Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decision:
The only instance when the principal can also be held 3. Aklan vs. San Miguel Corporation
liable with the independent contractor or subcontractor for the 573 SCRA 675
backwages and separation pay of the latters employees is when
there is proof that the principal conspired with the independent Facts:
contractor or subcontractor in the illegal dismissal of the BMA is a corporation eganged in the business of
employees. In the present case, there is no allegation, much less transporting and hauling of cargoes, goods and commodities
proof presented, that the petitioner conspired with private with a business address at San Miguel Corporation's warehouse
respondents in the illegal dismissal of the latters employees; in Pasig City. Aklan, together with the others, on the other hand
hence, it cannot be held liable for the same. are employees of BMA hired under fixed-term contracts.
Petitioners went to DOLE's District Office to file a
complaint against BMA for underpayment of wages and non-
payment of premium pay for rest day, 13th month pay, and
service incentive leave pay.
Neither can the liability for the separation pay of the
One of tha petitioners (Caboteja) was charged with
complainants be extended to the petitioner based on contract.
insubordination and direspect to superior, failure to properly
Contract Order No. 166-84 executed between the petitioner and
perform his job assignment and unauthorized change of
the private respondents contains no provision for separation pay
schedule. Caboteja was asked to submit his explanation but was
in the event that the petitioner terminates the same. It is basic
nevertheless terminated from his job for the offenses of
that a contract is the law between the parties and the stipulations
disregard of company rules and regulations and rude attitude to
therein, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good
supervisors. On a later date, Dumalagan and Salvador were also
customs, public order or public policy, shall be binding as
terminated for failure to perform their job responsibilities. The
between the parties. Hence, if the contract does not provide for
three filed for a complaint for illegal dismissal.
such a liability, this Court cannot just read the same into the
On another incident, several other employees staged a
contract without possibly violating the intention of the parties.
picket at the warehouse to protest BMA's refusal to pay the claim
for underpayment of the rest of the workers. Because of the said
picket, the business operations of BMA was disrupted and
caused the latter to terminate the services of those employees
Although petitioner is not liable for complainants who participated in the picket. Another case for illegal dismissal
separation pay, the Court conforms to the consistent findings in was filed against BMA which all later on were consolidated.
the proceedings below that the petitioner is solidarily liable with
Petitioners allege that BMA is a labor-only contractor. written explanations, and brought matters connected with their
They further allege that SMC was not only the owner of the specific responsibilities.
warehouse and equipment being used by BMA but that SMC The employer-employee relationship between BMA and
was their true employer. Lastly, they raise the fact that the petitioners is not tarnished by the absence of registration with
manner and means by which they perform their work were DOLE as an independent job contractor on the part of BMA. The
controlled by SMC. absence of registration only gives rise to the presumption that
On its part, SMC argued that it had no er-ee the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting, a
relationship with petitioners who were hired and supervised presumption that respondent BMA ably refuted. While labor
exclusively by BMA pursuant to a warehousing and delivery should be protected at all times, this protection must not be at
agreement in consideration of a fixed montly fee. SMC argued the expense of capital.
that BMA is a legitimate and independent contractor, duly Petition was denied and decision of the Court of
registered with SEC as a aseparate and distinct corporation withj Appeals was affirmed.
substantial capitalization, incvestment, equipment and tools. It
also submitted documentary evidence proving that BMA
engaged services of petitioners, paid for their wages and 4. Equipment Technical Services (ETS) vs. Court of Appeals
benefits and exercised exclusive contorl and supervision over 568 SCRA 122
them.
The LA held that there was illegal dismissal and Facts:
ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioners but found that the ETS is primarily engaged in the business of sub-
evidence presented duly established that BMA was a legitimate contracting plumbing woks of on-going building construction.
independent contractor and the actual employer of pertitioners. Among its clients was Uniwide. On various occasions involving
However, due to its failure to comply with the registration and different projects, ETS hired the services of private respondents
reportorial requirements of DOLE, SMC was held to be the as pipe fitters, plumbers or threaders.
principal and to be directly liable to the claims of petitioners. ETS experienced financial difficulties when its client,
BMA and SMC were found by the LA as jointly and severally Uniwide, failed to pay the forner for the plumbing work being
liable for the payment of the backwages and money claims of the done at Uniwide's Coastal Mall. As a result, ETS was only able
petitioners.s to pay its employees 13th months pay equivalent to two weeks'
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter salary. Due to non-payment of the balance of the employees 13th
and ruled that there was no illegal dismissal which was affirmed month pay, they filed a complaint before the NLRC against ETS.
in toto by the Court of Appeals. A complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims
were later on filed against ETS when they were refused work in
Issue: another ETS project (Richville Project) on the ground that they
Is SMC the real employer of the petitioners? refused to sign individual employement conracts with ETS.
The dismissed employees raised that they were regular
Held: employees of ETS. ETS, however counters such claim and said
A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor, that the dismissed employees were only contractual/project
as opposed to permissible job contracting, is equivalent to employees engaged for different projects of the company and
declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship that they were not illegally dismissed as they were hired on a per
between the principal and the employees of the supposed project basis.
contractor, and the labor-only contractor is considered as a The LA held that the dismissed employees were regular
mere agent of the principal, the real employer. Both the LA and employees of ETS and not only contractual or project-based
the NLRC found that the employment contracts of petitioners employees and that there was illegal dismissal. The NLRC
duly prove that and er-ee relationship existed between reversed the decision of the LA and that there was no illegal
petitioners and BMA. dismissal.
In its ruling, the NLRC considered the following
elements to determine the existence of an employer-employee Issue:
relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; Are the respondent's regular employees of ETS?
(2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever
means; and (4) the power to control the workers conduct. All Held:
four elements were found by the NLRC to be vested in BMA. The principal test for determining whether an employee
This NLRC finding was affirmed by the CA: is properly characterized as project employee, as distinguished
x x x It is the BMA which actually conducts the hauling, storage, from regular employee, is whether or not the project
handling, transporting, and delivery operations of SMCs employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
products pursuant to their warehousing and Delivery Agreement. undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at
BMA itself hires and supervises its own workers to carry out the the time the employees were engaged for that project. And as
aforesaid business activities. Apart from the fact that it was BMA Article 280 of the Labor Code, defining a regular employee vis--
which paid for the wages and benefits, as well as SSS vis a project employee, would have it:
contributions of petitioners, it was also the management of BMA Art. 280. Regular and casual
which directly supervised and imposed disciplinary actions on employment. The provisions of written
the basis of established rules and regulations of the company. agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
The documentary evidence consisting of numerous memos regardless of the oral agreement of the parties,
throughout the period of petitioners employment leaves no an employment shall be deemed to be regular
doubt in the mind of this Court that petitioners are only too aware where the employee has been engaged to
of who is their true employer. Petitioners received daily perform activities which are usually necessary
instructions on their tasks form BMA management, particularly, or desirable in the usual business or trade of
private respondent Arlene C. Eusebio, and whenever they the employer, except where the employment
committed lapses or offenses in connection with their work, it has been fixed for a specific project or
was to said officer that they submitted compliance such as undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the filed a formal complaint against Woodridge with the
engagement of the employee x x x. DECS, requesting for a formal investigation, institute
It bears to stress at the outset that ETS admits hiring or appropriate charges, and impose proper sanctions
employing private respondents to perform plumbing works for against Woodridge.
various projects. Given this postulate, regular employment may During the pendency of the DECS case, and for lack of
reasonably be presumed and it behooves ETS to prove a positive action from Woodridge, respondents
otherwise, that is, that the employment in question was appeared on television and spoke over the radio on the
contractual in nature ending upon the expiration of the term fixed alleged NEAT/NSAT anomaly.
in the contract or for a specific project or undertaking. But the February 28, 2001, Woodridge sent 2 separate memos
categorical finding of the CA, confirmatory for the most part of to respondents placing them under preventive
that of the labor arbiter, is that not a single written contract of suspension for a period of thirty days on the following
employment fixing the terms of employment for the duration of grounds: 1) uttering defamatory remarks against the
the Uniwide project, or any other project, was submitted by ETS school principal in the presence of their co-teachers; 2)
despite the latters allegations that private respondents were announcing to the students and teachers their alleged
merely contractual employees. Records of payroll and other immediate termination from service; 3) tardiness; 4)
pertinent documents, such as job contracts secured by ETS spreading false accusations against petitioner; 5)
showing that private respondents were hired for specific projects, absence without official leave; and 6) appearing on
were also not submitted by ETS. television and speaking over the radio to malign
Moreover, if private respondents were indeed employed petitioner. In the same memoranda, respondents were
as project employees, petitioners should have had submitted a required to explain in writing within seventy-two (72)
report of termination every time their employment was hours why they should not be terminated from their
terminated owing to the completion of each plumbing project. As employment. This prompted respondents to commence
correctly held by the CA in its Amended Decision, citing Tomas an action for illegal suspension before the NLRC.
Lao Construction v. NLRC, ETS failure to report the employment The respondents then filed for illegal suspension before
termination and file the necessary papers after every project the NLRC
completion tends to support the claim of private respondents
about their not being project employees. Under Policy Instruction
Barely a month after, Woodridge issued the
respondents their Notice of Termination citing the same
No. 20, Series of 1977, the report must be made to the nearest
grounds. In addition, they informed the respondents
public office employment.
that they did not qualify as regular employees for their
Private respondents may have initially been hired for
failure to meet the performance standards made known
specific projects or undertaking of petitioner ETS and, hence,
to them at the start of their probationary period.
may be classified as project employees. Their repeated rehiring
to perform tasks necessary to the usual trade or business of ETS The respondents then amended their initial complaint to
changed the legal situation altogether, for in the later instance, include illegal dismissal.
their continuous rehiring took them out from the scope of LA dismissed their complaint. The NLRC affirmed the
workers coterminus with specific projects and had made them LAs disposition in its entirety. The CA granted the
regular employees. petition and set aside the NLRC ruling. It ruled that the
Parenthetically, petitioners assertion that there can be 30 day suspension as illegal and ordered the school to
no illegal dismissal of project employees inasmuch as they are pay both Benito and Balaguer their salaries and
not entitled to security of tenure is inaccurate. The benefits accruing during said period of illegal
constitutionally-protected right of labor to security of tenure suspension. Woodridge was also ordered to pay
covers both regular and project workers. Their termination must Balaguer backwages and each of them P50,000 as
be for lawful cause and must be done in a way which affords moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages
them proper notice and hearing. and attorneys fees.
Decision of the Labor Arbiter was affirmed and ordered
ETS to reinstate respondents to their former positions, without ISSUES
loss of rank and seniority rights with backwages from the date of W/N THE DISMISSAL OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS VALID
dismissal until reinstated. SINCE AS PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYER
MAY TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT
5. Woodridge School vs. Benito and Balaguer | Nachura W/N THEY MAY BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF
G.R. No. 160240, October 29, 2008 |570 SCRA 164 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT; SECURITY OF TENURE W/N THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION WAS VALID
W/N THE AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
FACTS HAVE SUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUPPORT THE AWARD
Woodridge School, a private educational institution, HOLDING & RATIO
hired Benito and Balaguer as probationary school
teachers effective June 1998 and June 1999. No, the dismissal of the respondents was not valid. It is
necessary that the employer terminates the employment on
Sometime February 2001, the respondents, along with
justifiable ground.
20 other teachers presented Woodridge a Manifesto
Establishing Relevant Issues Concerning the School.
Some issues raised were with regard to an NSAT/NEAT On the effective date of their dismissal, respondents
anomaly, Teachers right to due process, Issuance of were not regular or permanent employees; they had not
Individual Contracts and Non-Clear-Cut School Policies. yet completed three (3) years of satisfactory service as
A confrontation between the school administrators and academic personnel which would have entitled them to
concerned teachers was held but no settlement was tenure as permanent employees in accordance with the
arrived at. Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. On that
For failure to resolve the issues, especially the one with date, Benitos contract of employment still had two
regard to the NSAT/NEAT anomaly, the respondents months to run, while Balaguers probationary
employment was to expire after one year and two tainted with bad faith, as obvious retaliatory acts on the
months. part of Woodridge.
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period The totality of the acts of respondents cannot be
of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine characterized as misconduct under the law, serious
whether or not he is qualified for permanent enough to warrant the severe penalty of dismissal. This
employment. A probationary appointment affords the is especially true because there is no finding of malice
employer an opportunity to observe the skill, or wrongful intent attributable to respondents. In light of
competence and attitude of a probationer. The word this disquisition, it is settled that petitioner failed to
probationary, as used to describe the period of comply with the requirement of substantial due process
employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. in terminating the employment of respondents.
While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and
efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is
With regard to the procedural aspect of the case,
respondents were afforded their rights to answer to
qualified for permanent employment, the probationer at
petitioners allegation and were given the opportunity to
the same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he
present evidence in support of their defense. However,
has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards
the SC still finds that the dismissal is illegal, because of
for permanent employment.
petitioners failure to satisfy the substantive aspect.
Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure in the
sense that during their probationary employment, they
cannot be dismissed except for cause or when he fails No, their preventive suspension was illegal.
to qualify as a regular employee. However, upon While the employer may place the worker concerned
expiration of their contract of employment, probationary under preventive suspension, it can do so only if the
employees cannot claim security of tenure and compel latters continued employment poses a serious and
their employers to renew their employment contracts. imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or
There is nothing that would hinder the employer from of his co-workers. The grounds relied upon by
extending a regular or permanent appointment to an Woodridge do not show that their employment poses a
employee once the employer finds that the employee is threat to the employer or other co-workers.
qualified for regular employment even before the As probationary employees, respondents security of
expiration of the probationary period tenure is limited to the period of their probation for Pe
The notices of termination sent by Woodridge to Benito, until June 2001 and for Balaguer, June 2002.
respondents stated that the latter failed to qualify as As they were no longer extended new appointments,
regular employees. However, nowhere in the notices they are not entitled to reinstatement and full
did petitioner explain the details of said failure to backwages. Rather, Pe Benito is only entitled to her
qualify and the standards not met by respondents. salary for her 30-day preventive suspension. As to
Balaguer, in addition to his 30-day salary during his
No, they may not be dismissed on the ground of serious illegal preventive suspension, he is entitled to his
misconduct. backwages for the unexpired term of his contract of
The Labor Code commands that before an employer probationary employment.
may legally dismiss an employee from the service, the
requirement of substantial and procedural due process YES, there is enough basis to support the award of damages.
must be complied with. Under the requirement of A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages
substantial due process, the grounds for termination of when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud; or
employment must be based on just or authorized constitutes an act oppressive to labor; or is done in a
causes. manner contrary to good morals, good customs or
Petitioner anchored its imputation of serious misconduct public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand,
principally on the respondents expose of the may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton,
NSAT/NEAT anomaly. oppressive or malevolent manner. The award of said
damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise
Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It that the employer fired his employee without just cause
is the transgression of some established and definite
or due process. It is necessary that additional facts be
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
pleaded and proven that the act of dismissal was
willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not
attended by bad faith, fraud, et al., and that social
mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious
humiliation, wounded feelings and grave anxiety
within the meaning of the Act, must be of such a grave
resulted therefrom.
and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must The SC finds that the award of the damages proper.
nevertheless be in connection with the work of the
employee to constitute just cause for his separation. It 6a. MICHAEL J. LAGROSAS, PETITIONER, VS.
is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB (PHIL.), INC./MEAD
has violated some established rules or policies. It is JOHNSON PHIL., RICHARD SMYTH AS GENERAL
equally important and required that the act or conduct MANAGER AND FERDIE SARFATI, AS MEDICAL
must have been performed with wrongful intent. SALES DIRECTOR, RESPONDENTS.
As correctly observed by the CA, the tenor of the
manifesto indicated good faith, as the teachers, in fact,
expressly stated that their ultimate objective was not to
put the school down, but to work for some changes FACTS: Michael J. Lagrosas was employed by Bristol-Myers
which would be beneficial to the students, teachers, the Squibb Inc. as Territory Manager in its Medical Sales Force
school and the country as a whole. The chronology of Division.
events, therefore, supports the view that respondents
suspension and eventual dismissal from service were Ma. Dulcinea S. Lim, also a Territory Manager and Lagrosas'
former girlfriend, attended a district meeting of territory outside of company premises and office hours and not
managers at McDonald's Alabang Town Center. After the intentionally directed against a co-employee, as hereafter
meeting, she dined out with her friends. She left her car at explained.
McDonald's and rode with Cesar R. Menquito, Jr. When they
returned to McDonald's, Lim saw Lagrosas' car parked beside First, the incident occurred outside of company premises and
her car. Lim told Menquito not to stop his car but Lagrosas after office hours since the district meeting of territory managers
followed them and slammed Menquito's car thrice. Menquito and which Lim attended at McDonald's had long been finished.
Lim alighted from the car. Lagrosas approached them and hit McDonald's may be considered an extension of Bristol-Myers'
Menquito with a metal steering wheel lock. When Lim tried to office and any business conducted therein as within office hours,
intervene, Lagrosas accidentally hit her head. but the moment the district meeting was concluded, that ceased
Respondent company dismissed petitioner, hence the too. When Lim dined with her friends, it was no longer part of the
latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. district meeting and considered official time. Thus, when
The LA held that the dismissal was illegal, stating that Lagrosas assaulted Lim and Menquito upon their return, it was
while Lagrosas committed a misconduct, it was not connected no longer within company premises and during office hours.
with his work. The incident occurred outside of company Second, Bristol-Myers itself admitted that Lagrosas intended to
premises and office hours. He also observed that the misconduct hit Menquito only. In the Memorandum it was stated that "You
was not directed against a co-employee who just happened to got out from your car holding an umbrella steering wheel lock
be accidentally hit in the process. and proceeded to hit Mr. Menquito. Dulce tried to intervene, but
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the LA. It held that you accidentally hit her on the head, knocking her unconscious."
Lagrosas was validly dismissed for serious misconduct in hitting Indeed, the misconduct was not directed against a co-employee
his co-employee and another person with a metal steering wheel who unfortunately got hit in the process. Third, Lagrosas was not
lock. The gravity and seriousness of his misconduct is clear from performing official work at the time of the incident. He was not
the fact that he deliberately waited for Lim and Menquito to even a participant in the district meeting. Hence, we fail to see
return to McDonald's. The NLRC also ruled that the misconduct how his action could have reflected his unfitness to continue
was committed in connection with his duty as Territory Manager working for Bristol-Myers.
since it occurred immediately after the district meeting of territory
managers. However, it was reversed by the NLRC. In light of Bristol-Myers' failure to adduce substantial evidence to
On appeal to the CA,it considered the misconduct as having prove that Lagrosas was guilty of serious misconduct, it cannot
been committed in connection with Lagrosas' duty as Territory use this ground to justify his dismissal. Thus, the dismissal of
Manager since it occurred immediately after the district meeting Lagrosas' employment was without factual and legal basis.
of territory managers. It also held that the gravity and
seriousness of the misconduct cannot be denied. Lagrosas 6b. R.B. MICHAEL PRESS and ANNALENE REYES
employed such a degree of violence that caused damage not ESCOBIA, Petitioners, vs. NICASIO C. GALIT,
only to Menquito's car but also physical injuries to Lim and Respondent
Menquito. FACTS: respondent was employed by petitioner R.B. Michael
ISSUE: w/o LAgrosas dismissal legal? Press as an offset machine operator.Respondent was ordered to
HELD: serious misconduct as a valid cause for the dismissal of render overtime service in order to comply with a job order
an employee is defined simply as improper or wrong conduct. It deadline, but he refused to do so. The following day, respondent
is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, reported for work but petitioner Escobia told him not to work, and
a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and to return later in the afternoon for a hearing. When he returned, a
implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. To be copy of an Office Memorandum was served on him, as follows:
serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the This warning for dismissal is being issued for the following
misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character offenses:
and not merely trivial or unimportant. However serious such (1) habitual and excessive tardiness
misconduct, it must, nevertheless, be in connection with the
employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation. The (2) committing acts of discourtesy, disrespect in addressing
act complained of must be related to the performance of the superiors
employee's duties such as would show him to be unfit to
continue working for the employer. (3) failure to work overtime after having been instructed to do so
Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for (4) Insubordination - willfully disobeying, defying or disregarding
dismissal, it (a) must be serious; (b) must relate to the company authority
performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that The offenses youve committed are just causes for
the employee has become unfit to continue working for the termination of employment as provided by the Labor Code. You
employer. were given verbal warnings before, but there had been no
improvement on your conduct.
Tested against the foregoing standards, it is clear that Lagrosas
was not guilty of serious misconduct. It may be that the injury Further investigation of this matter is required, therefore, you are
sustained by Lim was serious since it rendered her unconscious summoned to a hearing
and caused her to suffer cerebral contusion that necessitated
hospitalization for several days. But we fail to see how such Subsequently, respondent was terminated from employment.
misconduct could be characterized as work-related and reflective Hence the latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
of Lagrosas' unfitness to continue working for Bristol-Myers.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision finding that complainant
Although we have recognized that fighting within company was illegally dismissed.
premises may constitute serious misconduct, we have also held
that not every fight within company premises in which an On appeal, NLRC affirmed the LA decision.
employee is involved would automatically warrant dismissal from
service. More so, in this case where the incident occurred
On appeal to the CA,it held that it was not the tardiness and to go to work the next day, thus belying his excuse, which is, at
absences committed by respondent, but his refusal to render most, a self-serving statement.
overtime work which caused the termination of his employment
After a re-examination of the facts, we rule that respondent
ISSUES: whether there was just cause to terminate the unjustifiably refused to render overtime work despite a valid
order to do so.
employment of respondent.
HELD: SC held that there was a valid dismissal. Stating 7. Janssen Pharmaceutica vs. Silayro |Chico-Nazario
that while the CA is correct that the charge of serious G.R. No. 172528, February 26, 2008| 546 SCRA 628
misconduct was not substantiated, the charge of insubordination JUST CAUSE; DISHONESTY
however is meritorious.
FACTS
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these Janssen Pharmaceutica (JANSSEN) is a division of
two elements must concur: (1) the employees assailed Johnson and Johnson Philippines engaged in the sale
conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a and manufacture of pharmaceutical products. In 1989,
wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must Benjamin Silayro (SILAYRO) was hired as
have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, Territory/Medical Representative.
and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to Sometime 1994, Silayro was found guilty of granting
discharge. unauthorized premium/free goods to and unauthorized
pull-outs from customers. JANSSEN failed to attach
In the present case, there is no question that petitioners order for records to support its allegations but Silayro admitted to
respondent to render overtime service to meet a production granting unauthorized goods but vehemently denied
deadline complies with the second requisite. Art. 89 of the Labor violating the rule on or having been charged with
Code empowers the employer to legally compel his employees unauthorized pull-outs.
to perform overtime work against their will to prevent serious loss Silayro was also investigated for dishonesty in
or damage: connection with the Rewards of Learning Test. This
ROL test ROL test is a one-page take-home
Art. 89. EMERGENCY OVERTIME WORK examination, with two questions to be answered by an
Any employee may be required by the employer to perform enumeration of the standards of performance by which
overtime work in any of the following cases: territory representatives are rated as well as the sales
competencies expected of territory representatives. It
xxxx was discovered that SILAYROs ROL answers were
written by another co-employee, Joedito Gasendo.
(c) When there is urgent work to be performed on machines,
He was then sent subsequent memos:
installations, or equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or
o July 1998 - A memo requiring an explanation
damage to the employer or some other cause of similar nature;
for the ROL incident.
xxxx o August 1998 - A memo requiring Silayro to
In the present case, petitioners business is a printing press explain his delay in submitting process reports
whose production schedule is sometimes flexible and varying. It September 1998 Silayro submitted
is only reasonable that workers are sometimes asked to render an explanation stating that the delay in the
overtime work in order to meet production deadlines. submission of reports was caused by the
deaths of his grandmother and his aunt, and
Dennis Reyes, in his Affidavit stated that he approached and the hospitalization of his mother. He also
asked respondent to render overtime work so as to meet a averred that he had asked his co-employee
production deadline on a printing job order, but respondent Joedito Gasendo to write his answers to the
refused to do so for no apparent reason. Respondent, on the ROL test because at the time when the
other hand, claims that the reason why he refused to render examination was due, he already needed to
overtime work was because he was not feeling well that day. leave to see his father-in-law, who was
suffering from cancer and confined in a
The issue now is, whether respondents refusal or failure to hospital in Manila.
render overtime work was willful; that is, whether such refusal or o October 20, 1998 another memo regarding
failure was characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. In the discrepancies between the number of product
Lakpue Drug Inc. v. Belga, willfulness was described as samples recorded in his Daily/Weekly Coverage
characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude Report (DCR) and the number of product samples
rendering the employees act inconsistent with proper found in his possession during the 14 October
subordination.] The fact that respondent refused to provide 1998 audit. The actual number of sample products
overtime work despite his knowledge that there is a production found in his possession exceeded the number of
deadline that needs to be met, and that without him, the offset sample products he reported to JANSSEN.
machine operator, no further printing can be had, shows his Silayro explained, through a "Response Memo" dated
wrongful and perverse mental attitude; thus, there is willfulness. 24 October 1998, that he failed to count the quantity of
samples when they were placed in his custody. Thus,
Respondents excuse that he was not feeling well that day is he failed to take note of the excess samples from
unbelievable and obviously an afterthought. He failed to present previous months. He, likewise, admitted to committing
any evidence other than his own assertion that he was sick. errors in posting the samples that he distributed to
Also, if it was true that he was then not feeling well, he would some doctors during the months of August and
have taken the day off, or had gone home earlier, on the September 1998.
contrary, he stayed and continued to work all day, and even tried
He was later on issued a Notice of Disciplinary action acts of respondent belie a design to misappropriate
upon finding him guilty of the following offenses: product samples. So as to escape any liability,
delayed submission of process reports and cheating on SILAYRO could have easily just submitted for audit only
his ROL test. He was subjected to a one day the number of product samples which he reported.
suspension without pay for each offense. Instead, he brought all the product samples in his
On the same day, he was also issued a Notice of custody during the audit and, afterwards, honestly
Preventive Suspension for Dishonesty in Accomplishing admitted to his negligence. Negligence is defined as the
other Accountable documents in connection with the failure to exercise the standard of care that a
October discrepancy. He was then directed to surrender reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a
the car, promotional materials and all other similar situation.
accountabilities by Nov. 25, 1998. The SC found that SILAYRO did not commit any willful
In line with his promise to surrender his accountabilities, violation, rather he merely failed to exercise the
SILAYRO wrote a letter asking his superiors where he standard care required of a territory representative to
should return his accountabilities but he did not receive carefully count the number of product samples
any instructions. delivered to him.
SILAYROs services were later on terminated by The gravest charge that SILAYRO faced was cheating
JANSSEN. SILAYRO was found guilty of dishonesty in in his ROL test. Although he avers that he formulated
that issue of the discrepancy of the samples and failing the answers himself and that he merely allowed his co-
to return the company vehicle and other accountabilities employee Joedito Gasendo to write down his answers
in violation of Sec. 9.5.5 of the Code of Conduct. He for him, the SC found this excuse to be very flimsy. The
was also found to be a habitual offender. ROL test consists of one page and two straightforward
SILAYRO later on filed a complaint for unfair labor questions, which can be answered by more or less ten
practice, illegal dismissal. sentences. He could have spared the few minutes it
The Labor Arbiter found the penalty of dismissal too would take to write the examination. If he had lacked
harsh and ordered his reinstatement without payment of the time due to a family emergency, a request for an
backwages. NLRC declared the reinstatement improper extension would have been the more reasonable and
and that the dismissal was just and authorized. The CA honest alternative.
declared the dismissal illegal, granted reinstatement , The improper taking of the ROL test, while it puts into
ordered payment of backwages and if reinstatement is question the examinees moral character, does not
no longer feasible, payment of separation pay. result in any potential loss of property or damage to the
reputation of the employer. The respondents ten years
ISSUE of commendable performance cannot be cancelled out
W/N THERE WERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR SILAYROS by a single mistake made during a difficult period of his
DISMISSAL. life, a mistake that did not pose a potential danger to his
employer.
HOLDING & RATIO SILAYROs violations of petitioners Code of Conduct,
even if taken as a whole, would not fall under the just
NO, there was no sufficient ground for his dismissal. The SC
causes of termination provided under Article 282 of the
affirmed the decision of the CA
Labor Code. They are mere blunders, which may be
corrected. JANSSEN failed to point out even a potential
To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two danger that respondent would misappropriate or
requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for improperly dispose of company property placed in his
any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor custody. It had not shown that during his employment,
Code; and, (2) the employee must be given an that SILAYRO took a willfully defiant attitude against it.
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself It also failed to show a pattern of negligence which
With regard to the issue of his dishonesty in would indicate that he is incapable of performing his
accomplishing his report on product samples, responsibilities. At any other time during his
JANSSEN failed to present evidence that SILAYRO employment, he had shown himself a commendable
was guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing the report. It worker.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with the Nonetheless, the infractions committed by SILAYRO,
employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid while disproportionate to a penalty of dismissal, will not
cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the be overlooked. The suspension of five months without
dismissal was not justified and therefore was illegal. pay, imposed by the Court of Appeals, would serve as a
Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer sufficient and just punishment for his violations of the
must adequately prove, especially when it is the basis companys Code of Conduct.
for termination.
In this case, JANSSEN had not been able to identify an
act of dishonesty, misappropriation, or any illicit act,
which the respondent may have committed in 8. PADILLA MACHINE SHOP VS. JAVILGAS
connection with the erroneously reported product
samples. JANSSEN merely relied on the fact that the FACTS:
number of product samples SILAYRO reported was Javilgas was hired by Padilla Machine Shop. His work consisted
incorrect. While respondent was admittedly negligent, of reconditioning machines. In July 1998, his salary was
his errors alone are insufficient evidence of a dishonest increased and in January 1999, his salary was again increased
purpose. Since fraud implies willfulness or wrongful until his dismissal in April 2002. Petitioners made regular
intent, the innocent non-disclosure of or inadvertent deductions for his SSS contributions, but sometime in 2002, he
errors in declaring facts by the employee to the found out that his employer was not remitting the contributions to
employer will not constitute a just cause for the the SSS; as a result, he was not able to avail of the benefits
dismissal of the employee. In addition, the subsequent thereof when his wife gave birth. When he complained about the
failure of his employer to remit his SSS contributions, the latter (b) That there must have been a clear
transferred him to the Novaliches branch office. intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship manifested by some overt
Javilgas further alleged that in April 2002, Rodolfo Padilla called acts.
him by telephone and told him to stop working but without giving
any reason therefor. He stopped reporting for work and sued The establishment of his own shop is not enough proof that
petitioners for illegal dismissal, with a prayer for the payment of Javilgas intended to sever his relationship with his employer.
backwages, pro rated 13th month pay, separation pay, and moral
and exemplary damages.
Petitioners consistently deny that Javilgas was dismissed from
On the other hand, petitioner Rodolfo Padilla (Rodolfo), service; that he abandoned his employment when he walked out
proprietor of Padilla Machine Shop, alleged that in 1999, SSS after his conversation with Rodolfo and never returned to work
and Medicare contributions were deducted from Javilgass salary again. But denial, in this case, does not suffice; it should be
and remitted to the SSS; that in 2000, they (petitioners) coupled with evidence to support it. In the Machica case, the
submitted a report to the SSS that Javilgas had voluntarily memorandum, among others, represented clear and convincing
left and abandoned his work, and transferred to another proof that there was no intention to dismiss the employees; it
shop, Raymond Machine Shop, located within the same constituted evidence in support of the employers denial.
vicinity as Padilla Machine Shop; that some months after,
Javilgas returned and pleaded to be re-employed with them; that In the instant case, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to rebut
Rodolfo Padilla took Javilgas back to work, but their customers Javilgas claim of dismissal and satisfy the burden of proof
were not satisfied with the quality of his work; hence Javilgas required.
was assigned to the Novaliches branch; that Javilgas incurred
numerous absences in the Novaliches branch; that Javilgas had As regards the eight-month hiatus before Javilgas instituted the
opened his own machine shop and even pirated the illegal dismissal case, we sustain the Court of Appeals
clients of petitioners; and finally, Javilgas again voluntarily left ruling that Javilgas filed the complaint within a reasonable period
Padilla Machine Shop without prior notice. during the three-year period provided under Article 291 of the
Labor Code.
Read in its entirety, the Memorandum reflects the GOOD FAITH HELD:
of the employer in resolving a discovered anomaly. First, it is a
declaration of AMNESTY and FORGIVENESS; it did not name The obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under
names; it did not state that the guilty ones will be pursued and Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
punished. Second, it asked for SHARING among the
employees for the loss due to the discovered anomaly. Third, it It is a continuing qualification. Tersely put, an employee may be
indicated a POSITIVE BUSINESS DIRECTION as it exhorted the dismissed the moment he is unable to comply with his ideal
employees from participating in similar anomalies henceforward. weight as prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of
the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor
9. YRASUEGUI VS. PAL Code. The standards violated in this case were not mere
"orders" of the employer; they were the "prescribed weights" that
FACTS: a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep
his or her position in the company.
Armando G. Yrasuegui was an international flight steward of
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He stands five feet and eight In this sense, the failure to maintain these standards does not
inches (5'8") with a large body frame. The proper weight for a fall under Article 282(a) whose express terms require the
man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds, element of willfulness in order to be a ground for dismissal. The
the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin failure to meet the employer's qualifying standards is in fact a
and Crew Administration Manual of PAL. ground that falls under Article 282(e) - the "other causes
analogous to the foregoing."
Yraseguis weight problem By its nature, these "qualifying standards" are norms that apply
prior to and after an employee is hired. They apply prior to
Yrasegui encountered a great deal of weight problem. From employment because these are the standards a job applicant
meeting the required weight limit of 166 pounds, he ballooned, must initially meet in order to be hired. They apply after hiring
reaching the weights upto 215 to 217 pounds. PAL was lenient because an employee must continue to meet these standards
enough to grant him a number of vacation leaves to address his while on the job in order to keep his job. Under this perspective,
weight concerns. He was thus required to report for periodical a violation is not one of the faults for which an employee can be
weight checks. However, instead of losing, he gained more dismissed pursuant to pars. (a) to (d) of Article 282; the
weight. It was when he reached 217 pounds where he made a employee can be dismissed simply because he no longer
commitment in writing to lose 17 pounds in 90 days and continue "qualifies" for his job irrespective of whether or not the failure to
reducing from then on. He remained overweight despite the 90- qualify was willful or intentional.
day period given him to reach his ideal weight. Time and again,
Yrasuegui refused to comply with the weight checks. When he In fine, We hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the
finally tipped the scale, he weighed at 212 pounds. Clearly, he context of his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous
was still way over his ideal weight of 166 pounds. From then on, cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his
nothing was heard from petitioner until he followed up his case dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended,
requesting for leniency. He continuously gained weight. On but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it,
November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely
Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on attributable to the employee without any external force
weight requirements. Ultimately, Yrasuegui was formally influencing or controlling his actions. This element runs through
informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of
weight, "and considering the utmost leniency" extended to him a wrongful action or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a
"which spanned a period covering a total of almost five years," recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although it lacks
his services were considered terminated "effective immediately." the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).
Unlike Cook, however, petitioner is not morbidly obese. In the words of The appellate court, by June 30, 2004 Decision, initially granted
the District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Cook was sometime petitioner's petition and set aside the NLRC ruling. However,
before 1978 "at least one hundred pounds more than what is considered
appropriate of her height." According to the Circuit Judge, Cook weighed
upon a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by
"over 320 pounds" in 1988. Clearly, that is not the case here. At his respondents, it reinstated the NLRC decision in an Amended
heaviest, petitioner was only less than 50 pounds over his ideal weight. Decision and declared that respondents were illegally dismissed.
ISSUE:
10. CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs. NLRC
Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship
between petitioner and the spouses-respondents?
FACTS:
RULING:
The Calamba Medical Center (petitioner), a privately-owned
hospital, engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses This Court is unimpressed. Under the "control test," an
Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Lanzanas) and Merceditha Lanzanas employment relationship exists between a physician and a
(Dr. Merceditha), as part of its team of resident physicians. hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of
Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task.
shifts, respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4,800.00
each. They were also given a percentage share out of fees That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light
charged for out-patient treatments, operating room assistance from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the
and discharge billings. The work schedules of the members of operating room, or any department or ward for that matter,
the team of resident physicians were fixed by petitioner's medical respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors,
director Dr. Raul Desipeda (Dr. Desipeda). And they were issued charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of
identification cards by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be
Security System (SSS). Income taxes were withheld from them. undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it is not
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance
On March 7, 1998, Dr. Meluz Trinidad (Dr. Trinidad), also a of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to
resident physician at the hospital, inadvertently overheard a wield the power.
telephone conversation of respondent Dr. Lanzanas with a fellow
employee, Diosdado Miscala, through an extension telephone Finally, under Section 15, Rule X of Book III of the Implementing
line. Apparently, Dr. Lanzanas and Miscala were discussing the Rules of the Labor Code, an employer-employee relationship
low "census" or admission of patients to the hospital. Dr. exists between the resident physicians and the training hospitals,
Desipeda issued to Dr. Lanzanas a Memorandum of March 7, unless there is a training agreement between them, and the
1998 placing Dr. Lanzanas under 30-day preventive suspension. training program is duly accredited or approved by the
appropriate government agency. In respondents' case, they were
Inexplicably, petitioner did not give respondent Dr. Merceditha, not undergoing any specialization training. They were
who was not involved in the said incident, any work schedule considered non-training general practitioners, assigned at the
after sending her husband Dr. Lanzanas the memorandum, nor emergency rooms and ward sections.
inform her the reason therefor, albeit she was later informed by
the Human Resource Department (HRD) officer that that was Petitioner thus failed to observe the two requirements,before
part of petitioner's cost-cutting measures. dismissal can be effected notice and hearing The termination
notice sent to and received by Dr. Lanzanas on April 25, 1998
On March 14, 1998, the rank-and-file employees union of was the first and only time that he was apprised of the reason for
petitioner went on strike due to unresolved grievances over his dismissal. As for the case of Dr. Merceditha, her dismissal
terms and conditions of employment. On March 20, 1998, Dr. was worse, it having been effected without any just or authorized
Lanzanas filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the cause and without observance of due process.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-Regional
Arbitration Board (RAB) IV. Dr. Merceditha subsequently filed a 11. SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v PIGLAS
complaint for illegal dismissal. KAMAO
For its part, PT&T submitted its financial statements 1996 to PT&T was fully justified in implementing a retrenchment program
1998, as audited by Sycip Gorres Velayo (SGV) & Co. and Alba since it was undergoing business reverses, not only for a single
Ledesma & Co. showing that it incurred a loss of P558 Million. fiscal year, but for several years prior to and even after the
program. In a span of six years, respondent realized profits only
Labor Arbiter ruled that PT&T failed to substantiate its claim of in one year, in 1997. The numbers presented by Manatad, which
financial reverses and the retrenchment program was invalid, she obtained from the Central Visayas office, do not bespeak the
awarding Manatad her claim. overall financial standing in light of the fact that PT&T is
operating nationwide and the Central Visayas office is only one
Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA's decision. The NLRC of its many branches. Losses or gains of a business entity
further noted that the DOLE was not notified by the respondent cannot be fully assessed by isolating or selecting only particular
of its retrenchment program as required by law. branches or offices. Manatad is not entitled to backwages, but is
entitled to separation pay.
On Certiorari, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of PT&Ts
retrenchment program. The financial standing of PT&T cannot
be determined by the performance of a single branch or unit 13. Mora v. Avesco Marketing Corp, Nov. 14, 2008
alone but by the performance of all its branches integrated as a Voluntary Resignation; Employers Acceptance Required
whole. In addition, the comparative statements of income
prepared by independent auditors constitute a normal method of
proving the profit and loss performance of a business company.
PT&T also duly complied with the requirement of service of
Mora was a sales engineer for Avesco since 1996 tasked to employee as proof of voluntary resignation yet the employee
supervise and install sound and communications systems for its specifically denies such evidence, as in petitioner's case, the
clientele. On March 25, 2003, he tendered his letter of employer is burdened to prove the due execution and
resignation to be effective a month after. genuineness of such evidence.
It is with much reluctance and regret that I must ask to be Avesco failed to discharge such burden. For a resignation
released from my position of Sales Engineer at Avesco tendered by an employee to take effect, it should first be
Marketing. For the past seven years, I cannot forget how much accepted or approved by the employer. That Avesco issued the
this company has meant to me.
"show cause" letter a day after petitioner filed the controversial
letter of resignation could only mean that it did not accept the
With this regard, I'm tendering my resignation effective on same.
April 25, 2003. Please extend to Mr. Jimmy Tang my
appreciation of his kindness during the time I served.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Petitioner's "resignation" being premised on a qualification that
it be effective April 25, 2003 was conditional in character. It is
thus only considered as a mere offer. Since respondent did not
Prior to this letter, Mora was confronted for "selling competitors'
accept the condition attendant to the offer as, it bears repeating,
products" to the prejudice and detriment of respondent and was
he was in fact given a "show cause" letter a day after, there was
given the option of either immediately resigning or face
no resignation to speak of.
administrative charges. On the same day, he changed his mind
and withdrew his letter of resignation after Avesco denied such
request. The following day, Mora was issued a notice of This brings the Court to the issue of whether petitioner was
disciplinary action alleging that he committed a breach of trust by illegally dismissed. The Court finds in the affirmative.
surreptitiously undertaking a sales transaction patently inimical
to the interest of the Company that results to sales loss for the While selling of respondent's competitors' products is a valid
company. Mora was required to explain within 48 hours from ground for termination of employment, an employer cannot just
receipt why he should not be dismissed and was placed under hurl generalized accusations but should at least cite specific
preventive suspension. instances and proof in support thereof. There was no testimonial
or documentary proof proffered. There is also no showing that an
Mora gave his side on March 27, claiming that he was not investigation was conducted.
culpable and that the allegations were based on speculation for
he never transacts with products other than Avescos. Despite
this explanation, Mora did not hear from Avesco and only
learned from third party sources that his employment was 14. Alabang Country Club vs. NLRC
terminated as of April 1, 2003.
GR. No. 170287, February 14, 2008
The labor arbiter dismissed Moras complaint for illegal dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction since the dispute falls within the province Facts:
of the grievance procedure provided for by the Collective - Petitioner Alabang Country Club Inc. is a domestic non
Bargaining Agreement between Avesco and the workers' union. profit corporation while respondent Alabang Country Club
Independent Employees Union is the exclusive bargaining
The case was thus referred to the National Conciliation and agent of the Clubs rank and file employees.
Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator - Other respondents to the case are Christopher Pizarro,
(VA) Barriatos, by Decision of August 23, 2004, dismissed Michael Braza, and Nolasco Castueras were elected as
Mora's complaint upon the ground that he had voluntarily Union President, Vice President, and Treasurer.
resigned. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals denied such, - In 1999, the petitioner and respondent union entered into a
similarly finding him to have voluntarily resigned. collective bargaining agreement which provided for a union
shop and maintenance of membership shop. The pertinent
section states:
On the issue of whether or not his resignation was valid, the
Sec. 4 Termination Upon Union Demand Upon written
Supreme Court held in the negative.
demand of the Union and after observing due process,
the Club shall dismiss a regular employee on any of the
There was also an issue on procedural infirmity1, but the Court following grounds
has resolved to rule on the merits of the present petition in the A) Failure to join the Union within 5 days form the
interest of substantial justice to arrive at the proper conclusion time of regularization;
that is conformable to the evidentiary facts. B) Resignation from the Union, except within the
period allowed by law;
It is incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee C) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
voluntarily resigned (Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. D) Non payment of Union dues, fees, and
Ompad). Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature, assessments;
both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concur. E) Joining another Union except within the period
If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an allowed by law;
1 F) Malversation of Union funds;
The Court notes that the appellate court erred in giving due course to petitioner's
petition for certiorari, for his proper mode of appeal was for review under Rule 43 of G) Actively campaigning to discourage membership
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 of Rule 43 states that the rule applies in the Union and;
to voluntary arbitrators. Sec. 4, however, requires that the petition for review to be F) Inflicting harm or injury to any member or officer of
taken to the Court of Appeals should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the award, judgment or final order or resolution of the VA. Mora filed before the
the Union.
appellate court a petition for certiorari 49 days after receipt of the decision of the VA - Subsequently, the club and the union discovered some
at which time the 15-day period to file appeal had expired.
irregularly recorded entries, unaccounted expenses and reasons to distrust her. The court denied her petition and
disbursement and uncollected loans form the Union funds. affirmed the decision of the CA.
- The three respondents were called for a meeting to explain - Petitioner not contented; file a motion for reconsideration
their side, they were given the opportunity to explain all their arguing that the court failed to consider her length service to
accountabilities verbal and written and they all denied their PET in affirming her termination from employment. She
wrong doing however failed to satisfy the board for the acts pleaded that she be awarded separation pay and retirement
they have committed benefits out of humanitarian consideration.
- Despite their explanation, the three were furnished an - The court denied her motion for reconsideration with
individual letters of expulsion for Malversation of Funds. In FINALITY for lack of merit. Hence, the petitioner filed
the letter, the Union invoking the Security Claus of the CBA another Motion for Reconsideration for the second time
demanded that the Club dismiss the three.
- The three respondents challenged their dismissal and filed a Issues:
complaint in the Labor Arbiter. The latter dismiss their Whether or not a second motion for reconsideration can be
complaint and ruled that their dismissal in based on just entertained by the Supreme Court
cause and thus they were not illegally dismissed Whether or not petitioner is entitled to separation pay and
- The respondents appeal to the NLRC and CA which reverse retirement benefits for just termination.
the decision of the Labor Arbiter sighting sec. 2(b), Rule
XXIII Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Held:
Code finding that respondents were not accorded with due On the first issue, the court ruled that Sec. 2 of Rule 52
process and were not given the opportunity to be heard in a Rules of court explicitly states that no second motion for
separate hearing, thus the NLRC issued an order for the reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same
reinstatement of the respondents without loss of their party be entertained. Accordingly, a second motion for
seniority rights and full backwages. reconsideration is prohibited pleading which shall not be allowed,
- Hence, petitioner Alabang Country Club filed a petitioner for except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons only after an
certiorari to the Supreme Court express leave shall have first been obtained. However, in this
case, the court failed to find such any extraordinarily persuasive
Issues: reason to allow Tirazonas second motion for reconsideration.
Whether or not the three respondents were illegally dismissed by With regards to the second issue the general rule is that
the petitioner separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice
Whether or not respondents were afforded due process only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed
for cause other than those serious misconduct or those reflecting
On the first issue, the court enumerated the valid grounds on his moral character. However the court contends that this
for termination namely: Art. 282, Art. 283, Art. 284 and Art. 285. would tolerate the employee who steals from the company is
Further another cause for termination of dismissal from granted separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is not
employment is due to the enforcement of the union security unlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his next
clause in the CBA. Termination of employment by virtue of a employment because he thinks he can expect leniency. Thus,
union security clause embodied in the CBA is recognized in our her attitude towards her employer was a clear inconsistent with
jurisdiction. It is also clear upon demand by the Union and after her position of trust and confidence. Her poor character became
due process; the Club shall dismiss the employment of the even more evident when she read what was supposed to be a
respondents who were found liable to the offense. confidential letter of the legal counsel of PET to PET officer and
Not let us go with the second issue. In the present case, directors. In accordance to separation pay, it is valid that
the Club has substantially complied with due process. The three Tirazona is not entitled to separation pay. With regards to her
respondents were notified that their dismissal was being retirement benefits, it is also denied.
requested by the Union, and their explanations were heard. The Wherefore, the Motion for Leave to File a Second
three were dismissed only after the Club reviewed and Motion for Reconsideration is denied and NOTED WITHOUT
considered the documents submitted by the Union and the ACTION.
written explanation submitted by the three respondents. Upon
these circumstances, the court held that the Club has afforded
the three respondents with a reasonable opportunity to be heard 16 Masmud v. NLRC G.R. No. 183385 February 13, 2009
and defend themselves
Wherefore, the decision of the NLRC and CA were
dismissed and upholding the decision of the Labor Arbiter. NACHURA,J:
Facts:
15. Tirazona vs. Philippine Techno Service
GR. No. 169712, January 20, 2009 Evangelina Masmuds husband, the late Alexander Masmud filed
Facts: a complaint against First Victory Shipping Services Angelakos
- Petitioner Tirazona being the Administrative Manager of the (Hellas) for non-payment of permanent disability benefits,
Philippine EDS Techno Service, Inc. was a managerial medical expenses, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary
employee who held a position of trust and confidence; that damages and attorneys fees. Alexander engaged the services
after PET officer/ directors called her attention to her of Atty. Rolando Go as his counsel.
improper handling of a situation involving a rank and file
employee, she claimed that she was denied due process for
which she demanded Php 2,000,000.00. Thus, she admitted In consideration of Atty. Gos legal services, Alexander agreed
reading a confidential letter addressed to PET regarding her to pay on contingent basis: 20% of total monetary claims as
case and that she was validly terminated from her settled or paid and an additional 10% in case of appeal. And any
employment on the ground that she willfully breached the award for attorneys fees shall pertain to respondents law firm
trust and confidence reposed in her by her employer. The as compensation.
court concludes that Tirazona has given PET more enough
The LA granted monetary claims of Alexander wherein Hellas Sec. 24, Rule 138 Rules of Court should be observed in
shall jointly and severally pay Alexander total permanent determining Atty. Gos compensation. The contract between
disability benefits of US$60,000 and his sickness allowance of Atty. Go and Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The
US$2,348, both in Philippine currency at current exchange rate contract shall control unless found by the court to be
and to further pay P200,000 as moral damages, P100,000 as unconscionable or unreasonable. Fees are unconscionable if
exemplary damages and attorneys fees of 10% of the total they affront ones sense of justice,decency or reasonableness.
monetary award. Claim for medical expenses were dismissed The decree of unconscionability of a stipulated amount in a
contingent fee contract will not preclude recovery. It merely
Hellas appealed to NLRC, during pendency Alexander died, justifies the fixing by the court of a reasonable conpensation for
Atty. Go explained to Evangelina the terms of the lawyers fees the lawyers services.
and she became the substitute complainant. NLRC dismissed
the appeal of Hellas. It filed a motion for reconsideration but was Under Canon 20, Rule 20.01, Canon of Profession responsibility
denied.On appeal before the CA, the decision of LA was set a criteria for assessing the proper amount of compensation
affirmed with modification deleting award for moral and that a lawyer should receive: (a) The time spent and the extent
exemplary damages. Hellas filed a petition for certiorari but was of the services rendered or required;(b) The novelty and difficulty
dismissed. The decision of the NLRC became final and of the question involved;(c) The importance of the subject
executory. Atty. Go. Filed the execution of the decision of the matter;(d) The skill demanded;(e) The probability of losing other
NLRC and was granted by LA.Surety bond of the employer was employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;(f)
garnished and it was delivered to NLRC cashier, through NLRC The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of
sheriff, the check of P 3,454,079.20. Atty. Go moved for the fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs;(g) The amount
release of the said amount to Evangelina. LA directed the involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
release of the amount. Evangelina paid Atty. GO the sum of from the service;(h) The contingency or certainty of
P680,000 compensation;(i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and(j) The professional standing of
Atty. Go filed a motion to record and enforce the attorneys lien the lawyer.
alleging that Evangelina reneged (break her promise) on the
contingent fee agreement. The amount paid was only 20% of the Contingent fee contracts are subject to supervision and close
award as attorneys fees leaving 10% balance, plus the award to scrutiny of the court it order that clients may be protected from
the counsel as attorneys fees.In Reply to Atty. Gos motion, unjust charges. The court finds nothing illegal in the contingent
Evangelina manifested that the claim for attorneys fees of 40% fee contract between Atty. Go and Alexander (Evangelinas
of the total monetary award was null and void based on Art. 111 husband). CA committed no error of law when it awarded
of the Labor Code. LA granted Atty. Gos motion wherein the attoryneys fees.
balance of unpaid 20% of attorneys fees or P839,587.39 should
be paid by Evangelina. NLRC Cashier is directed to pay the 17 San Miguel Corporation v. Teodisio G.R. No 163033
counsel the amount of P677,589.96 which is currently deposited. October 2, 2009
Teodisio filed a complaint against SMC before the NLRC for In the case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, the court made it
illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages and other benefits. clear that a contract of employment stipulating a fixed term is
LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The said contract of invalid if it can be shown that it was executed with intention of
employment with fixed period was a legitimate exercise of circumventing an employees right to security of tenure and
management prerogative and termination is in accordance of should thus be ignored. Moreover, that the period that was
employment contract. Also he is not a regular employee, imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the
therefore not entitled to benefit under CBA. Before the NLRC, employee should struck down as contrary to law, morals, good
affirmed the LAs decision. In the CA, it granted the petition to customs, public order and public policy.
annul and set aside the decision of NLRC. CA ratiocinated that
the Employment with a Fixed period contract was just a scheme
of SMC to circumvent the respondents security of tenure and Teodisio having gained a status of a regular employee is
concluded that before Teodisio signed the employment contracts entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just
he already attained the status of a regular employee. His transfer or authorized causes after he has been accorded due process.
and dismissal is tainted with bad faith and declared the Receipt The termination of respondents employment based on the fixed
and Release document signed, since the law proscribes any contract and giving Teodisio opportunity to become a regular
agreement whereby a worker agrees to receive less employee when he was transferred to bottling section do not
compensation than what he is entitled to recover. It also added constitute just or authorized cause.
that a deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from
demanding benefits. SMC filed for MR but was denied and The receipt and release document signed by Teodisio wherein
hence this petition. he is barred from demanding benefits to which he is legally
entitled are frowned upon by the court because it is contrary to
Issue: W/N Teodisio was a regular employee? YES public policy. The burden of proving that the quitclaim or waiver
was voluntarily entered rests on the employer. SMC failed to
discharge this burden, in effect Teodisio did not waive his right to
Held: question his dismissal and claims to employment benefits.
ISSUE:
RULING: