Upload
ronn-petitt
View
264
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
1/16
CASE DIGEST COMPENDIUM
S A T U R D A Y , J A N U A R Y 2 7 , 2 0 0 7
2006 Labor Law Case Digests
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK VS. ANASTACIO D. ABAD
G.R. No. 158045. February 28, 2005
Facts: Anastacio D. Abad was the senior Assistant Manager (Sales Head) of petitioner
Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank now Equitable PCI Bank)], when
he was dismissed from his work. Abad received a Memorandum from petitioner Bankconcerning the irregular clearing of PNB-Naval Check of Sixtu Chu, the Banks valued
client. Abad submitted his Answer, categorically denying that he instructed his
subordinates to validate the out-of-town checks of Sixtu Chu presented for deposit or
encashment as local clearing checks. During the actual investigation conducted by
petitioner Bank, several transactions violative of the Banks Policies and Rules and
Regulations were uncovered by the Fact-Finding Committee. Consequently, the Fact-
Finding Officer of petitioner Bank issued another Memorandum to Abad asking the
latter to explain the newly discovered irregularities. Not satisfied with the explanationsof Abad, petitioner Bank served another Memorandum, terminating his employment
effective immediately upon receipt of the same. Thus, Abad instituted a Complaint for
Illegal Dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not awarding of separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) months
pay for every year of service to respondent is gross, the same being contrary to law and
jurisprudence.
Held: The award of separation pay is required for dismissals due to causes specified
under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as for illegal dismissals in which
reinstatement is no longer feasible. On the other hand, an employee dismissed for any of
the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not, as a rule, entitled
to separation pay.
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
2/16
As an exception, allowing the grant of separation pay or some other financial assistance
to an employee dismissed for just causes is based on equity. The Court has granted
separation pay as a measure of social justice even when an employee has been validly
dismissed, as long as the dismissal was not due to serious misconduct or reflective of
personal integrity or morality.
BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, STA.
LUCIA REALTY & DEVT., INC., R.S. MAINTENANCE & SERVICES, INC., and R.S.
NIGHT HAWK SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC
G.R. No. 154308. March 10, 2005
Facts: Petitioner Benardino A. Caingat was hired by respondent Sta. Lucia Realty and
Development, Inc. (SLRDI) as the General Manager of SLRDIs sister companies, R.S.
Night Hawk Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., and R.S. Maintenance and Services
Inc. both organized to service the malls and subdivisions owned by SLRDI. In
connection with this, he was allowed to use 10% of the total payroll of respondent R.S.
Maintenance to defray operating expenses. Later, the Finance Manager discovered that
petitioner deposited company funds in the latters personal account and used the funds
to pay his credit card purchases, utility bills, trips abroad and acquisition of a lot in
Laguna. Thus, complainant received a memorandum stating that upon verification of
financial records, it was found that the latter have misappropriated company funds in
the sum of about P5, 000,000.00 and is hereby suspended from his duties as Manager
of the stated companies. Without conducting any investigation, respondent R.S.
Maintenance filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with prayer for writ of
preliminary attachment. Petitioner in turn filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the respondents.
Issue: Did respondents illegally dismiss petitioner?
Held: As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just
cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee
concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from
whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
3/16
personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling,
or care and protection of the employers property. The betrayal of this trust is the
essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized. Managements loss of trust
and confidence on petitioner was well justified. Private respondents had every right to
dismiss petitioner. Petitioners long period of disappearance from the scene and
departure for abroad before making a claim of illegal dismissal does not contribute to its
credibility.
Nonetheless, while dismissal may truly be justified by loss of confidence, the
management failed to observe fully the procedural requirement of due process for the
termination of petitioners employment. Two notices should be sent to the employee.
The respondents only sent the first notice, gleaned from the memorandum. There was
no second notice.
RETRENCHMENT; NOTICE REQUIREMENT;SEPARATION PAY
JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION, vs. DARWIN PACOT, ROBERT
PAROHINOG, DAVID BISNAR, MARLON DOMINGO, RHOEL LESCANO and
JONATHAN CAGABCAB.
G.R. No. 151378. March 28, 2005
Facts: Respondents were earlier hired by petitioner JAKA Foods Processing Corporation
until the latter terminated their employment because the corporation was in dire
financial straits. It is not disputed, however, that the termination was effected without
JAKA complying with the requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code regarding
the service of a written notice upon the employees and the Department of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date of termination.
Respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and
nonpayment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay against JAKA. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the termination illegal and ordering JAKA to
reinstate respondents with full backwages, and separation pay if reinstatement is not
possible. The Court of Appeals reversed said decision and ordered respondent JAKA to
pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary, the proportionate
13th month pay and, in addition, full backwages from the time their employment was
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
4/16
terminated.
Issue: What are the legal implications of a situation where an employee is dismissed for
cause but such dismissal was effected without the employers compliance with the notice
requirement under the Labor Code?
Held: It was established that there was ground for respondents dismissal, i.e.,
retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes enumerated under Article 283 of
the Labor Code. Likewise, it is established that JAKA failed to comply with the notice
requirement under the same Article. Considering the factual circumstances in the
instant case, the Court deem it proper to fix the indemnity at P50, 000.00. The Court of
Appeals have been in error when it ordered JAKA to pay respondents separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. In all cases of business
closure or cessation of operation or undertaking of the employer, the affected employee
is entitled to separation pay. This is consistent with the state policy of treating labor as a
primary social economic force, affording full protection to its rights as well as its
welfare. The exception is when the closure of business or cessation of operations is due
to serious business losses or financial reverses; duly proved, in which case, the right of
affected employees to separation pay is lost for obvious reasons.
HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE, INC./HORTENCIA L. STARKE VS.
CANDIDO
CUENCA ET AL.
G.R. No. 150478. April 15, 2005
Facts: Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation located at Negros Occidental,
and represented in this case by Hortencia L. Starke, owner and operator of the said
hacienda. The 76 individual respondents were part of the workforce of Hacienda Bino
consisting of 220 workers, performing various works, such as cultivation, planting of
cane points, fertilization, watering, weeding, harvesting, and loading of harvested
sugarcanes to cargo trucks. During the off-milling season, petitioner Starke issued an
Order or Notice which stated, that all Hacienda employees who signed in favor of CARP
are expressing their desire to get out of employment on their own volition. The
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
5/16
respondents regarded such notice as a termination of their employment. As a
consequence, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The respondents as
complainants alleged that they are regular and permanent workers of the hacienda and
that they were dismissed without just and lawful cause.
Issue: Whether the respondents are regular or seasonal employees.
Held: The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual trade or business of the employer. There is no doubt that the respondents were
performing work necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer.
Hence, they can properly be classified as regular employees. For respondents to be
excluded from those classified as regular employees, it is not enough that they perform
work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must have been employed only for the
duration of one season. While the records sufficiently show that the respondents work
in the hacienda was seasonal in nature, there was, however, no proof that they were
hired for the duration of one season only.
ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INC., ET AL. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 157611. August 9, 2005
Facts: Petitioner Alabang Country Club Inc. (ACCI), is a stock, non-profit corporation
that operates and maintains a country club and various sports and recreational facilities
for the exclusive use of its members. Sometime in 1993, Francisco Ferrer, then President
of ACCI, requested its Internal Auditor, to conduct a study on the profitability of ACCIs
Food and Beverage Department (F & B Department). Consequently, report showed that
from 1989 to 1993, F & B Department had been incurring substantial losses. Realizing
that it was no longer profitable for ACCI to maintain its own F & B Department, the
management decided to cease from operating the department and to open the same to a
contractor, such as a concessionaire, which would be willing to operate its own food and
beverage business within the club. Thus, ACCI sent its F & B Department employees
individual letters informing them that their services were being terminated and that
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
6/16
they would be paid separation pay. The Union in turn, with the authority of individual
respondents, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not the clubs right to terminate its employees for an authorized
cause, particularly to secure its continued viability and existence is valid.
Held: When petitioner decided to cease operating its F & B Department and open the
same to a concessionaire, it did not reduce the number of personnel assigned thereat. It
terminated the employment of all personnel assigned at the department.
Petitioners failure to prove that the closure of its F & B Department was due to
substantial losses notwithstanding, the Court finds that individual respondents were
dismissed on the ground of closure or cessation of an undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, which is allowed under Article 283 of the Labor
Code. The closure of operation of an establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses includes both the complete cessation of operations
and the cessation of only part of a companys activities.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSE DUJUA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004
Facts: Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his uncle, Guillermo
Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. Only Ramon was arrested.
Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All of them were promised work abroad upon
payment of fees but they were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and
denied the allegations that he was a recruiter.
Issue: Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed by Raon Dujua,
et al.
Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 1) The
accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article
13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; 2) the accused
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
7/16
has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers either locally or overseas; and 3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against
three or more persons individually or as a group.
All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved that Dujua
promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. All of them
identified Dujua as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. As against
the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, Dujuas mere denials
cannot prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough credible
testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a conviction for the
offense can very well be justified.
Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas
work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer,
World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.
Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the recruitment of more
than three persons.
CBA; REFUSAL TO RENEGOTIATE ECONOMIC PROVISIONS OF THE CBA BY THE
MANAGEMENT CONSTITUTES ULP
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 146728. February 11, 2004
Facts: General Milling Corporation employed 190 workers. All the employees were
members of a union which is a duly certified bargaining agent. The GMC and the union
entered into a collective bargaining agreement which included the issue of
representation that is effective for a term of three years which will expire on November
30, 1991. On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent
GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter proposal be submitted within ten
days. on October 1991, GMC received collective and individual letters from the union
members stating that they have withdrawn from their union membership. On December
19, 1991, the union disclaimed any massive disaffiliation of its union members. On
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
8/16
January 13, 1992, GMC dismissed an employee who is a union member. The union
protected the employee and requested GMC to submit to the grievance procedure
provided by the CBA, but GMC argued that there was no basis to negotiate with a union
which is no longer existing. The union then filed a case with the Labor Arbiter but the
latter ruled that there must first be a certification election to determine if the union still
enjoys the support of the workers.
Issue: Whether or not GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating its duty to
bargain collectively and/or for interfering with the right of its employees to self-
organization.
Held: GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice when it refused to negotiate with the union
upon its request for the renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November
29, 1991. the unions proposal was submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from
the date of effectivity of the CBA. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse
to negotiate in good faith with the union. The refusal to send counter proposal to the
union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA is tantamount to an unfair
labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code.
Under Article 252 of the Labor Code, both parties are required to perform their mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose
of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation when it presented
proposals for a new CBA to GMC within 3 years from the effectivity of the original CBA.
But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise a flimsy excuse,
by questioning the existence of the union and the status of its membership to prevent
any negotiation. It bears stressing that the procedure in collective bargaining prescribed
by the Code is mandatory because of the basic interest of the state in ensuring lasting
industrial peace.
The Court of Appeals found that the letters between February to June, 1993 by 13 union
members signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that GMC exerted
pressure on the employees. We agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that the ill-
timed letters of resignation from the union members indicate that GMC interfered with
the right of its employee to self-organization.
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
9/16
UNIONS; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; STRIKES; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
STAMFORD MARKETING CORP., ET AL. VS. JOSEPHINE JULIAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 145496. February 24, 2004
Facts: On November 2, 1994, Zoilo de la Cruz, president of the Philippine Agricultural
Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-TUCP), sent a letter to Rosario
Apacible, treasurer and general manager of Stamford Marketing Corporation, GSP
Manufacturing Corporation, Giorgio Antonio Marketing Corporation, Clementine
Marketing Corporation and Ultimate Concept Phils., Inc. The letter informed her that
the rank-and-file employees of the said companies had formed the Apacible Enterprises
Employees Union-PACIWU-TUCP and demanded that it be recognized. After such
notice, the following three cases arose:
In the First Case, Josephine Julian, president of PACIWU-TUCP, Jacinta Tejada and
Jecina Burabod, a Board Member and a member of the said union, were dismissed. They
filed a suit with the Labor Arbiter alleging that their employer had not paid them with
their overtime pay, holiday pay/premiums, rest day premium, 13th month pay for the
year 1994 salaries for services actually rendered, and that illegal deduction had been
made without their consent from their salaries for a cash bond. Stamford alleged that
the three were dismissed for not reporting for work when required to do so and for not
giving notice or explanation when asked.
In the Second Case, PACIWU-TUCP filed, on behalf of 50 employees allegedly dismissed
illegally for union membership by the petitioners, a case for unfair labor practice against
GSP which denied such averments. GSP countered that the BLR did not list Apacible
Enterprises Employees Union as a local chapter of PACIWU or TUCP. Thus, the strike
that said union organized after the GSP refused to negotiate with them was illegal and
that they refused to return to work when asked.
The Third Case was filed for claims of the 50 employees dismissed in the second case.
Petitioner corporations, however, maintained that they have been paying complainants
the wages/salaries mandated by law and that the complaint should be dismissed in view
of the execution of quitclaims and waivers by the private respondents.
The Labor Arbiter ordered the three cases consolidated as the issues were interrelated
and the respondent corporations were under one management.
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
10/16
First Case: The dismissal was illegal and Stamford was ordered to reinstate the
complainants as well as pay the backwages and other benefits claimed. It was held that
the reassignment and transfer of the complainants were forms of interference in the
formation and membership of a union, an unfair labor practice. Stamford also failed to
substantiate their claim that the said employees abandoned their employment. It also
failed to prove the necessity of the cash deposit of P2,000 and failed to furnish written
notice of dismissal to any complainants. Further, it failed to prove payments of the
amounts being claimed.
Second Case: The strike was illegal and the officers of the union have lost their
employment status, thus terminating their employment with GSP. GSP is however
ordered to reinstate the complainants who were members of the union without
backwages, save some employees specified. It was established that the union was not
registered, and thus had staged an illegal strike. The officers of the union should be
liable and dismissed, but the members should not, as they acted in good faith in the
belief that their actions were within legal bounds.
Third Case: GSP was ordered to pay each complainant their claims, as computed by each
individual. All other claims were dismissed for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter found
petitioners liable for salary differentials and other monetary claims for petitioners
failure to sufficiently prove that it had paid the same to complainants as required by law.
It was also ordered to return the cash deposits of the complainants, citing the same
reasons as in the First Case.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision in the First and Third Cases, but set aside
the judgment of the Second Case for further proceedings in view of the factual issues
involved.
On May 14, 1996, a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal was filed which was decided in
favor of Stamford, upholding the dismissal of the union officers. The officers made no
prior notice to strike, no vote was taken among union members, and the issue involved
was non-strikable, a demand for salary increases
On elevation to the appellate court, it was ruled that the officers should be given
separation pay, and that Jacina Burabod and the rest of the members should be
reinstated without loss of seniority, plus backwages. It provided for the payment of the
backwages despite the illegality of the strike because the dismissals were done prior to
the strike. Such is considered an unfair labor practice as there was lack of due process
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
11/16
and valid cause. Thus, the dismissed employees were still entitled to backwages and
reinstatement, with exception to the union officers who may be given separation pay due
to strained relations with their employers.
Issues: (1) Whether or not the respondents union officers and members were validly
and legally dismisses from employment considering the illegality of the strike.
(2) Whether or not the respondents union officers were entitled to backwages,
separation pay and reinstatement, respectively.
Held: (1) The termination of the union officers was legal under Article 264 of the Labor
Code as the strike conducted was illegal and that illegal acts attended the mass action.
Holding a strike is a right that could be availed of by a legitimate labor organization,
which the union is not. Also, the mandatory requirements of following the procedures in
conducting a strike under paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 were not followed by the
union officers.
Article 264 provides for the consequences of an illegal strike, as well as the distinction
between officers and members who participated therein. Knowingly participating in an
illegal strike is a sufficient ground to terminate the employment of a union officer but
mere participation is not sufficient ground for termination of union members. Thus,
absent clear and substantial proof, rank-and-file union members may not be
terminated. If he is terminated, he is entitled to reinstatement.
The Court affirmed the ruling of the CA on the illegal dismissal of the union members,
as there was non-observance of due process requirements and union busting by
management. It also affirmed that the charge of abandonment against Julian and Tejada
were without credence. It reversed the ruling that the dismissal was unfair labor practice
as there was nothing on record to show that Julian and Tejada were discouraged from
joining any union. The dismissal of the union officers for participation in an illegal strike
was upheld. However, union officers also must be given the required notices for
terminating employment, and Article 264 of the Labor Code does not authorize
immediate dismissal of union officers participating in an illegal strike. No such requisite
notices were given to the union officers.
The Court upheld the appellate courts ruling that the union members, for having
participated in the strike in good faith and in believing that their actions were within the
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
12/16
bound of the law meant only to secure economic benefits for themselves, were illegally
dismissed hence entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
(2) The Supreme Court declared the dismissal of the union officers as valid hence, the
award of separation pay was deleted. However, as sanction for non-compliance with the
notice requirements for a lawful termination, backwages were awarded to the union
officers computed from the time they were dismissed until the final entry of the
judgment.
JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITERS AND THE NLRC
EVELYN TOLOSA VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 149578. April 10, 2003
Facts: Captain Virgilio Tolosa was master of the vessel M/V Donna owned by Quana-
Kaiun, and was hired through its manning agent, Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc. (Asia
Bulk). During channeling activities upon the vessels departure from Yokohama on
November 6, 1992, Capt. Tolosa was drenched with rainwater. Subsequently, he
contracted fever on November 11 which was later on accompanied by loose bowel
movement for the succeeding 12 days. His condition was reported to Asia Bulk and the
US Coast Guard Headquarters in Hawaii on November 15. However, before he could be
evacuated, he died on November 18, 1992.
Evelyn Tolosa, the widow, filed a complaint before the POEA for damages against Pedro
Garate, Chief Mate of the vessel, Mario Asis, Second Mate, Asia Bulk and Quana-Kaiun.
The case was transferred to the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the widow,
awarding actual damages plus legal interest, as well as moral and exemplary damages
and attorneys fees. On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was
vacated and the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended. Sustaining the
NLRC, the CA ruled that the labor commission had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action filed by petitioner. Her cause did not arise from an employer-
employee relation, but from a quasi-delict or tort. Under Article 217 (a)(4) of the Labor
Code which allows an award of damages incident to an employer-employee relation, the
damages awarded were not proper as she is not an employee, but merely the wife of an
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
13/16
employee.
Issues: (1) Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over
petitioners action.
(2) Whether or not the monetary award granted by the Labor arbiter has already
reached finality.
Held: (1) The Court affirmed that the claim for damages was filed not for claiming
damages under the Labor Code but under the Civil Code. The Court was convinced that
the allegations were based on a quasi-delict or tort. Also, she had claimed for actual
damages for loss of earning capacity based on a life expectancy of 65 years, which is
cognizable under the Civil Code and can be recovered in an action based on a quasi-
delict. Though damages under a quasi-delict may be recoverable under the jurisdiction
of labor arbiters and the NLRC, the relief must be based on an action that has
reasonable casual connection with the Labor Code, labor statutes or CBAs. It must be
noted that a workers loss of earning capacity and backlisting are not to be equated with
wages, overtime compensation or separation pay, and other labor benefits that are
generally cognized in labor disputes. The loss of earning capacity is a relief or claim
resulting from a quasi-delict or a similar cause within the realm of Civil Law. In the
present case, Evelyn Tolosas claim for damages is not related to any other claim under
Article 217, other labor statutes, or CBAs. She cannot anchor her claim for damages to
Article 161 of the Labor Code, which does not grant or specify a claim or relief. This
provision is only a safety and health standard under Book IV of the same Code. The
enforcement of this labor standard rests with the labor secretary. It is not the NLRC but
the regular courts that have jurisdiction over action for damages, in which the employer-
employee relation is merely incidental, and in which the cause of action proceeds from a
different source of obligation such as a tort.
(2) On the finality of the award, the Court ruled that issues not raised in the court below
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, the issue being not brought to the
attention of the Court of Appeals first, this cannot be considered by the Supreme Court.
It would be tantamount to denial of the right to due process against the respondents to
do so.
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
14/16
ABANDONMENT OF WORK; REQUISITES
SAMUEL SAMARCA VS. ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, INC.
G.R. No. 146118. September 29, 2003
Facts: Samuel Samarca was employed as a laborer by Arc-Men Industries, Inc. On
September 26, 1993, petitioner filed an application for an emergency leave of absence on
account of his sons hospitalization. Upon his return for work, petitioner was
immediately served with a notice of respondents order suspending him for 30 days.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension against respondent
and its owner. During the pendency of the complaint, petitioners 30-day suspension
ended. Consequently, respondent, in a letter, directed petitioner to report for work
immediately. However, he refused, prompting respondent to send him a Notice to
Terminate, directing him to submit, within 5 days, a written explanation why he should
not be dismissed from the service for abandonment of work. For his part, petitioner
submitted a letter-reply explaining that because of the pendency of his complaint for
illegal suspension with the Labor arbiter, he could not report for work. Respondent,
finding the petitioners written explanation insufficient, decided to terminate his
services via a Notice of Termination. Consequently, petitioner filed an amended
complaint for illegal dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner abandoned his work.
Held: To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) The failure to report
for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever
the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not
sufficient. It is the employer who has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and
justified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of
returning.
The above twin essential requirements for abandonment to exist are not present in the
case at bar. Petitioners absence is not without a justifiable reason. It must be recalled
that upon receipt of the Notice to Terminate by reason of abandonment, petitioner sent
respondent a letter explaining that he could not go back to work because of the
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
15/16
pendency of his complaint for illegal suspension. And immediately after he was
dismissed for abandonment of work, he lost no time to amend his complaint to illegal
dismissal. This alone negates any intention on his part to forsake his work. It is a settled
doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge
of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot by
logic be said to have abandoned his work.
ABANDONMENT OF WORK; PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE;
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
AGABON VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004
Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business
of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioner
Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January
2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision declaring the dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision
because it found that the petitioners had abandoned their work and were not entitled to
backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the dismissal of
the petitioners was not illegal because they had abandoned their employment.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Held: The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners
abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did
not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last
known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore.
Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law
mandates the twin notice requirements to the employees last known address. Thus, it
should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due
process.
When the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not
8/6/2019 Case Digest Compendium LABOR LAW I
16/16
nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should
indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights.
POSTED BY UNC BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2007 AT 3:19 AM
0 C O M M E N T S :
Post a Comment
Newer PostOlder PostHome
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
B L O G A R C H I V E
y 2007 (9)o January(9)
2006 Bar Operations Commission Team Research
2006 Taxation Case Digests
2006 Remedial Law Case Digests
2006 Criminal Law Case Digests
2006 Labor Law Case Digests
2006 Legal Ethics Case Digest
2006 Political Law Case Digests
2006 Mercantile Law Case Digests
2006 Civil Law Case Digests
A B O U T M E
UNC B AR O PERATI ONS CO MMISS I ON 2007
VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE