labor law review case digests.doc
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
1/29
PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE EMPLOYEELABOR UNION and SANDY T. VALLOTA vs. NATIONALLABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PRUDENTIALGUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC., and/or JOCELYNRETIZOS
FACTS: Vallota was employed by respondent PrudentialGuarantee and Assurance, Inc. (PGAI)as a Junior Programmerassigned to the Electronic Data Processing (EDP)Department.During an onthespot security chec! in the In"ormation and
#echnology (IT)Department by PGAI, Vallota$s computer waschec!ed and a "older named %&AA' was "ound in his "iles.
Vallota e(plained that there is nothing wrong with the "iles.Vallota was later in"ormed that the "iles will be printed andVallota did not ob)ect. A"ter the "iles were printed, Vallota andthe *nion +ecretary were as!ed to sign each page o" theprintout. Vallota was not given a copy o" the printed "ile.
ater, Vallota received a memorandum directing him toe(plain within - hours why highly con"idential "iles werestored in his computer. #he same memorandum also in"ormedhim that he was being placed under preventive suspension "or/0 days e""ective upon receipt o" the said notice. A secondmemorandum noti"ied Vallota o" the e(tension o" hispreventive suspension "or another /0 days because themanagement needed more time to evaluate theadministrative case against him. Vallota responded in writingand three days later, PGAI sent him another memorandum
re1uesting "urther details on some o" the matters he raised inhis response. Vallota then re1uested a con"erence in a letter,to be attended by a *nion representative and counsel. Inreply, PGAI sent Vallota another memorandum which set anew deadline "or Vallota to submit his reply and evidence inhis de"ense. In compliance with the deadline set, Vallotasubmitted his replymemorandum, outlining his response tothe charges.
&eanwhile, the *nion sent a letter to the PGAI Presidentre1uesting that a grievance committee be convened and thatthe contents o" the computers o" other I# personnel besimilarly produced. #he re1uest was ignored. A"terwards,Vallota was given a notice o" termination o" his employmente""ective on the ground o" loss o" trust and con"idence. #hus,the petitioners "iled a complaint "or illegal dismissal. #heabor Arbiter ruled in "avor o" petitioners but the 234
reversed the A$s decision.
ISSUE:562 petitioner Vallota was illegally dismissed.
ELD:7E+.
Lo!! o" #on"$d%n#%as a )ust cause "or dismissal was neverintended to provide employers with a blan! chec! "orterminating their employees. +uch a vague, allencompassingprete(t as loss o" con"idence, i" un1uali"iedly given the seal o"approval by this 4ourt, could readily reduce to barren "ormthe words o" the constitutional guarantee o" security o"tenure. 8aving this in mind, loss o" con"idence should ideallyapply only to cases involving employees occupying positionso" trust and con"idence or to those situations where theemployee is routinely charged with the care and custody o"
the employer9s money or property. #o the "$r!& #'a!!belongmanagerial employees, i.e., those vested with the powers orprerogatives to lay down management policies and:or to hire,trans"er, suspend, layo"", recall, discharge, assign ordiscipline employees or e""ectively recommend suchmanagerial actions; and to the !%#ond #'a!!belong cashiers,auditors, property custodians, etc., or those who, in thenormal and routine e(ercise o" their "unctions, regularlyhandle signi"icant amounts o" money or property. Evidently,an ordinary chambermaid who has to sign out "or linen andother hotel property "rom the property custodian each dayand who has to account "or each and every towel or bedsheetutili
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
2/29
un)usti"ied re"usal o" PGAI to conduct a hearing violated thesaid provision o" the 3ules implementing the abor 4ode, aswell as Vallota$s right to de"end himsel" be"ore an impartialinvestigating body.
In sum, the "ollowing are the guiding principles in connectionwith the hearing re1uirement in dismissal casesC
@a =ample opportunity to be heard= means anymeaning"ul opportunity @verbal or written given tothe employee to answer the charges against him andsubmit evidence in support o" his de"ense, whether ina hearing, con"erence or some other "air, )ust and
reasonable way.@b a "ormal hearing or con"erence becomesmandatory only when re1uested by the employee inwriting or substantial evidentiary disputes e(ist or acompany rule or practice re1uires it, or when similarcircumstances )usti"y it.@c the =ample opportunity to be heard= standard inthe abor 4ode prevails over the =hearing orcon"erence= re1uirement in the implementing rulesand regulations.
In this case, the twonotice re1uirement was complied with.Given, however, that the petitioners e(pressly re1uested acon"erence or a convening o" a grievance committee, such"ormal hearing became mandatory. A"ter PGAI "ailed toa""irmatively respond to such re1uest, it "ollows that thehearing re1uirement was not complied with and, there"ore,Vallota was denied his right to procedural due process.
COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. !. ILSON FERMIN
FACTS: 5ilson B. >ermin @>ermin was a "or!li"t operator at
4osmos Bottling 4orporation @46+&6+. 8e was accused o"
stealing the cellphone o" his "ellow employee, uis Braga
@Braga. >ermin was then given a +how 4ause &emorandum,
re1uiring him to e(plain why the cellphone was "ound inside
his loc!er. In compliance therewith, he submitted an a""idavit
the "ollowing day, e(plaining that he only hid the phone as a
practical )o!e and had every intention o" returning it to Braga.
A"ter conducting an investigation, 46+&6+ "ound >ermin
guilty o" stealing Braga$s phone in violation o" company rulesand regulations. 4onse1uently, the company terminated
>ermin "rom employment a"ter - years o" service. >ollowing
the dismissal o" >ermin "rom employment, Braga e(ecuted an
a""idavit, which stated the belie" that the "ormer had merely
pulled a pran! without any intention o" stealing the cellphone,
and withdrew "rom 46+&6+ his complaint against >ermin.
&eanwhile, >ermin "iled a 4omplaint "or Illegal Dismissal,
which the abor Arbiter @A dismissed "or lac! o" merit on the
ground that the act o" ta!ing a "ellow employee$s cellphone
amounted to gross misconduct. >urther, the A li!ewise too!
into consideration >ermin$s other in"ractions, namelyC @a
committing acts o" disrespect to a superior o""icer, and @b
sleeping on duty and abandonment o" duty. #he 234a""irmed the A$s decision. #he 4ourt o" Appeals, however,
reversed such decision.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the imposition o" the penalty o"
dismissal was appropriate.
ELD: YES. #he"t committed against a coemployee is
considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, "or
which the penalty o" dismissal "rom service may be meted out
to the erring employee.
&isconduct involves =the transgression o" some established
and de"inite rule o" action, "orbidden act, a dereliction o" duty,
will"ul in character, and implies wrong"ul intent and not mere
error in )udgment.= >or misconduct to be serious andthere"ore a valid ground "or dismissal, it must beC
?. o" grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant and
. connected with the wor! o" the employee.
Article @e o" the abor 4ode tal!s o" other analogous
causes or those which are susceptible o" comparison to
another in general or in speci"ic detail. >or an employee to be
validly dismissed "or a cause analogous to those enumerated
in Article , the cause must involve a voluntary and:or
will"ul act or omission o" the employee. A cause analogous to
serious misconduct is a voluntary and:or will"ul act or
omission attesting to an employee$s moral depravity. #he"t
committed by an employee against a person other than his
employer, i" proven by substantial evidence, is a cause
analogous to serious misconduct.
In this case, the A has already made a "actual "inding, which
was a""irmed by both the 234 and the 4A, that >ermin had
committed the"t when he too! Braga$s cellphone. #hus, this
act is deemed analogous to serious misconduct, rendering
>ermin$s dismissal "rom service )ust and valid. 5hile it is true
that previous in"ractions may be cited as )usti"ication "or
dismissing an employee only i" they are related to the
subse1uent o""ense, it must be noted that such a discussion
was unnecessary since the the"t, ta!en in isolation "rom
>ermin$s other violations, was in itsel" a valid cause "or the
termination o" his employment.
ROMEO E. PAULINO !. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and PILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
TELEPONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED
FACTS: Petitioner, who was then employed by private
respondent Philippine ong Distance #elephone 4ompany, Inc.@PD# as 4able +plicer III, surrendered his service vehicle to
PD#$s motor pool "or body repairs. >or this reason, he
unloaded the companyissued plant materials contained in the
vehicle and stored them at his residence "or sa"e!eeping.
>or ? month and ?? days, PD#$s properties were in the
custody o" petitioner. #hus, members o" the Philippine
2ational Police @P2P, armed with a search warrant, searched
his house where company materials were "ound and retrieved.
Based on the investigation by the P2P, petitioner did not
present any documents or re1uisition slips that would )usti"y
his possession o" the materials. 4onse1uently, PD# caused
the "iling o" an In"ormation "or 1uali"ied the"t against him.
#he ne(t day, PD# issued an invitation to V. Pesayco, the
manager o" petitioner, re1uesting him to ma!e petitioner
available to clari"y certain matters. Petitioner attended this
meeting along with his lawyer, but PD#$s investigators
merely tal!ed with the counsel. PD# then received a security
report stating that petitioner had engaged in the illicit
disposal o" its plant materials, which were recovered during
the search conducted at his residence.
PD# then issued an Inter6""ice &emo re1uiring petitioner to
e(plain why he should not be terminated "rom employment
"or serious misconduct @the"t o" company property. #he
&emo also gave him the option to as! "or a "ormal hearing o"
his case. In reply, he re1uested that the proceedings be held
in abeyance until the criminal case against him had been
concluded. #hen, Pesayco in"ormed petitioner in writing that
since his reply did not provide any clari"ication whatsoever
that would have warranted an evaluation o" his case, the
company was terminating his services e""ective on the said
date.
#hree years later, a"ter the criminal case "or 1uali"ied the"t
had been terminated "or "ailure o" the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner "iled a 4omplaint "or
Illegal Dismissal which the abor Arbiter @A dismissed "or
utter lac! o" merit. #he 234 and 4A a""irmed the A$s
Decision.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the petitioner$s dismissal was basedon )ust cause.
ELD: YES.
#he abor 4ode recogni
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
3/29
2otwithstanding petitioner$s ac1uittal in the criminal case "or
1uali"ied the"t, respondent PD# had ade1uately established
the basis "or the company$s loss o" con"idence as a )ust cause
to terminate petitioner. #his 4ourt "inds that approach to be
correct, since proo" beyond reasonable doubt o" an
employee$s misconduct is not re1uired in dismissing an
employee. 3ather, as opposed to the =proo" beyond
reasonable doubt= standard o" evidence re1uired in criminal
cases, labor suits re1uire only substantial evidence to prove
the validity o" the dismissal.
5ill"ul breach o" trust or loss o" con"idence re1uires that the
employee @? occupied a position o" trust or @ was routinely
charged with the care o" the employer$s property./ As
correctly appreciated by the 4A, petitioner was charged with
the care and custody o" PD#$s property.
#o warrant dismissal based on loss o" con"idence, there must
be some basis "or the loss o" trust or the employer must have
reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is
responsible "or misconduct that renders the latter unworthy o"
the trust and con"idence demanded by his or her position.
In this case, even assuming that he law"ully possessed the
materials, PD# still had ample reason or basis to alreadydistrust petitioner. >or more than a month, he did not even
in"orm PD# o" the whereabouts o" the plant materials.
Instead, he stoc!ed these materials at his residence even i"
they were needed in the daily operations o" the company. In
!eeping with the honesty and integrity demanded by his
position, he should have turned over these materials to the
plant$s warehouse. #he "act that petitioner did not present
any documents or re1uisition slips at the time that the P2P
too! the plant materials logically e(cites suspicion. In
addition, PD# received a security report stating that
petitioner had engaged in the illicit disposal o" its plant
materials, which were recovered during the search conducted
at his residence. #hus, PD# reasonably suspected petitioner
o" stealing the company$s property. At that )uncture, theemployer may already dismiss the employee since it had
reasonable grounds to believe or to entertain the moral
conviction that the latter was responsible "or the misconduct,
and the nature o" his participation therein rendered him
absolutely unworthy o" the trust and con"idence demanded by
his position.
Petitioner also claims that he could only be "aulted "or
breaching PD#$s rules and regulations which prohibited the
employees "rom bringing home company materials. In this
regard, petitioner e(acerbates his position. By admitting that
he breached company rules, he buttressed his employer$s
claim that he committed serious misconduct.
Employees cannot ta!e company rules "or granted, especially
in this case where petitioner$s breach involved various plant
materials that may cause ma)or disruption in the company$s
operations. Indeed, an employer may discharge an employee
"or re"usal to obey a reasonable company rule. As a rule,
although this 4ourt leans over bac!wards to help wor!ers and
employees continue with their employment, acts o"
dishonesty in the handling o" company property are a
di""erent matter.
Given these circumstances, it would have been un"air "or
PD# to !eep petitioner in its employ. Petitioner displayed
actions that made him untrustworthy. #hus, as a measure o"
sel"protection, PD# validly terminated his services "or
serious misconduct and loss o" con"idence.
BITOY JAVIER !. FLY ACE CORPORATION
FACTS: Javier "iled a complaint be"ore the 234 "or
underpayment o" salaries and other labor standard bene"its,
alleging that he was an employee o" >ly Ace per"orming tas!s
at the respondent$s warehouse e(cept in instances when he
would be ordered to accompany the company$s delivery
vehicles, as pahinante that during his employment, he was
not issued an identi"ication card and payslips by the company.
6n &ay , 00, he reported "or wor! but he was no longer
allowed to enter the company premises by the security guard
upon the instruction o" 3uben 6ng, his superior. A"ter several
minutes o" begging to the guard to allow him to enter, he saw
6ng who instructed him by saying, %#anungin mo ana! mo.
8e then went home and tal!ed to his "amily and discovered
that 6ng had been courting his daughter Annalyn.
+ubse1uently, Annalyn tried to tal! to 6ng and convince him
to spare her "ather "rom trouble but he re"used to accede.
#herea"ter, Javier was terminated "rom his employment
without notice. 8e was neither given the opportunity to re"ute
the cause:s o" his dismissal "rom wor!. >ly Ace averred that
&r. 6ng contracted Javier roughly F to times only in a month
whenever the vehicle o" its contracted hauler, was not
available. 6n April /0, 00, >ly Ace no longer needed the
services o" Javier. Denying that he was their employee, >ly
Ace insisted that there was no illegal dismissal. >ly Ace
submitted a copy o" its agreement with the contracted hauler
and copies o" ac!nowledgment receipts evidencing payment
to Javier "or his contracted services on a %pa!yaw':piece rate
pay basis and the latter$s signatures:initials.
#he A dismissed the complaint "or lac! o" merit, holding that
the respondents are not liable "or salary di""erentials. 6n
appeal with the 234, the appeal was partially G3A2#ED
holding respondent >7 A4E 463P63A#I62 guilty o" illegal
dismissal and nonpayment o" ?/thmonth pay. 6n appeal tothe 4A, the 234$s "indings that Javier was indeed a "ormer
employee o" >ly Ace were annulled. #he 4A reinstated the
dismissal o" Javier$s complaint as ordered by the A. #he 4A
li!ewise added that Javier$s "ailure to present pieces o"
evidence pointed to the conclusion that he was not an
employee o" >ly Ace. #he petitioners moved "or
reconsideration, but to no avail. 8ence, an appeal to the
+upreme 4ourt was "iled.
ISSUES: ?. 5hether or not the petitioner was an
employee o" >ly Ace.
. 5hether or not the petitioner is entitled to his monetary
claims.
RULING:
?. #he A and the 4A both concluded that Javier "ailed to
establish his employment with >ly Ace. By way o" evidence on
this point, all that Javier presented were his sel"serving
statements purportedly showing his activities as an employee
o" >ly Ace. 4learly, Javier "ailed to pass the substantiality
re1uirement to support his claim. 8ence, the 4ourt sees no
reason to depart "rom the "indings o" the 4A.
#he 4ourt is o" the considerable view that on Javier lies the
burden to pass the wellsettled tests to determine the
e(istence o" an employeremployee relationship, vily Ace engaged his services as a
regular employee; that >ly Ace paid his wages as an
employee, nor that >ly Ace could dictate what his conduct
should be while at wor!. Javier$s allegations did not establish
the attributes o" an employeremployee relationship on the
basis o" the abovementioned "our"old test. 5orse, Javier was
not able to re"ute >ly Ace$s assertion that it had an agreementwith a hauling company to underta!e the delivery o" its goods.
It was also ba""ling to realily
Ace$s denial o" his services$ e(clusivity to the company. In
short, all that Javier laid down were bare allegations without
corroborative proo".
. 4onsidering the above "indings, the 4ourt does not see the
necessity to resolve the second issue presented.
#he 4ourt$s decision does not contradict the settled rule that
%payment by the piece is )ust a method o" compensation and
does not de"ine the essence o" the relation.' Payment on a
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
4/29
piecerate basis does not negate regular employment. %#he
term Hwage$ is broadly de"ined in Article - o" the abor 4ode
as remuneration or earnings, capable o" being e(pressed in
terms o" money whether "i(ed or ascertained on a time, tas!,
piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is )ust a
method o" compensation and does not de"ine the essence o"
the relations. #he petition was DE2IED.
C.F. SARP CO. !. PIONEER INSURANCE
FACTS: 5il"redo Agustin and 8ernando &inimo applied with
4.>. +harp sometime in August ?0 as sandblasters and
painters in ibya. A"ter passing the interview, they were
re1uired to submit their passports, seaman$s boo!, 2BI
clearance, employment certi"icates, certi"icates o" seminar
attended and results o" medical e(amination. *pon
submission o" the re1uirements, a contract o" employment
was e(ecuted between respondents and 4.> +harp.
#herea"ter, respondents were re1uired to attend various
seminars, open ban! account with the corresponding
allotment slips and attend a predeparture orientation. #hey
were then advised to prepare "or immediate deployment and
to report to 4.> +harp to ascertain the schedule o" their
deployment. A"ter a month, respondents were yet to be
deployed prompting them to re1uest "or the release o" thedocuments they had submitted to 4.>. +harp but it re"used to
surrender the documents which led to the "iling o" the
complaint be"ore the P6EA.
P6EA "ound 4.>. +harp guilty o" violation o" Article/@! o" the
abor 4ode. 4onse1uently 4.>. +harp$s license was suspended
until the return o" the disputed documents to respondent. 6n
&arch ?0, ?F, respondents "iled a complaint "or breach o"
contract and damages against 4.>. +harp and its surety,
Pioneer Insurance and +urety 4orporation be"ore the 3#4 o"
Pasay 4ity.
#he trial court ruled that there was violation o" the contract
when 4.>. +harp "ailed to deploy and release the papers anddocuments o" respondents, hence, they are entitled to
damages. #he trial court li!ewise upheld the cause o" action
o" respondents against Pioneer Insurance, the "ormer being
the actual bene"iciaries o" the surety bond. 6n appeal, 4.>.
+harp and 3ocha raise )urisdictional issue that 3#4 has no
)urisdiction over the case as it is vested upon the P6EA,
including money claims arising out o" or by virtue o" any
contract involving wor!ers "or overseas employment.
#he 4ourt o" Appeals upheld the )urisdiction o" the trial court
by ruling that petitioners are stopped "rom raising such
1uestion because they have actively participated in the
proceeding be"ore the trial court. #he 4A "urther held that
since there is no per"ected employment contract between the
parties, it is the 3#4 not the P6EA whose )urisdiction pertains
only to claims arising "rom contracts involving >ilipino
seamen, which has )urisdiction over the case. Despite the
"inding that no contract was per"ected between the parties,
the 4A ad)udged 4.>. +harp and 3ocha liable "or damages but
limited the liability o" Pioneer Insurance to P?F0,000.00
pursuant to the contract o" suretyship between 4.>. +harp and
Pioneer Insurance. 3ocha "iled the instant petition on the
submission that there is no basis to hold him liable "or
damages because 4.>. +harp has signi"ied its intention to
return the documents and had in "act in"ormed respondents
that they may withdraw their documents anytime. 8e
introduced a new argument that he should not be held )ointly
liable with 4.>. +harp considering that the company has a
separate personality and that there was no showing in thecomplaint that he had participated in the malicious act
complained. 8e adds that his liability only stems "rom the
Indemnity Agreement with Pioneer and does not e(tend to
respondents.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: 3ocha contended that
he should not be held liable with 4.>. +harp considering that
the company has a separate personality.
CONTENTION OF TE RESPONDENTS: 3espondents
maintain that they are entitled to damages "or 4.>. +harp$s
un)usti"ied re"usal to release the documents to them and "or
re1uiring them to sign a 1uitclaim which would e""ectively bar
them "rom see!ing redress against petitioners.
ISSUE: 5hether or not a local private employment agency
may be held liable "or breach o" contract "or "ailure to deploy
a sea"arer.
RULING:#he +upreme 4ourt sustained the trial court$s ruling.
#he contract o" employment entered into by the plainti""s and
the 4.>. +harp is an actionable document, the same contract
having the essential re1uisites "or its validity. 4ontracts
undergo three distinct stages, negotiation; per"ection or birth;
and consummation. *nder Article ?/?F o" the 4ivil 4ode, a
contract is per"ected by mere consent and "rom that moment
the parties are bound not only to the "ul"illment o" what has
been e(pressly stipulated but also the conse1uences which,
according to their nature, may be in !eeping with good "aith,
usage and law. #he +upreme 4ourt held that it is a per"ected
contract o" employment. By the contract, 4.>. +harp, on
behal" o" its principal, International +hipping &anagement,
Inc. hired respondents as +andblaster:painter "or a /month
contract with a basic monthly salary o" *+KF0.00. #hus, the
ob)ect o" the contract is the service to be rendered by the
respondents on board the vessel while the cause o" the
contract is the monthly compensation they e(pect to receive.
#hese terms were embodied in the 4ontract o" Employmentwhich was e(ecuted by the parties. #he agreement upon the
terms o" the contract was mani"ested by the consent "reely
given by both parties through their signatures in the contract.
2either parties disavow the consent they both voluntarily
gave. #hus, there is a per"ected contract o" employment. #he
commencement o" an employeremployee relationship must
be treated separately "rom the per"ection o" an employment
contract. #he per"ection o" the contract which in this case
coincided with the date o" e(ecution thereo", occurred when
petitioner and respondent agreed on the ob)ect and the
cause, as well as the rest o" the terms and conditions therein.
#he commencement o" the employeremployee relationship
would have ta!en place had petitioner been actually deployed
"rom the point o" hire. #hus, even be"ore the start o" anyemployeremployee relationship, contemporaneous with the
per"ection o" the employment contract was the birth o" certain
rights and obligations, the breach o" which may give rise to a
cause o" action against the erring party. Despite the "act that
the employeremployee relationship has not commenced due
to the "ailure to deploy respondents in this case, respondents
are entitled to rights arising "rom the per"ected contract o"
employment, such as the right to demand per"ormance by
4.>. +harp o" its obligation under the contract. >urthermore,
the +upreme 4ourt a""irms the e(emplary damages and
attorney$s "ees. E(emplary damages may be awarded when a
wrong"ul act is accompanied by bad "aith or when the
de"endant acted in a wanton, "raudulent, rec!less, oppressive,
or malevolent manner which would )usti"y an award o"
e(emplary damages under article / o" the 4ivil 4ode.
+ince the award o" e(emplary damages is proper, attorney$s
"ees and cost o" the suit may also be recovered as provided
under Article 0 o" the 4ivil 4ode.
ARO, TIROL, ET AL. !. NLRC
FACTS: +everal employees o" private respondent Benthel
Development 4orporation, including the petitioners, "iled a
4omplaint "or illegal dismissal with various money claims and
prayer "or damages against the latter, in the 234 Arbitration
Branch. #herea"ter, abor Arbiter rendered a decision "inding
private respondent guilty o" illegal dismissal and ordering it to
pay its thirtysi( @/ employees P,0.00 as separationpay. #he employees, including the petitioners herein,
appealed "rom the said decision. #he 234, in 234 4ase 2o.
V000/, a""irmed the decision o" abor Arbiter 4arreon in
its Decision dated January ?, ?, with the modi"ication that
private respondent pay bac!wages computed "rom the
respective dates o" dismissal until "inality o" the decision.
Private respondent, unsatis"ied with the modi"ication made by
the 234, "iled a motion "or reconsideration. #he 234,
however, denied the motion ruling that private respondent
"ailed to establish the date o" the completion o" the pro)ect.
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
5/29
Aggrieved, private respondent "iled a Petition "or 4ertiorari
with the 4A, assailing the decision o" the 234 and the denial
o" its motion "or reconsideration which was dismissed "or non
payment o" doc!et "ees and insu""iciency o" "orm. It "iled a
motion "or reconsideration, but the latter was also denied.
#hus, private respondent "iled with this 4ourt, a Petition "or
3eview on 4ertiorari. In a 3esolution dated +eptember 0,
000, this 4ourt denied the petition "or having been "iled out
o" time and "or nonpayment o" doc!et and other law"ul "ees.
#he employees, including the petitioners, upon the "inality o"
this 4ourt9s resolution, "iled a &otion "or E(ecution be"ore the
abor Arbiter o" the January ?, ? decision. #herea"ter, the
abor Arbiter ordered "or the issuance o" a writ o" e(ecution
directing the computation o" the awards. A"terwards, private
respondent "iled an appeal "rom the said 6rder with an urgent
prayer "or the issuance o" a temporary restraining order
and:or preliminary in)unction with public respondent 234.
#he said appeal was denied.
Public respondent remanded the case to the arbitration
branch "or appropriate action. In the meantime, "i"teen @?F
employees have e(ecuted A""idavits o" >ull +ettlement a"ter
having settled amicably with the private respondent. abor
Arbiter Violeta 6rtiailure to meet the )ob re1uirements during the
probation stage means that your services may be terminated
without prior notice and without recourse to separation pay.
555E4 also attached to its Position Paper a memo dated
+eptember 0, 00 in which +an &ateo as!ed Aliling to
e(plain why he should not be terminated "or "ailure to meet
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
6/29
the e(pected )ob per"ormance, considering that the load
"actor "or the GN +huttles "or the period July to +eptember was
only 0.?L as opposed to the allegedly agreed upon load o"
0L targeted "or August F, 00. According to 555E4,
Aliling, instead o" e(plaining himsel", simply submitted a
resignation letter. In a 3eplyA""idavit dated December ?/,
00, Aliling denied having received a copy o" +an &ateo$s
+eptember 0, 00 letter.
#he abor Arbiter @A declared Aliling$s termination as
un)usti"ied and ordered 555E4 to pay Aliling his salaries and
bene"its, ?/th month pay and attorney$s "ees. #he A gave
credence to Aliling$s allegation about not receiving and,
there"ore, not bound by, +an &ateo$s purported +eptember
0, 00 memo. #he memo, to reiterate, supposedly apprised
Aliling o" the sales 1uota he was, but "ailed, to meet. Pushing
the point, the labor arbiter e(plained that Aliling cannot be
validly terminated "or noncompliance with the 1uota
threshold absent a prior advisory o" the reasonable standards
upon which his per"ormance would be evaluated.
Both parties appealed the above decision to the 234, which
a""irmed the Decision in toto in its 3esolution dated &ay /?,
00-. #he separate motions "or reconsideration were also
denied by the 234 in its 3esolution dated August /?, 00-.
Aliling went on certiorari to the 4A, which eventually rendereda Decision on the "ollowing premisesC @a respondents "ailed to
prove that Aliling$s dismal per"ormance constituted gross and
habitual neglect necessary to )usti"y his dismissal; @b not
having been in"ormed at the time o" his engagement o" the
reasonable standards under which he will 1uali"y as a regular
employee, Aliling was deemed to have been hired "rom day
one as a regular employee; and @c the strained relationship
e(isting between the parties argues against the propriety o"
reinstatement.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: 4ontends that he is a
regular employee "rom the time he signed the employment
contract. 8e was illegally dismissed and that he is entitled to
bac!wages and separation pay i" not entitled toreinstatement.
CONTENTION OF TE RESPONDENT: 555E4 contends
that Aliling was hired on a probationary basis and "ired him
be"ore he became a regular employee.
ISSUES: ?. 5hether or not the petitioner is a regular
employee o" respondent.
. 5hether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
RULING:
?. #he petitioner Aliling is a regular employee. #he employee
concerned !new, having been duly in"ormed during his
engagement, o" the standards "or becoming a regular
employee. #his is in star! contrast to the instant case where
the element o" being in"ormed o" the regulari
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
7/29
petitioner was "or a )ust cause nor was there substantial
evidence to demonstrate the standards were made !nown to
the latter at the time o" his engagement. 8ence, petitioner$s
right to security o" tenure was breached.
>urther, Aliling$s right to procedural due process was violated.
As earlier stated, to e""ect a legal dismissal, the employer
must show not only a valid ground there"or, but also that
procedural due process has properly been observed. 5hen
the abor 4ode spea!s o" procedural due process, the
re"erence is usually to the two @written notice rule
envisaged in the abor 4ode which providesC @a A written
notice served on the employee speci"ying the ground or
grounds "or termination, and giving to said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to e(plain his side;@b A
hearing or con"erence during which the employee concerned,
with the assistance o" counsel i" the employee so desires, is
given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and @c
A written notice Oo" termination served on the employee
indicating that upon due consideration o" all the circumstance,
grounds have been established to )usti"y his termination. In
case o" termination, the "oregoing notices shall be served on
the employee$s last !nown address.
8ere, the "irst and second notice re1uirements have not beenproperly observed, thus tainting petitioner$s dismissal with
illegality. #he adverted memo dated +eptember 0, 00 o"
555E4 supposedly in"orming Aliling o" the li!elihood o" his
termination and directing him to account "or his "ailure to
meet the e(pected )ob per"ormance would have had
constituted the =charge sheet,= su""icient to answer "or the
"irst notice re1uirement, but "or the "act that there is no proo"
such letter had been sent to and received by him. In "act, in
his December ?/, 00 4omplainant$s 3eply A""idavit, Aliling
goes on to tag such letter:memorandum as "abrication.
555E4 did not adduce proo" to show that a copy o" the
letter was duly served upon Aliling. 4learly enough, 555E4
did not comply with the "irst notice re1uirement.
2either was there compliance with the imperatives o" a
hearing or con"erence. #he 4ourt need not dwell at length on
this particular breach o" the due procedural re1uirement.
+u""ice it to point out that the record is devoid o" any showing
o" a hearing or con"erence having been conducted. 6n the
contrary, in its 6ctober ?, 00 letter to Aliling, or barely "ive
@F days a"ter it served the notice o" termination, 555E4
ac!nowledged that it was still evaluating his case. And the
written notice o" termination itsel" did not indicate all the
circumstances involving the charge to )usti"y severance o"
employment.
JAO !. BCC PRODUCT SALES
FACTS: Petitioner 4harlie Jao maintains that respondent B44
Product +ales Inc. @B44 and its President, respondent
#errance #y employed him as comptroller starting "rom
+eptember ?F with a monthly salary o" P0,000.00 to
handle the "inancial aspect o" B44$s business. 8owever, on
6ctober ?,?F, the security guards o" B44, acting upon the
instruction o" #y, barred him "rom entering the premises o"
B44 where he then wor!ed. 8is attempts to report to wor!
were "rustrated because he continued to be barred "rom
entering the premises o" B44. #hus, he "iled a complaint "orillegal dismissal, reinstatement with "ull bac!wages, non
payment o" wages, damages and attorney$s "ees.
3espondents countered that petitioner was not their
employee but the employee o" +obien >ood 4orporation @+>4,
the ma)or creditor and supplier o" B44; and that +>4 had
posted him as its comptroller in B44 to oversee B44$s
"inances and business operations and to loo! a"ter +>4$s
interests or investments in B44.
#he abor Arbiter ruled in "avor o" petitioner but the 234
vacated the ruling and remanded the case "or "urther
proceedings. #herea"ter, a new abor Arbiter dismissed
petitioner$s complaint "or want o" an employeremployee
relationship between the parties. 6n appeal, the 234
reversed the abor Arbiter$s decision and declared that
petitioner had been illegally dismissed. It ordered the
payment o" unpaid salaries, bac!wages and ?/th month pay,
separation pay and attorney$s "ees. 3espondents moved "or
the reconsideration o" the 234 decision, but such was
denied. 6n petition to the 4ourt o" Appeals, the 4A agreed
that no employeremployee relationship e(isted between
petitioner B44 and the private respondent. #he 4A denied
petitioner$s motion "or reconsideration, hence, this petition.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: #o prove his
employment with B44, petitioner o""ered the "ollowing, among
othersC @a B44 Identi"ication 4ard @ID issued to him stating
his name and his position as %comptroller,' and bearing his
picture, his signature, and the signature o" #y; and @b a
payroll o" B44 "or the period o" 6ctober ??F, ? that
petitioner approved as comptroller. 5ith regards to his
a""idavit e(ecuted in &arch ?, petitioner contends that
such did not establish the absence o" an employeremployee
relationship between him and respondents because it had
been e(ecuted a"ter his employment with respondents had
been terminated; and that the a""idavit re"erred to his
subse1uent employment by +>4 "ollowing the termination o"
his employment by B44.
CONTENTION OF TE RESPONDENT:3espondents denied
that petitioner was B44$s employee. #hey a""irmed that +>4
had installed petitioner as its comptroller in B44 to oversee
and supervise +>4$s collections and the account o" B44 to
protect +>4$s interest; that their issuance o" the ID to
petitioner was only "or the purpose o" "acilitating his entry into
the B44 premises in relation to his wor! o" overseeing the
"inancial operations o" B44 "or +>4; and that petitioner
e(ecuted an a""idavit in &arch ?, stating, among others,
as "ollowsC
?. I am a 4PA @4erti"ied Public Accountant by pro"ession but
presently associated with, or employed by, +obien >ood
4orporation (((;. In the course o" my association with, or employment by,
+obien >ood 4orporation, I have been entrusted by my
employer to oversee and supervise collections on account o"
receivables due +>4 "rom its customers or clients
ISSUE: 5hether or not an employeremployee relationship
e(isted between petitioner and B44.
RULING: #here is no employeremployee relationship
between petitioner and respondent.
6n the a""idavit o" petitioner, the 4ourt "ound that such
a""idavit actually supported the contention that petitioner had
really wor!ed in B44 as +>4$s representative. It is more
believable that petitioner$s a""idavit was re"erring to his
employment by +>4 even while he was reporting to B44 as a
comptroller. Petitioner e(ecuted the a""idavit in &arch ? to
re"ute a statement #y made in his own a""idavit to the e""ect
that petitioner had illegally appropriated some chec!s without
authority "rom B44. Petitioner thereby sought to show that he
had the authority to receive the chec!s pursuant to the
arrangements between +>4 and B44. 2aturally, the
circumstances petitioner adverted to in such a""idavit
concerned those occurring when he actually wor!ed as
comptroller in B44. >urther, an a""idavit by Al"redo +o, the
President o" +>4, lent credence to respondents$ denial o"
petitioner$s employment. +o declared in that a""idavit, among
others, that he had !nown petitioner "or being %earlier his
retained accountant having his own o""ice but did not holdo""ice' in +>4$s premises; and that #y had approached him
%loo!ing "or an accountant or comptroller to be employed by
him in B44$s distribution business' o" +>4$s general
merchandise.
&oreover, in determining the presence or absence o" an
employeremployee relationship, the 4ourt has consistently
loo!ed "or the "ollowing incidents, to witC @a the selection and
engagement o" the employee; @b the payment o" wages; @c
the power o" dismissal; and @d the employer$s power to
control the employee on the means and methods by which
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
8/29
the wor! is accomplished. #he last element, the socalled
control test, is the most important element.
All these "our elements are absent in the present case. >irst,
there is no proo" that the services o" the private respondent
were engaged to per"orm the duties o" a comptroller in the
petitioner company. #here is no proo" that the private
respondent has undergone a selection procedure as a
standard re1uisite "or employment, especially with such a
delicate position in the company. 2either is there any proo" o"
his appointment nor is there any showing that the parties
entered into an employment contract. +econd, as clearly
established on record, the private respondent was not
included in the petitioner company$s payroll during the time o"
his alleged employment with the "ormer. #he name o" 4harlie
Jao appears therein as a comptroller who is authoriinance 8ead o" 2egros wrote #eng
re1uiring him to e(plain in writing why no disciplinary action
should be ta!en against him "or his absence during the crucial
Game F o" the 2ational 4hampionship 3ound. 8e was "urther
in"ormed that a "ormal investigation would be conducted.
A"ter the hearing, the management o" 2egros, in"ormed #eng
o" his termination "rom the team. #he abor Arbiter ruled that
#eng$s dismissal is illegal ruling that the penalty o" dismissal
was not )usti"ied since the grounds relied upon by petitionersdid not constitute serious misconduct or will"ul disobedience
or insubordination that would call "or the e(treme penalty o"
dismissal "rom service. 6n appeal, the 234 dismissed the
complaint "or being premature since the arbitration
proceedings be"ore the 4ommissioner o" the &BA were still
pending when #eng "iled his complaint "or illegal dismissal.
#he 4A upheld the order o" the abor Arbiter holding that the
grounds relied upon by 2egros were not enough to merit the
supreme penalty o" dismissal.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONERS: #he petitioners
contend that there was )ust cause "or the dismissal o"
respondent, hence, they could not be charged o" illegal
dismissal.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the respondent was illegally
terminated.
RULING:7E+. #he court "inds penalty o" dismissal was indeed
too harsh. 5hile the employer has the inherent right to
discipline, including that o" dismissing its employees, this
prerogative is sub)ect to the regulation by the +tate in the
e(ercise o" its police power. In this regard, it is a hornboo!
doctrine that in"ractions committed by an employee should
merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the
circumstance. #he penalty must be commensurate with the
act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee and must
be imposed in connection with the disciplinary authority o" the
employer. In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by thepetitioners was the ultimate penalty o" dismissal. #here was
no warning or admonition "or respondent$s violation o" team
rules, only outright termination o" his services "or an act which
could have been punished appropriately with a severe
reprimand or suspension.
LYNVIL FISING !. ARIOLA
FACTS: ynvil >ishing Enterprises, Inc. @ynvil is a company
engaged in deepsea "ishing, operated and managed by
3osendo +. de Bor)a. 6n Aug ?, ?, a report was received
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
9/29
"rom a witness that the herein respondents conspired with
one another and stole eight @ tubs o" =pampano= and
=tangigue= "ish and delivered them to another vessel, to the
pre)udice o" ynvil. By reason o" the report and a"ter initial
investigation, ynvil$s General &anager 3osendo +. De Bor)a
@De Bor)a summoned respondents to e(plain within "ive @F
days why they should not be dismissed "rom service.
8owever, e(cept "or Alcovendas and BaQeailing to e(plain as
re1uired, respondents$ employment was terminated. ynvil,
through De Bor)a, "iled a criminal complaint against the
dismissed employees. Aggrieved, the employees "iled with the
Arbitration Branch o" the 2ational abor 3elations
4ommission2ational 4apital 3egion on F August ? a
complaint "or illegal dismissal with claims "or bac!wages,
salary di""erential reinstatement, service incentive leave,
holiday pay and its premium and ?/th month pay "rom ?
to?. #hey also claimed "or moral, e(emplary damages and
attorney$s "ees "or their dismissal with bad "aith.
#he abor Arbiter "ound merit in complainants$ charge o"
illegal dismissal. 234 reversed such decision and entered a
new one dismissing the present complaints "or utter lac! o"
merits. 8owever on appeal to the 4A, the latter reinstated the
decision o" the 234, hence this appeal.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONERS: #he "inding o" the
criminal case "iled against respondents is a su""icient basis "or
valid termination o" employment based on serious misconduct
and:or loss o" trust and con"idence.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the respondents were illegally
dismissed.
RULING:#he 4ourt ruled that such dismissal was valid based
on the positive and clear narration o" "acts o" the three
witnesses to the commission o" 1uali"ied the"t.
Just cause is re1uired "or a valid dismissal. #he abor 4ode
provides that an employer may terminate an employmentbased on "raud or will"ul breach o" the trust reposed on the
employee. +uch breach is considered will"ul i" it is done
intentionally, !nowingly, and purposely, without )usti"iable
e(cuse, as distinguished "rom an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must also be
based on substantial evidence and not on the employer$s
whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee
would eternally remain at the mercy o" the employer. oss o"
con"idence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by
the employer against a claim that the dismissal o" an
employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a )ust
cause "or dismissal, the act complained o" must be wor!
related and shows that the employee concerned is un"it to
continue wor!ing "or the employer. In addition, loss o"
con"idence as a )ust cause "or termination o" employment is
premised on the "act that the employee concerned holds a
position o" responsibility, trust and con"idence or that the
employee concerned is entrusted with con"idence with
respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and
protection o" the property and assets o" the employer. #he
betrayal o" this trust is the essence o" the o""ense "or which an
employee is penali
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
10/29
standards "or permanent employment. #he %trial period' or
the length o" time the probationary employee remains on
probation depends on the parties$ agreement, but it shall not
e(ceed si( @ months under Article ? o" the abor 4ode,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement
stipulating a longer period.
Dalangin admitted in compulsory arbitration that the
pro(imate cause "or his dismissal was his re"usal to attend the
company$s %Values >ormation +eminar' scheduled on 6ctober
-, 00?, a +aturday. 8is reason is that it has no relation to
his duties when in "act it would help him to !now more the
company policies. 8e also doesn$t want to interact with his co
employees. #hese are some o" the acts proved that made
Dalangin not 1uali"y "or his wor!. #he dismissal was a valid
e(ercise o" management prerogative.
S0IPPERS UNITED PACIFIC !. DOZA
FACTS: +!ippers *nited Paci"ic, Inc. deployed, in behal" o"
+!ippers, De Gracia, ata, and Aprosta to wor! on board the
vessel &V 5isdom +tar. De Gracia, et al. claimed that
+!ippers "ailed to remit their respective allotments "or almost
"ive months, compelling them to air their grievances with the
3omanian +ea"arers >ree *nion. 6n ? December ?, I#>Inspector Adrian &ihalcioiu o" the 3omanian +ea"arers *nion
sent 4aptain +avvas o" 4osmos +hipping a "a( letter, relaying
the complaints o" his crew, namelyC home allotment delay,
unpaid salaries, late provisions, lac! o" laundry services, and
lac! o" maintenance o" the vessel. #o date, however, +!ippers
only "ailed to remit the home allotment "or the month o"
December ?.6n January ?, De Gracia, et al. were
unceremoniously discharged "rom &V 5isdom +tars and
immediately repatriated. *pon arrival in the Philippines, De
Gracia, et al. "iled a complaint "or illegal dismissal with the
abor Arbiter on April ? and prayed "or payment o" their
home allotment "or the month o" December ?, salaries "or
the une(pired portion o" their contracts, moral damages,
e(emplary damages, and attorney9s "ees.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: Aprosta, De Gracia,
ata and Door these reasons, the dismissal o" De
Gracia, et al. was illegal.
JULIE1S BA0ESOP !. ARNAIZ
FACTS: 6n January , 000, respondents who were hired as
chie" ba!ers by 3eyes in his three "ranchise branches o" Julie$s
Ba!eshop in Anti1ue "iled separate complaints against
petitioners "or underpayment o" wages, payment o" premium
pay "or holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, ?/th
month pay, cost o" living allowance @46A and attorney$s
"ees. #hese complaints were later on consolidated.
+ubse1uently on >ebruary ?, 000, 3eyes reassigned
respondents as utility:security personnel tas!ed to clean the
outside vicinity o" his ba!eshops and to maintain peace and
order in the area without diminution in pay and otherprivileges. 3espondents, however, re"used to sign the same
and li!ewise re"used to per"orm their new assignments by not
reporting "or wor!. In a lettermemorandum dated &arch ?/,
000, 3eyes directed respondents to report bac! "or wor! and
to e(plain why they "ailed to assume their duties as
utility:security personnel. A second lettermemorandum o" the
same tenor dated &arch , 000 was also sent to
respondents. 3espondents did not heed both memoranda. It
was agreed that the parties would enter into a compromise
agreement on &arch -, 000. 8owever, on >ebruary , 000,
respondents, who were then represented by a di""erent
counsel, amended their complaints by including in their
causes o" action illegal dismissal and a claim "or
reinstatement and bac!wages. 3eali
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
11/29
diminution in pay and privileges and that same is in
accordance with the re1uirements o" the business to protect
its goodwill and reputation as well as the health and wel"are
o" the consuming public.
CONTENTION OF TE RESPONDENTS: 3espondents
contend that the trans"er:reassignment by the petitioner to
another position constitutes constructive dismissal.
ISSUES: ?. 5hether or not the 4ourt o" Appeals commit
grave abuse o" discretion "or disturbing the "indings o" "acts o"
the abor Arbiter and the 234.
. 5hether or not the trans"er:reassignment o" respondents to
another position without diminution in pay and other
privileges tantamount to constructive dismissal.
RULING:
?. #he 4ourt o" Appeals is correct in reviewing the "indings o"
the 2ational abor 3elations 4ommission. Indeed, "actual
"indings o" labor o""icials who are deemed to have ac1uired
e(pertise in matters within their respective )urisdictions are
generally accorded not only respect, but even "inality. It is a
wellentrenched rule that "indings o" "acts o" the 234,
a""irming those o" the abor Arbiter, are accorded respect and
due consideration when supported by substantial evidence.
8owever, the doctrine o" great respect and "inality has noapplication to the case at bar "or the abor Arbiter dismissed
respondents$ complaints on mere technicality and thus the
234 did not, on any occasion, a""irm any "actual "indings o"
the abor Arbiter. Besides, the 4A, at any rate, may still
resolve "actual issues by e(press mandate o" the law despite
the respect given to administrative "indings o" "act.
. #he trans"er:reassignment o" respondents constitutes
constructive dismissal. #he management is "ree to regulate,
according to its own discretion and )udgment, all aspects o"
employment, including hiring, wor! assignments, wor!ing
methods, time, place and manner o" wor!, processes to be
"ollowed, supervision o" wor!ers, wor!ing regulations, trans"er
o" employees, wor! supervision, lay o"" o" wor!ers anddiscipline, dismissal and recall o" wor!ers. #he e(ercise o"
management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must
be e(ercised in good "aith and with due regard to the rights o"
labor. In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the
burden o" proving that the trans"er o" an employee is "or )ust
or valid ground, such as genuine business necessity. #he
employer must demonstrate that the trans"er is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or pre)udicial to the employee
and that the trans"er does not involve a demotion in ran! or a
diminution in salary and other bene"its. I" the employer "ails to
overcome this burden o" proo", the employee$s trans"er is
tantamount to unlaw"ul constructive dismissal. In this case,
petitioners insist that the trans"er o" respondents was a
measure o" sel"preservation and was prompted by a desire to
protect the health o" the buying public, claiming that
respondents should be trans"erred to a position where they
could not sabotage @introduce harm"ul "oreign substances in
ba!ing bread the business pending resolution o" their cases.
Petitioners$ bare assertions o" imminent threat "rom the
respondents are mere accusations which are not
substantiated by any proo" and are mere imaginary and not
real. #his 4ourt is proscribed "rom ma!ing conclusions based
on mere presumptions or suppositions. #he trans"er was a
demotion in ran!. #here is demotion when an employee is
trans"erred "rom a position o" dignity to a servile or menial
)ob. 6ne does not need to stretch the imagination to
distinguish the wor! o" a chie" ba!er to that o" a
security:utility man. Although there was no diminution in pay,
there was undoubtedly a demotion in titular ran!.
#he petition is denied and the decision o" the 4ourt o" Appeals
is a""irmed.
GALANG !. MALASU2UI
FACTS: 3espondent Julia &alasugui was hired by petitioner
&a. &elissa Galang to ta!e care, oversee and man the
premises o" the Davao 3oyal Garden 4ompound, the main
compound o" Galang where the orchids and other ornamental
plants used "or the business were nursed and propagated.
Aside "rom ta!ing care o" the plants, she was re1uired by
Galang to be present at the premises at -C/0 a.m. until FC/0
p.m. every day, including +aturdays, +undays and 8olidays
without any dayo""s. Galang would visit the premises at least
thrice a wee! and give her instructions on what to do. Among
these instructions were tending, watering and spraying with
chemicals various orchid varieties, pac!ing the orchids "or
e(port purposes and cleaning the surroundings o" the hal"
hectare premises. >rom ?/?F, &alasugui was paid by
Galang P0.00 as daily wage and a"ter three years, it was
increased to P-0.00 per day until >ebruary ?. +he was
also given one thousand pesos @P?, 000.00 bonus every
December by Galang. &alasugui was later made to stay and
live at the premises, particularly in one o" the bun! houses
within the Pangi property which was vacated by the "amily
driver o" Galang, so that she could watch and guard the
premises even during nighttime. 8owever, she had to buy her
"ood.
In 2ovember ?, she became sic! with severe cough and
as!ed "or "inancial assistance "rom Galang "or medical chec!
up. #he coughing became incessant which prompted Galang
to bring her to a doctor and made to undergo a series o"
e(aminations including chest radiographic e(amination.
#herea"ter, she was terminated "rom wor! and barred "rom
entering the Pangi property.
&alasugui "iled a complaint "or illegal dismissal be"ore the
abor Arbiter. #he abor Arbiter rendered )udgment "inding
complainant$s charge o" illegal dismissal without merit but
ordered the company and Galang to pay respondent wage
di""erentials and ?/th month pay because there was still
employeremployee relationship. Galang appealed be"ore the
234 and the 234 a""irmed the decision o" the abor Arbiter.
6n petition, the 4ourt o" Appeals ruled that respondent was
illegally dismissed by Galang. It reinstated the award o" salary
di""erential to &alasugui in addition to the ?/th month pay.
>urther, because o" the ruling o" illegal dismissal against
Galang, the appellate court awarded separation pay to
&alasugui "or every year o" continuous service and "ull bac!wages "rom the time o" her dismissal up to the time o" the
"inality o" the )udgment. 8ence this petition was "iled.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: Petitioner alleged that
respondent pac!ed her bags and le"t the property a"ter being
scolded due to her nonappearance at the medical
e(amination arranged by the petitioner. #he submission is
that respondent le"t the premises and abandoned her wor!.
ISSUES: ?. 5hether or not the respondent has
abandoned her wor!.
. 5hether or not the respondent was constructively
dismissed.
RULING:
?. Abandonment is a "orm o" neglect o" duty, one o" the )ust
causes "or an employer to terminate an employee. It is a
hornboo! precept that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer
bears the burden o" proo". >or a valid termination o"
employment on the ground o" abandonment, the employer
must prove, by substantial evidence, the concurrence o" the
employee$s "ailure to report "or wor! "or no valid reason and
his categorical intention to discontinue employment.
#here is in this case no substantial evidence that will prove
respondent$s categorical intention to discontinue
employment. 6n the contrary, the story o" abandonment is
simply doubt"ul. #he 4ourt o" Appeals was correct in ruling
thatC %It is not in accord with normal human e(perience andtoo "limsy a reason "or petitioner so circumstanced, to )ust
pac! up her things and vacate the Pangi property a"ter being
1ueried on why she did not show up at the appointed time
with the radiologist. #he allegation that private respondent
was displeased a"ter incurring e(penses "or petitioner$s
medical chec!up remained unrebutted. 8ence, petitioner$s
testimony that she was prevented entry into the Pangi
property appeared more credible.
3espondent has been in the employ o" petitioner "or si( years
when the alleged abandonment happened. Being scolded, i" it
were true, is hardly a reason "or a gardener o" si( years to )ust
pac! up and leave the wor! premises where she was even
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
12/29
allowed to reside, at a time when she was ill and needed
medical attention. Indeed, the alleged scolding is itsel"
incredible. #he given reason was that respondent "ailed to
show up at her arranged appointment with the radiologist. It
is hard to believe that a sic! gardener, certainly o" minimal
means, would re"use the o""er o" medical services. In "act, the
basic allegation in respondent$s complaint "or illegal dismissal
was that petitioner$s %treatment to her became sour
especially when she re1uested that she be e(amined by a
doctor "or her cough.'
#here must be a concurrence o" the intention to abandon and
some overt acts "rom which an employee may be deduced as
having no more intention to wor!. +uch intent to discontinue
the employment must be shown by clear proo" that it was
deliberate and un)usti"ied.
In the instant case, the overt act relied upon by petitioner is
not only a doubt"ul occurrence but is, i" it did transpire, even
consistent with the dismissal "rom employment posited by the
respondent. #he "actual appraisal o" the 4ourt o" Appeals is
correct. Petitioner was displeased a"ter incurring e(penses
"or respondent$s medical chec!up and, it is credible that,
therea"ter, respondent was prevented entry into the wor!
premises. #his is tantamount to constructive dismissal.
. 4onstructive dismissal e(ists where there is cessation o"
wor! because continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unli!ely, as an o""er involving a demotion in
ran! and a diminution in pay. 4onstructive dismissal is a
dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but
made to appear as i" it were not. In constructive dismissal
cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden
o" proving that its conduct and action or the trans"er o" an
employee are "or valid and legitimate grounds such as
genuine business necessity.
#he incredibility o" petitioner$s submission about
abandonment o" wor! renders credible the position o"
respondent that she was prevented "rom entering theproperty. #he dismissal o" respondent places upon petitioner
the burden o" proo" o" legality o" dismissal.
In termination cases, the burden o" proo" rests on the
employer to show that the dismissal is "or )ust cause. 5hen
there is no showing o" a clear, valid and legal cause "or the
termination o" employment, the law considers the matter a
case o" illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to
prove that the termination was "or a valid or authori
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
13/29
%rampant the"t,' by the crew, o" company property even
be"ore &ay F, 00. #he established "act that lanes, a non
&eralco employee, was o"ten seen during company
operations, conversing with the "oremen, "or reason or
reasons connected with the ongoing company operations,
gives rise to the 1uestionC what was he doing thereT
Apparently, he had been visiting &eralco wor!sites, at least in
the Valenor
one wor!ing at the scene who had seen or who had shown
"amiliarity with lanes @a non&eralco employee, not to have
!nown the reason "or his presence is to disregard the obvious,
or at least the very suspicious.
6n the whole, the totality o" the circumstances obtaining in
the case convinces us that Gala could not but have !nowledge
o" the pil"erage o" company electrical supplies on &ay F,
00; he was complicit in its commission, i" not by direct
participation, certainly, by his inaction while it was being
perpetrated and by not reporting the incident to company
authorities. #hus, we "ind substantial evidence to support the
conclusion that Gala does not deserve to remain in &eralco$s
employ as a regular employee. 8e violated his probationaryemployment agreement, especially the re1uirement "or him
%to observe at all times the highest degree o" transparency,
sel"lessness and integrity in the per"ormance o" their duties
and responsibilities. 8e "ailed to 1uali"y as a regular
employee.
UERT PILIPPINES !. YNSON
FACTS: 3espondent 3odante 7nson is the 2ational +ales
&anager @2+& "or automotive o" petitioner 5uerth
Philippines, Inc., and he was re1uired to travel to di""erent
parts o" the country. 5hile in Davao, he was con"ined at the
Davao Doctor9s 8ospital due to stro!e and thus heimmediately in"orm the petitioner company o" his ailment with
medical certi"icate as proo". 8e re1uested that administrative
wor! be given to him while in Davao 4ity, until completion o"
his therapy as recommended by his doctors which later on
disapproved by respondent company. #herea"ter, 3icanor sent
a letter dated to respondent, directing him to appear be"ore
the "ormer$s o""ice in &anila, "or an investigation, relative to
the "ollowing violations which carry the penalty o" suspension
and:or dismissal, based on the "ollowing alleged violationsC @?
absences without leave and @ abandonment o" wor!.
3espondent 7nson "ailed to attend and stated that his
attending physician advised him to re"rain "rom traveling, in
order not to disrupt his daily schedule "or therapy and
medication.
ater, 3icanor sent two letters, reiterating the contents o" his
"irst letter to respondent, and included gross ine""iciency as an
additional ground "or possible suspension or dismissal but
respondent reiterated the reasons "or his inability to attend
the investigation proceedings in &anila and, instead,
suggested that 3icanor come to Davao and conduct the
investigation there.
>inally, 7nson was terminated on the ground o" continued
absences without "iling a leave o" absence. 8e "iled a
4omplaint against petitioner and 3icanor "or illegal dismissal
and nonpayment o" allowances, with claim "or moral and
e(emplary damages and attorney$s "ees, in the 234,
3egional Arbitration Branch 2o. NI in Davao 4ity.
#herea"ter, abor Arbiter Amado &. +olamo rendered a
decision "inding respondents guilty o" illegal dismissal.
Petitioner and 3icanor appealed to the 234 @4agayan de 6ro
4ity, which a""irmed with modi"ication the Decision o" the
abor Arbiter, reducing the total awards o" moral and
e(emplary damages. #he 4A rendered a Decision, "inding that
petitioner had the right to terminate the employment o"
respondent, and that it had observed due process in
terminating his employment.
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: Petitioner insists that
the ground "or the dismissal o" the respondent was his gross
dereliction o" duties as 2+&.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
RULING: 2o. Pursuant to Article o" the abor 4ode,
respondent$s illness is considered an authori
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
14/29
power to award any contract as it is the "unction o" the Bids
and Awards 4ommittee o" PDG44.
In a letter dated >ebruary ?, 00, a"ter investigating the
allegations against the petitioner, Atty. Bernardo
recommended to 4ru< and the PDG44 Board o" Directors the
"iling o" appropriate charges against the petitioner "or
violation o" 3epublic Act 2o. /0? @AntiGra"t and 4orrupt
Practices Act and 3epublic Act 2o. -?/ @4ode o" 4onduct
and Ethical +tandards "or Public 6""icials and Employees.
Attached to the said letter was a detailed outline report
prepared by Atty. Bernardo which speci"ied the acts
committed by the petitioner which led him to recommend the
"iling o" appropriate charges against the latter.
5ith respect to the petitioner$s receipt o" additional
compensation "rom the 46&EE4, Atty. Bernardo opined that
the services which the "ormer rendered "or the latter relates
to the duties which he actually per"orms pursuant to the
"unctions o" his o""ice as Building Administrator. Atty.
Bernardo "urther stated that, in rendering the said services "or
the 46&EE4, the petitioner acted with evident bad "aith as
he did not see! the permission o" PDG44 nor did he in"orm
46&EE4 that he was not authoriurther, on the
assumption that the petitioner is a regular employee, PDG44
asserted that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed as it
was based on a )ust cause "or terminating an employment, i.e.
loss o" trust and con"idence "or receiving unlaw"ul additional
compensation "or wor! rendered without its authority.
ISSUE: 5hether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
RULING: 2o.
Article o" the abor 4ode statesC
Article .#E3&I2A#I62 B7 E&P67E3. An employer may
terminate an employment "or any o" the "ollowing causesC
@a +erious misconduct or will"ul disobedience by the
employee o" the law"ul orders o" his employer or
representative in connection with his wor!;
@b Gross and habitual neglect by the employee o" his duties;
@c >raud or will"ul breach by the employee o" the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authori
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
15/29
due process "or lac! o" notice. #he 4A re)ected 4ityland$s
e(planation that it deviated "rom the rule because the
circumstances o" the case le"t it no room to comply with the
re1uirement. #he 4A noted that although there was a meeting
intended to address the )anitors$ complaints against Galang
the latter had no !nowledge o" the charges at that point in
time. #he 4A stressed that Galang should have been given a
reasonable time to de"end himsel".
CONTENTION OF TE PETITIONER: Galang contends that
in granting 4ityland$s appeal, the 4A relied heavily on #upas$
+inumpaang +alaysay and on the )oint a""idavit o" Baldemor,
Arrogante and Dela 4ru
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
16/29
#he loss o" trust and con"idence must be based on will"ul
breach o" the trust reposed in the employee by his employer.
+uch breach is will"ul i" it is done intentionally, !nowingly, and
purposely, without )usti"iable e(cuse, as distinguished "rom an
act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. &oreover, it must be based on substantial
evidence and not on the employer$s whims or caprices or
suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at
the mercy o" the employer. oss o" con"idence must not be
indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a
claim that the dismissal o" an employee was arbitrary. And, in
order to constitute a )ust cause "or dismissal, the act
complained o" must be wor!related and shows that the
employee concerned is un"it to continue wor!ing "or the
employer. In addition, loss o" con"idence as a )ust cause "or
termination o" employment is premised on the "act that the
employee concerned holds a position o" responsibility, trust
and con"idence or that the employee concerned is entrusted
with con"idence with respect to delicate matters, such as
handling or case and protection o" the property and assets o"
the employer. #he betrayal o" this trust is the essence o" the
o""ense "or which an employee is penaliour. #he breach o" the company$s trust in Villanueva was
shown to have been committed !nowingly and
will"ully.?Uwphi? Although the amount o" discrepancy or
money misappropriated may be considered minimal and even
inconse1uential to an established company such as &eralco, it
is the anomalous practice o" re1uiring applicants "or electric
service connection to pay amounts higher than re1uired that
is the cru( o" Villanueva$s o""ense. #he conscious design o"
issuing another receipt to ma!e it appear that there was a
mista!e in the initial transaction with the customers e(hibits a
culpable act bordering on dishonesty and deceit. I" not "or
personal gain, why did Villanueva e(act "rom customers
amounts in e(cess o" what was re1uired by the companyT
5hat would have Villanueva done had the customers "ailed to
discover the discrepancy between the amount they paid and
that appearing in the receipts issued to themT 5hy were
there no overages reported to his branch supervisor with
respect to e(cess payments which were no longer 1uestioned
by the customersT #hese 1uestions arise out o" the practice
which un"ortunately corrupted an employee li!e Villanueva.
#hese doubts sway the 4ourt away "rom Villanueva$s claim
that his errors were promptly corrected upon discovery.
Villanueva$s insistence, that the act which triggered his
dismissal did not )usti"y his separation "rom the servicebecause the 4ompany 4ode o" Employee Discipline "ailed to
ma!e mention o" his case in a speci"ic manner, "ails to
persuade the 4ourt. #he established "acts do not constitute a
mere case o" simple negligence. #he acts per"ormed were
without the slightest connotation o" inadvertence which
Villanueva could have demonstrated during the proceedings a
1uo.
Besides, the 4ourt is not unmind"ul o" the prerogatives
available to &eralco as an employer. #he company has the
right to regulate, according to its discretion and best
)udgment, all aspects o" employment, including wor!
assignment, wor!ing methods, processes to be "ollowed,
wor!ing regulations, trans"er o" employees, wor! supervision,layo"" o" wor!ers and the discipline, dismissal and recall o"
wor!ers. &anagement has the prerogative to discipline its
employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring
wor!ers pursuant to company rules and regulations./ +o
long as they are e(ercised in good "aith "or the advancement
o" the employer$s interest and not "or the purpose o"
de"eating or circumventing the rights o" the employees under
special laws or under valid agreements, the employer$s
e(ercise o" its management prerogative must be upheld. #he
law imposes many obligations on the employer such as
providing )ust compensation to wor!ers and observance o" the
procedural re1uirements o" notice and hearing in the
termination o" employment. 6n the other hand, the law also
recogni
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
17/29
A certain report revealed that si( pairs o" intensi"ying screens
were missing. An investigation was conducted and employees
were 1uestioned. 8elario Adonis, Jr., a warehouse personnel,
was summoned and was as!ed to admit his participation in
the the"t o" the missing screens. 8owever, he pleaded
innocence. A"terwards, 8elario was noti"ied o" his termination
"rom service on the ground o" his "ailure to properly account
"or and maintain a balance o" the company9s stoc!
inventories, hence, resulting in Blue +!y9s loss o" trust and
con"idence in him. #he day a"ter, Blue +!y promptly "iled with
the Department o" abor and Employment @D6E an
establishment termination report indicating therein 8elario9s
dismissal "rom service "or cause.
2otices to e(plain:preventive suspension was also issued to
Arlene, Joseph, delivery personnel Jayde #anoan and
maintenance personnel:driver 5il"redo >asonilao. #he notices
in"ormed them that they were being accused o" gross
dishonesty in connection with their alleged participation in
and conspiracy with other employees in committing the"t
against company property, speci"ically relative to the loss o"
the si( intensi"ying screens. #hey were placed under
preventive suspension pending investigation and were thus
re1uired to "ile their written e(planations within hours "rom
receipt o" the notices. #hey submitted handwritten
memorandums denying !nowledge or complicity with thethe"t o" the intensi"ying screens.
2otices o" dismissal was then issued to Arlene, Joseph, Jayde
and 5il"redo notices o" dismissal "or cause stating therein that
evidence that they had conspired with each other to commit
the"t against company property was too glaring to ignore.
Blue +!y had lost its trust and con"idence on them and as an
act o" sel"preservation, their termination "rom service was in
order.
#hey "iled with the 2ational abor 3elations 4ommission
@234 a complaint "or illegal dismissal and suspension.
&eanwhile, an entrapment operation was conducted by the
police during which Jayde and 8elario were caught allegedlyattempting to sell to an operative an ultrasound probe worth
around P00,000.00 belonging to Blue +!y. #hey were then
criminally charged in court. Be"ore the complaint which was
"iled with the 234 can be resolved, 8elario, Jayde and
5il"redo e(ecuted a""idavits o" desistance stating therein that
their termination by Blue +!y was "or cause and a"ter
observance o" due process.
#he abor Arbiter denied the claims o" Arlene and Joseph.
+uch decision was reversed by the 234. #he 4A a""irmed the
234$s ruling.
ISSUE: 562 petitioners had proven by substantial evidence
the charges o" the"t against Arlene and Joseph which led to
the latter9s termination "rom service on the ground o" loss o"
trust and con"idence.
RULING: NO.
#he rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases
li!e the one at bench, the burden o" proo" is upon the
employer to show that the employee$s termination "rom
service is "or a )ust and valid cause. #he employer$s case
succeeds or "ails on the strength o" its evidence and not on
the wea!ness o" that adduced by the employee, in !eeping
with the principle that the scales o" )ustice should be tilted in
"avor o" the latter in case o" doubt in the evidence presented
by them. 6"ten described as more than a mere scintilla, the
1uantum o" proo" is substantial evidence which is understoodas such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as ade1uate to support a conclusion, even i" other e1ually
reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. >ailure
o" the employer to discharge the "oregoing onus would mean
that the dismissal is not )usti"ied and there"ore illegal.
>or there to be a valid dismissal based on loss o" trust and
con"idence, the breach o" trust must be will"ul, meaning it
must be done intentionally, !nowingly, and purposely, without
)usti"iable e(cuse.
In the case at bar, we agree with the petitioners that mere
substantial evidence and not proo" beyond reasonable doubt
is re1uired to )usti"y the dismissal "rom service o" an
employee charged with the"t o" company property. 8owever,
we "ind no error in the 4A9s "indings that the petitioners had
not ade1uately proven by substantial evidence that Arlene
and Joseph indeed participated or cooperated in the
commission o" the"t relative to the si( missing intensi"ying
screens so as to )usti"y the latter9s termination "rom
employment on the ground o" loss o" trust and con"idence.
Blue +!y alleged that Arlene, who was a stoc! cler!, and
Joseph, a warehouse helper, had "ree access to the missing
items. Arlene, who !ept the stoc! cards, was supposed to be
monitoring on a daily basis the incoming and outgoing stoc!s
stored in or ta!en out o" the warehouse. Joseph too! the
stoc!s "rom the warehouse to the vehicles "or transport or
delivery purposes. Arlene and Joseph averred otherwise. #hey
insisted that they were mere lowly employees who did not
have actual custody o" company property, speci"ically, o" the
missing items. Arlene claimed that she was not responsible "or
conducting inventories and that she released stoc!s only
when urgently necessary and only in the absence o" those
authoriurther, Blue +!y alleged that the
ultrasound probe was among the items "ound missing in the
inventory conducted in December 00. 5e observe though
that the employees were dismissed "or alleged the"t o" si(
intensi"ying screens. In the termination notices, no re"erences
were made at all to a missing ultrasound probe.
Also, in the notices sent to Arlene and Joseph, "irst charging
them with the"t, and later, in"orming them o" their dismissal
"rom service, gross negligence was not stated therein as a
ground. 8ence, Arlene and Joseph could not have de"ended
themselves against the charge o" gross negligence. #hey
cannot be dismissed on that ground lest due process beviolated.
6nly the "ollowing had been established without disputeC @a
the "act o" loss o" the si( intensi"ying screens; @b an
entrapment operation was success"ully conducted by the
police operatives who caught Jayde and 8elario in the act o"
attempting to sell an ultrasound probe which allegedly
belonged to Blue +!y; and @c Jayde, 8elario and 5il"redo "iled
their a""idavits o" desistance to withdraw their complaints "or
illegal dismissal against Blue +!y while Arlene and Joseph
pursued their complaints.
-
8/14/2019 labor law review case digests.doc
18/29
#he nature o" Arlene and Joseph9s regular duties while under
Blue +!y9s employ and their speci"ic participation in or
!nowledge o" the the"t o" the intensi"ying screens remain
uncertain. #hus, whether or not Arlene and Joseph had actual
custody over company property, we agree with the 4A that
the petitioners had "ailed to establish by substantial evidence
the charges which led to Arlene and Joseph9s dismissal "rom
service.
5hile we empathiunctional, Inc./F that the employer$s
case succeeds or "ails on the strength o" its evidence and not
on the wea!ness o" that adduced by the employee, in !eeping
with the principle that the scales o" )ustice should be tilted in
"avor o" the latter in case o" doubt in the evidence presented
by them.
8owever, Blue +!y committed no impropriety in imposing
preventive suspension against Arlene and Joseph pending
investigation o" the the"t allegedly committed against the
company. Preventive suspension may be legally imposed on
an employee whose alleged violation is the sub)ect o" aninvestigation. #he purpose o" the suspension is to prevent an
employee "rom causing harm or in)ury to his colleagues and to
the employer. #he ma(imum period o" suspension is /0 days,
beyond which the employee should either be reinstated or be
paid wages and bene"its due to him.
In Arlene and Joseph9s case, Blue +!y issued to them notices
to e(plain on >ebruary /, 00F. #hey submitted their written
e(planation the day a"ter and they were dismissed "rom
service on >ebruary F, 00F. #here is no impropriety in Blue
+!y$s act o" imposing preventive suspension upon the
respondents since the period did not e(ceed the ma(imum
imposed by law and there was a valid purpose "or the same.
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES !. LOGARTA
FACTS: 3ecruitment agency, International &anagement
+ervices @I&+, deployed 3oel P. ogarta to wor! "or Petrocon
Arabia imited @Petrocon +audi Arabia, in connection with
general engineering services o" Petrocon "or the +audi Arabian
6il 4ompany @+audi Aramco. ogarta was employed "or a
period o" two @ years, commencing on 6ctober , ?-, with
a monthly salary o" eight hundred *+ Dollars @*+K00.00.
6n April , ?, +audi Aramco noti"ied Petrocon that due to
changes in the general engineering services wor! "orecast "or
?, the manhours that were "ormerly allotted to Petrocon
is going to be reduced by 0L which constrained Petrocon to
reduce its personnel.
#hus, on June ?, ?, Petrocon gave ogarta a written notice
in"orming the latter that due to the lac! o" pro)ect wor!s
related to his e(pertise, he is given a /0day notice o"
termination, and that his last day o" wor! with Petrocon will be
on July ?, ?Be"ore his departure "rom +audi Arabia,
respondent received his "inal paychec! "rom Petroconamounting +3-,.F-, without paying the separation "ee o"
ogarta.
*pon his return, ogarta "iled a complaint with the 234
against I&+ "or illegal dismissal as the recruitment agency
which employed him "or employment abroad.
#he A rendered )udgment in "avor o" the ogarta and ordered
I&+ to pay wages "or the une(pired portion o" his contract o"
employment. #he 234 on appeal a""irmed the A$s decision
but reduced the award. #he 4A li!ewise dismissed the petition
and a""irmed the 234 decision.
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER: #he dismissal o" ogarta
through retrenchment was valid.
ISSUE: 5hether or not respondent$s dismissal through
retrenchment is illegal.
RULING: 2o. 3etrenchment is the reduction o" wor!
personnel usually due to poor "inancial returns, aimed to cut
down costs "or operation particularly on salaries and wages. It
is one o" the economic grounds to dismiss employees and is
resorted by an employer primarily to avoid or minimiilipino wor!er. In the present case, although
respondent was duly noti"ied o" his termination by P