up to the time
of actual reinstatement.

NLRC ruled on the ground that the used oil, being of no use for the company, is not considered as a company property thus, the
company was not deprived of anything. The company Gelmart Industries Phils. filed an appeal before the NLRC and the
decision was modified. Respondent-appellant was hereby directed to reinstate complainant-appellee to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and to pay him backwages equivalent to six (6) months.
 Gelmart Industries filed before the Supreme Court a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order on the ground that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent to his former position with payment of backwages
equivalent to six (6) months.

ISSUE:

WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its decision.

HELD:

NO. Consistent with the policy of the State to bridge the gap between the underprivileged workingmen and the more affluent
employers, NLRC rightfully tilted the balance in favor of the workingmen — and this was done without being blind to the
concomitant right of the employer to the protection of his property. To reiterate, be it of big or small commercial value,
intended to be re-used or altogether disposed of or wasted, the “used” motor oil still remains, in legal contemplation, the
property of GELMART. As such, to take the same out of GELMART’s premises without the corresponding gate pass is a
violation of the company rule on theft and/or pilferage of company property. The suspension imposed upon private
respondent is a sufficient penalty for the misdemeanor committed. Considering that private respondent herein has no
previous derogatory record in his fifteen (15) years of service with petitioner GELMART the value of the property pilfered (16
ounces of used motor oil) is very minimal, plus the fact that petitioner failed to reasonably establish that non-dismissal of
private respondent would work undue prejudice to the viability of their operation or is patently inimical to the company’s
interest, it is more in consonance with the policy of the State, as embodied in the Constitution, to resolve all doubts in favor of
labor.

ROMEO LAGATIC VS. NLRC, CITYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, JESUS GO, GRACE LIUSON,
AND ANDRE LIUSON (G.R. No. 121004, January 28, 1998)

FACTS:

Petitioner Romeo Lagatic was employed in May 1986 by Cityland, first as a probationary sales agent, and later on as a
marketing specialist. He was tasked with soliciting sales for the company, with the corresponding duties of accepting call-ins,
referrals, and making client calls and cold calls. Cold calls refer to the practice of prospecting for clients through the telephone
directory. Cityland, believing that the same is an effective and cost-efficient method of finding clients, requires all its marketing
specialists to make cold calls. The number of cold calls depends on the sales generated by each: more sales mean less cold calls.
Likewise, in order to assess cold calls made by the sales staff, as well as to determine the results thereof, Cityland requires the
submission of daily progress reports on the same.

On October 22, 1991, Cityland issued a written reprimand to petitioner for his failure to submit cold call reports for
September 10, October 1 and 10, 1991. This notwithstanding, petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports for September
2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 28, as well as for October 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14, 1992. Petitioner was required
to explain his inaction, with a warning that further non-compliance would result in his termination from the company. In a
reply dated October 18, 1992, petitioner claimed that the same was an honest omission brought about by his concentration on
other aspects of his job. Cityland found said excuse inadequate and, on November 9, 1992, suspended him for three days, with
a similar warning.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid suspension and warning, petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports for
February 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12, 1993. He was verbally reminded to submit the same and was even given up to February 17, 1993
to do so. Instead of complying with said directive, petitioner, on February 16, 1993, wrote a note, "TO HELL WITH COLD
CALLS! WHO CARES?" and exhibited the same to his co-employees. To worsen matters, he left the same lying on his desk
where everyone could see it.

On February 23, 1993, petitioner received a memorandum requiring him to explain why Cityland should not make
good its previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports, as well as for issuing the written statement
aforementioned. On February 24, 1993, he sent a letter-reply alleging that his failure to submit cold call reports should trot be
deemed as gross insubordination. He denied any knowledge of the damaging statement, "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS!"
 Finding petitioner guilty of gross insubordination, Cityland served a notice of dismissal upon him on February 26,
1993. Aggrieved by such dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction,
underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages and attorney's fees. The labor arbiter dismissed the petition for lack of
merit. On appeal, the same was affirmed by the NLRC; hence the present recourse.

Issue:

WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed? 

Held:

NO. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the employee must be
afforded due process, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. 

Employers may, thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees, and when employees,
with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule becomes a part of the contract of employment. It is also
generally recognized that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are
generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with. Corollarily, an employee may be validly dismissed for
violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. An employer cannot
rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose x x x lack of regard for his employers rules x x x has so
plainly and completely been bared. Petitioners continued infraction of company policy requiring cold call reports, as evidenced
by the 28 instances of non-submission of aforesaid reports, justifies his dismissal. He cannot be allowed to arrogate unto
himself the privilege of setting company policy on the effectivity of solicitation methods. To do so would be to sanction
oppression and the self-destruction of the employer. More than that, his written statement shows his open defiance and
disobedience to lawful rules and regulations of the company. Likewise, said company policy ofrequiring cold calls and the
concomitant reports thereon is clearly reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to petitioner, and in connection with the
duties which he had been engaged to discharge. There is, thus, just cause for his dismissal.

China Banking Corporation v Borromeo (G.R. No. 156515, October 19, 2004)

FACTS:

Respondent Mariano Borromeo was Assistant Vice-President of the Branch Banking Group of China Banking
Corporation for the Mindanao Area.

Without authority from the Executive Committee or Board of Directors of the bank, he approved several DAUD/BP
(Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits/Bills Purhcased) accommodations amounting to P2,441,375 in favour of Joel Maniwan.
Such checks, which are not sufficiently funded by cash, are generally not honoured by banks. This came to the knowledge of
the bank authorities. A memorandum was issued to the Mariano seeking clarification relative to the matter. The respondent
accepted full responsibility for committing an error in judgment and abuse of discretion.

Mariano resigned from the Bank and apologized “for all the trouble I have caused because of the Maniwan case.” The
respondent, however, vehemently denied benefitting therefrom.

His acts having constituted violation of the Bank’s Code of Ethics, the respondent was directed to restitute the amount
of P1,507,736.79 representing 90% of the total loss of P1,675,263.10 incurred by the Bank. However, in view of his resignation
and considering the years of service in the Bank, the management earmarked only P836,637.08 from the respondent’s total
separation benefits or pay. The said amount would be released upon recovery of the sums demanded from Maniwan in a civil
case filed against him by the bank with the RTC in Cagayan de Oro City.

The respondent made a demand on the bank for the payment of his separation pay and other benefits, but the bank
maintained its position to withhold the sum of P836,637.08. Thus, Mariano filed with the NLRC a complaint for payment of
separation pay, mid-year bonus, profit share and damages against the bank.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the bank. Respondent appealed to the NLRC but it affirmed in toto the findings of
the Labor Arbiter. The CA, however, alleging that respondent was denied his right to due process, set aside the NLRC decision
and ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further hearings on the factual issues involved.

The bank filed a motion for reconsidered but denied the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:

WON the bank has the prerogative/right to impose on the respondent what it considered the appropriate penalty
under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations.

HELD:
YES. The bank was left with no other course but to impose the ancillary penalty of restitution. It was certainly within the
bank’s prerogative to impose on the respondent what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant
to its company rules and regulations. The petitioner’s bank business is essentially imbued with public interest and owes great
fidelity to the public it deals with. It is expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of
their employees. As a corollary, and like all other business enterprises, its prerogative to discipline its employees and to
impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations must be respected. The law, in
protecting the rights of labor, authorized neither oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is
possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect. Significantly, the respondent is not wholly deprived of his
separation benefits. As the Labor Arbiter stressed in his decision, “the separation benefits due the complainant were merely
withheld. Even the petitioner bank itself gives “the assurance that as soon as the bank has satisfied a judgment in the civil case,
the earmarked portion of his benefits will be released without delay.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. The Resolution of the NLRC is
reinstated.