Case Digests Arts 282-284

8/13/2019 Case Digests Arts 282-284

1/83

G.R. No. 180660 July 20, 2010

MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT, INC.Petitioner,vs.NITO DUAL,Respondent.

PERE, J.:

!ACTS"

MaribagoBluewater Beach Resort, Inc. (Maribago), a corporation operating aresort hotel and restaurant in Brgy. Maribago, Lapu-Lapu ity, hired !ito "ual ("ual) as

waiter and pro#oted hi# later as outlet cashier at its Poolbar$%llegro Restaurant. &hecase 'iled by "ual against Maribago was grounded on Maribagos alleged illegaldis#issal o' "ual 'or dishonesty a'ter it 'ound out about the discrepancy in a receiptdated anuary *, + at p.#. It presented as evidence said receipt issued by "ual

which showed that only P/, /0. was re#itted by the latter corresponding to 0 sets o'dinner ordered by apanese tourists at around 0/ p.#. (who then as1ed 'or the billlater at * p.#.), when in 'act the order slip corresponding to said receipt showed thata total o' + sets o' dinner were ordered. It also showed evidence that it had given "ualand the other concerned e#ployees the opportunity to e2plain the#selves byre3uesting the# to attend clari'icatory hearings. Maribago argued that it only dis#issed"ual a'ter it conducted the investigation. 4or his part, "ual ad#itted that he indeedissued the receipt presented by Maribago as evidence but argued that the order slipgiven to hi# was already altered to show that instead o' + sets o' dinner, only 0 sets

were served. 5ence, because o' the cancellation, the guests only pay the a#ountre'lected in the receipt 'or 0 sets o' dinner instead o' the P, . 'or + sets o'

dinner. &he Labor %rbiter (L%)ruled that "ual was illegally dis#issed and ordered 'or"uals reinstate#ent but the !LR reversed L%s decision on the ground that "uals acto' depriving Maribago o' its law'ul revenue is tanta#ount to 'raud against the co#pany

which warrants dis#issal 'ro# the service. 4alsi'ication o' co##ercial docu#ents as a#eans to #alverse co#pany 'unds constitutes 'raud against the co#pany. 5owever,the ourt o' %ppeals reversed the decision o' the !LR.

ISSUE

67! "uals alleged action constitutes serious #isconduct to warrant hisdis#issal.

HELD

8es, it does. "uals acts constitute serious #isconduct which is a 9ust cause 'orter#ination under the law(Labor ode, %rt. +:+;a


2/83


3/83

of the employee!s duties2 and 4c5 must show that the employee has $ecome unfit to continueworking for the employer.

"n other words, in order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissalof an employee under paragraph 4a5 of rticle 676 of the *a$or ode, it is not sufficient that theact or conduct complained of has violated some esta$lished rules or policies. "t is e)ually

important and re)uired that the act or conduct must have $een performed with wrongful intent. "nthe instant case, petitioners-employees of Promm-Gem may have committed an error of3udgment in claiming to $e employees of P&G, $ut it cannot $e said that they were motivated $yany wrongful intent in doing so. s such, we find them guilty of only simple misconduct forassailing the integrity of Promm-Gem as a legitimate and independent promotion firm. misconduct which is not serious or grave, as that e8isting in the instant case, cannot $e a valid$asis for dismissing an employee.

1eanwhile, loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal, must $e $ased on thewillful $reach of the trust reposed in the employee $y his employer. /rdinary $reach will notsuffice. $reach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without3ustifia$le e8cuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or

inadvertently.*oss of trust and confidence, as a cause for termination of employment, is premised onthe fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsi$ility or of trust and confidence.s such, he must $e invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as custody, handling orcare and protection of the property and assets of the employer. nd, in order to constitute a 3ustcause for dismissal, the act complained of must $e work-related and must show that theemployee is unfit to continue to work for the employer. "n the instant case, the petitioners-employees of Promm-Gem have not $een shown to $e occupying positions of responsi$ility or oftrust and confidence. +either is there any evidence to show that they are unfit to continue towork as merchandisers for Promm-Gem.

ll told, we find no valid cause for the dismissal of petitioners-employees of Promm-Gem. 9ence, the dismissal is illegal.

ith regard to the petitioners placed with P&G $y SPS, they were given no writtennotice of dismissal. (he records show that upon receipt $y SPS of P&G!s letter terminatingtheir 1erchandising Services ontact effective 1arch %%, %;, they in turn ver$ally informedthe concerned petitioners not to report for work anymore.


4/83

oca ola vs. Aacayan

Petitioner co#pany gives #eal and transportation e2penses as rei#burse#ent 'ore2penses incurred while rendering overti#e wor1 worth P>(#a2i#u# allowed).

tRespondent Aacayan, then a ?enior 4inancial %ccountant, was #ade to e2plain thealleged alterations in three (/) receipts which she sub#itted to support her clai# 'orrei#burse#ent o' #eal e2penses, to wit ) Mc"onalds Receipt !o. :>=*/ dated7ctober , **= 'or P.C +) ?ha1eys Pi@@a Parlor Receipt !o. ++0>: dated!ove#ber +, **= 'or P=.0C and /) ?ha1eys Pi@@a Parlor Receipt !o. =+= dateduly *, **= 'or P/.>.

Petitioner co#pany sent respondent Aacayan several #e#oranda re3uiring herto e2plain why her clai#s 'or rei#burse#ent should not be considered 'raudulent sincethere were alterations, i.e., the dates o' issuance o' the receipts and the 'ood ite#spurchased as enu#erated thereon, in the receipts she sub#itted. Aacayan denied the

alterations. Petitioner co#pany then conducted a hearing and 'or#al investigation togive respondent Aacayan an opportunity to e2plain the issues against her and topresent her side. %'ter attending the 'irst scheduled hearing and participating thereat,respondent Aacayan did not attend the succeeding hearings. In a letter dated %pril =,**>, petitioner co#pany dis#issed respondent Aacayan 'or 'raudulently sub#ittingta#pered and$or altered receipts in support o' her petty cash rei#burse#ents in grossviolation o' the co#panys rules and regulations. Petitioner co#pany now begs us toreconsider this pronounce#ent, arguing that respondent Aacayans position as aD?enior 4inancial %ccountant with the ob "escription o' a 4inancial Pro9ect %nalystEhas duties which clearly 3uali'y her as one occupying a position o' trust andresponsibility

!LR dis#issed the co#plaint 'iled by Aacayan% reversed with order o' reinstate#ent

Issue 67! DL7?? 74 &RF?& %!" 7!4I"G!G,E %? % F?& %F?G 47R&GRMI!%&I7! (65I5 I? !7& RG?&RI&G" &7 M%!%AGRI%LGMPL78GG?) %! BG %PPLI" &7 D?FPGRHI?7R? 7R 7&5GR PGR?7!!GL7FP8I!A P7?I&I7!? 74 RG?P7!?IBILI&8.E

5eld4rist decision o' ? dated "ece#ber >, +- dis#issal has no basis?econd decision (an MR was 'iled by petition)- 8G?. In the instant case, respondentAacayan was the ?enior 4inancial %ccountant o' petitioner co#pany. &he recordsreveal that she indeed handled delicate and con'idential #atters in the 'inancialanalyses and evaluations o' the action plans and strategies o' petitionerco#pany. Respondent Aacayan was also privy to the strategic and operationaldecision-#a1ing o' petitioner co#pany, a sensitive and delicate position re3uiring the


5/83

latters ut#ost trust and con'idence. %s such, she should be considered as holding aposition o' responsibility or o' trust and con'idence. Aacayan betrayed the trust andcon'idence reposed on her when she, ironically a ?enior 4inancial %ccountant tas1ed

with ensuring 'inancial reportorial$regulatory co#pliance 'ro# others, repeatedlysub#itted ta#pered or altered receipts to support her clai# 'or #eal rei#burse#ents, in

gross violation o' the rules and regulations o' petitioner co#pany. Fpon review, eventhe ourt o' %ppeals did not absolve respondent Aacayan o' wrongdoing but rather#erely held that dis#issal was too harsh a penalty 'or her in'raction.

we held that the language o' %rticle +:+(c) o' the Labor ode states that the losso' trust and con'idence #ust be based on will'ul breach o' the trust reposed in thee#ployee by the e#ployer. 7rdinary breach will not su''iceC it #ust be will'ul. ?uchbreach is will'ul i' it is done intentionally, 1nowingly, and purposely, without 9usti'iablee2cuse as distinguished 'ro# an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly orinadvertently.%nd in the case o' supervisors or personnel occupying positions o'responsibility, li1e respondent Aacayan, the loss o' trust and con'idence #ust spring

'ro# the voluntary or will'ul act o' the e#ployee, or by reason o' so#e bla#eworthy actor o#ission on the part o' the e#ployee.#$%&o'($') G*+*y*' +*''o) -%)*$'ly /-l$ * +l*- /o# o$#)-$ $*l *llo*'+$#$-u#%$$') /o# * (*y %3$ '$ %3$ *% 'o) $')-)l$( )o, *% %3$ (-( 'o) *+)u*lly#$'($# o$#)-$ o#. %lthough the a#ounts involved in the sub9ect receipts wererelatively s#all, or only the dates and$or ite#s ordered were altered or ta#pered with,respondent Aacayans act o' sub#itting 'raudulent ite#s o' e2pense adversely re'lectedon her integrity and honesty, which is a#ple basis 'or petitioner co#pany to lose its trustand con'idence in her.

G.R. +o. %>;;?, Septem$er %@, 6?%?

$ALVADOR E#ANO *. LIBER!+ !OLEDO

Abad, J.:

FACTS:*i$erty (oledo filed charges of grave misconduct and conduct pre3udicial to the service againstReyes, Pere', Achano, and a certain Bohn #oe with the /ffice of the /m$udsman for allowing anunauthori'ed person, *i'a Pere', a stenographer in the office of the lerk of ourt of the R( of 1anila,to deposit to her savings account second endorsed checks paya$le to the /ffice of the ity (reasurer of1anila. Achano added that he was unaware, prior to the filing of the complaint, that Pere' had $een a$leto deposit in her accounts second-endorsed checks that were paya$le to the ity (reasurer of 1anila. 9eclaimed that he might have inadvertently missed out the payee!s name on the check when he e8amined itprior to signing the stamp of approval on the dorsal side.


6/83

/n Septem$er ;?, 6??6 the /ffice of the /m$udsman found Reyes and Achano guilty of gravemisconduct and dishonesty and meted out to them the penalty of dismissal from the service withforfeiture of leave credits and perpetual dis)ualification from employment in the government and in

government-owned and controlled corporations.

ISSUE:hether or not the /ffice of the /m$udsman erred in imposing on him the penalty of dismissalfrom the service with forfeiture of leave credits and perpetual dis)ualification from employment in thegovernment service.

RULING:


7/83

lady guard on duty inspected 5elens bag, she 'ound the pac1ing tape inside her bag. &heguard con'iscated it and sub#itted an incident report. &he 'ollowing day, respondent co#panyissued a show cause notice to 5elen accusing her o' violating 4.+ o' the co#panys ode o'onduct, which says, J%ny act constituting the't or robbery, or any atte#pt to co##it the't orrobbery, o' any co#pany property or other associates propertyE. ?aid act carries apenalty o'dis#issal. Paul upon, 5elens supervisor, called her to his o''ice and directed her to e2plain in

writing why no disciplinary action should be ta1en against her.5elen, in her e2planation,ad#ittedthe o''ense and even #ani'ested that she would accept whatever penalty would be i#posedupon her. ?ubse3uently, 5elen received a noticein'or#ing her that eihin has decided toter#inate her services. &hus, petitioners 'iled a co#plaintagainst respondent 'or illegaldis#issal.

ISSUES"

. 67! the % erred in dis#issing petitioners petition outright 'or not having been 'iled byan indispensable party. 8G?.

+. 67! 5elen was #otivated by #alicious intent in ta1ing the pac1ing tape. 8G?.

/. 67! the penalty o' dis#issal is too harsh and disproportionate to the o''ense co##ittedby 5elen since the value o' the thing ta1en is very #ini#al. !7.

=. 67! the re3uire#ent o' procedural due process was not observed by the respondentbecause the 'irst notice 'ailed to e2plain the charge being leveled against 5elen. !7.

HELD"

. Petitioners 'ailed to include the na#e o' the dis#issed e#ployee 5elen Halen@uela in thecaption o' their petition 'or certiorarias well as in the body o' the said petition. Instead, they onlyindicated the na#e o' the labor union !ag1a1aisangLa1asngManggagawasa eihin (!LM-

7L%LI%) as the party acting on behal' o' 5elen.%s a result, the % rightly dis#issed the petitionbased on a 'or#al de'ect.Fnder ?ection , Rule / o' the Rules o' ourt, Jparties in interestwithout who# no 'inal deter#ination can be had o' an action shall be 9oined as plainti''s orde'endants.J I' there is a 'ailure to i#plead an indispensable party, any 9udg#ent rendered

would have no e''ectiveness. It is Jprecisely Kwhen an indispensable party is not be'ore the courtthat an action should be dis#issed. &he absence o' an indispensable party renders allsubse3uent actions o' the court null and void 'or want o' authority to act, not only as to theabsent parties but even to those present.

+. Misconduct is de'ined as Jthe transgression o' so#e established and de'inite rule o' action, a'orbidden act, a dereliction o' duty, will'ul in character, and i#plies wrong'ul intent and not #ereerror in 9udg#ent.J4or serious #isconduct to 9usti'y dis#issal under the law, J(a) it #ust be

serious, (b) #ust relate to the per'or#ance o' the e#ployees dutiesC and (c) #ust show that thee#ployee has beco#e un'it to continue wor1ing 'or the e#ployer.JIn the case at bar, 5elen too1the pac1ing tape with the thought that she could use it 'or her own personal purposes. In other

words, by her own ad#ission, there was intent on her part to bene'it hersel' when sheatte#pted to bring ho#e the pac1ing tape in 3uestion.It is noteworthy that prior to this incident,there had been several cases o' the't and vandalis# involving both respondent co#panysproperty and personal belongings o' other e#ployees. In order to address this issue o' losses,respondent co#pany issued two #e#oranda i#ple#enting an intensive inspection procedureand re#inding all e#ployees that those who will be caught stealing and per'or#ing acts o'


8/83

vandalis# will be dealt with in accordance with the co#panys ode o' onduct. "espite thesere#inders, 5elen too1 the pac1ing tape and was caught during the routine inspection. %ll thesecircu#stances point to the conclusion that it was not 9ust an error o' 9udg#ent on the part o'5elen, but a deliberate act o' the't o' co#pany property.%lthough as a rule this ourt leans overbac1wards to help wor1ers and e#ployees continue with their e#ploy#ent or to #itigate thepenalties i#posed on the#, acts o' dishonesty in the handling o' co#pany property are a

di''erent #atter (4irestone &ire and Rubber o#pany o' the Philippines v. Lariosa).

/. Fnder 9urisprudence, the case o' Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. NLRC, were'rained 'ro# i#posing the supre#e penalty o' dis#issal to an e#ployee who too1 a bottle o'lighter 'luid because the value o' said 'luid very #ini#al co#pared to his salary. 5owever, thecase at hand is very di''erent 'ro# the case o' alte2. %lthough the e#ployee there and 5elenhad no prior violations, the 'or#er had a clean record o' eight years with his e#ployer. 7n theother hand, 5elen was not even on her second year o' service with eihin when the incident o'the't occurred. %lso, in this case, the respondent co#pany was dealing with several cases o'the't, vandalis#, and loss o' co#pany and e#ployees property when the incident involving5elen transpired.

=. In the dis#issal o' e#ployees, the twin re3uire#ents o' notice and hearing are essentialele#ents o' due process. &he e#ployer #ust 'urnish the e#ployee with two written noticesbe'ore ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent can be legally e''ected (a) a notice apprising the e#ployee o'the particular acts or o#issions 'or which his dis#issal is sought, and (b) a subse3uent noticein'or#ing the e#ployee o' the e#ployers decision to dis#iss hi#.J=lavvphi1In this case,respondent co#pany 'urnished 5elen a show-cause notice accusing her o' violating 4.+ o' theco#panys ode o' onduct which says, J%ny act constituting the't or robbery, or any atte#pt toco##it the't or robbery, o' any co#pany property or other associates property.J ?uch noticesu''iciently in'or#ed 5elen o' the charge o' the't o' co#pany property against her. ?he

wasproperly apprised by the e#ployer o' the particular acts or o#issions 'or which dis#issal issought.6ith regard to the re3uire#ent o' a hearing, the essence o' due process lies in anopportunity to be heard. ?uch opportunity was a''orded the petitioner when she was as1ed to

e2plain her side o' the story. &he essence o' due process lies si#ply in an opportunity to beheard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held. Gven i' nohearing or con'erence was conducted, the re3uire#ent o' due process had been #et since he

was accorded a chance to e2plain his side o' the controversy.

&he petition is DENIED.

G44RG8 !%%AFG vs. ?FLPII7 LI!G?, I!. G.R. No. 14258

4%&?

Sulpicio *ines, "nc. 4Sulpicio *ines5 hired +acague as hepe de via3e or the representative ofSulpicio *ines on $oard its vessel 1FC Princess of the orld. Sulpicio *ines received ananonymous letter reporting the use of illegal drugs on $oard the ship. /n % =e$ruary 6??;,easar (. hico, a housekeeper on the ship, su$mitted a report regarding the drug paraphernaliafound inside the 1opalla Suite Room and the threat on his life made $y +acague and hief 1ateReynaldo #oroon after he found the drug paraphernalia, Sulpicio *ines sent a notice ofinvestigation to +acague informing him of the charges against him for use of illegal drugs andthreatening a co-employee.hen the ship docked in the port of 1anila on %7 =e$ruary 6??;,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_171115_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_171115_2010.html#fnt41


9/83

some crew mem$ers of the ship, together with +acague, were su$3ected to a random drug testwhich resulted in the Positive. +acague went to hong 9ua 9ospital in e$u ity to undergo avoluntary drug test. (he drug test with hong 9ua 9ospital yielded a negative result. +acaguesu$mitted this test result to Sulpicio *ines. Sulpicio *ines sent a memorandum to +acagueterminating him from the service. =eeling aggrieved, +acague filed a complaint for illegal

suspension, illegal dismissal and for reinstatement with $ackwages. (he *a$or ar$iter ruled infavor of +acague however was overruled $y +*R.

"SS


10/83

%t the ti#e o' the alleged dishonesty, respondent 7landesca held the position o'?upervising Property 7''icer at the %ngat River hydroelectric Plant.

7n several occasions respondent withdrew several ite#s 'ro# thewarehouse$property o''ice, without the re3uired 6R?.

7n three occasions, respondent transported the ite#s during nightti#e.

7n so#e occasions, he even used the petitioners corporate vehicle to transportthe #aterials he too1 'ro# the property o''ice. Respondent even used an outsider to

withdraw interlin1 wires 'ro# the warehouse. all ite#s he withdrew 'ro# the property o''ice were duly recorded on the security

logboo1 o' the security guard on duty. 5e used the 'oregoing ite#s to 'ence + develop#ent areas which are part o' the

!P %ngat 6atershed %reas and Reservations. /days a'ter the last withdrawal,respondent replaced all the said ite#s he too1 at his own initiative.

Largo, 'iled a co#plaint against respondent 'or grave #isconduct ru@, HP, ad#inistratively charged respondent with %cts o' "ishonesty RBI" reco##ended that respondent su''er the penalty o' dis#issal

Respondents appeal to the ? was denied Respondent 'iled a petition 'or review with %. % Aranted the petition and

ordered 7landescas reinstate#entISSUE"67! 7landesca co##itted acts o' dishonestyHELD"Petition without #erit.

In P%A7R vs. Rilloro@a, dishonesty is de'ined as the disposition to lie, cheat,deceive, or de'raudC unworthinessC lac1 o' integrityC lac1 o' honesty, probity orintegrity in principleC lac1 o' 'airness and straight'orwardnessC disposition to de'raud,deceive or betray

Respondents acts should not be construed as dishonesty &he withdrawals o' the supplies were duly recorded in the security logboo1 lac1 o' intent to deceive or de'raud the petitioner+ 5e replaced the#, on his own initiative, without anyone instructing hi# todo so lac1 o' intent to de'raud/ !o clear showing that respondent #isappropriated or converted the ite#s'or his own personal use or bene'it= &he o''ice o' the 7#buds#an dis#issed the co#plaint o' Largo againstthe respondent as there was no co#petent and su''icient evidence on record toshow that there was intent to gain.

Respondent however, violated reasonable o''ice rules and regulations by ta1ing

properties without approve 6R?. &he appropriated penalty to be i#posed isrepri#and

Bac1 wages awarded.

S$#-ou% M-%+o'(u+)


11/83

CALTE? 9PHILIPPINES;, INC., ET.AL.


12/83

NLRC reversed LA

ruled that there e8isted 3ust causes which 3ustified gad!s dismissal2 found that amount of crating e8pense reim$ursed $y gad was fictitious $ecause receipt

not conclusive proof that the crating service was performed $y the contractor #elda. 9is

testimony en3oys the presumption of regularity and good faith and was corro$orated $ytwo other witnesses. gad had no authority to withdraw the *PG cylinders from the #epot2 he did not o$serve

e8isting company rules and regulations in procuring the re)uired forms, in the su$missionof periodic *PG cylinders inventory and in selling the *PG cylinders without there)uisite $idding.

COURT OF APPEALS

concurs with the findings of the * as to the first charge H there was no fraud in the

crating e8penses concurs with the +*R in finding that gad did not o$serve company policies in thewithdrawal and sale of %? *PG cylinders $ut said that dismissal is too harsh apunishment for a first infraction of an employee who was awarded for many years ofmeritorious service.

I$$)E

hether the unauthori'ed withdrawal of the *PG cylinders, its sale without $idding and failure

to account for the sale constituted serious misconduct that is a 3ust cause for terminationI

#ELD

(he ourt agrees with the * and the that the charges on fraudulent crating e8penses haveno $asis, the testimonies $eing hearsay and una$le to overcome the $est evidence presented $yrespondent.

9owever, as to the second charge, the ourt said that the memorandum relied upon $y gad for

the withdrawal of the %? pieces of *PG cannot $e given credence since it does not pertain to thesu$3ect *PG cylinders. 9e did not o$serve alte8!s rules and regulations when he transferredthe said cylinders to 1illanes! compound and when he gave instructions for its sale without there)uisite $idding. 9is failure to su$mit the periodic inventory report of the *PG cylinders to theaccounting department, non-remittance of the proceeds of the sale of said *PG is a seriousinfraction amounting to theft of company property. (his act is akin to a serious misconduct orwillful diso$edience $y the employee of the lawful orders of his employer in connection with his


13/83

work, a 3ust cause for termination of employment recogni'ed under rticle 6764a5 of the *a$orode.0

Misconduct N a transgression o' so#e established and de'inite rule o' action, a'orbidden act, a dereliction o' duty, will'ul in character, and i#plies wrong'ul intent and

not #ere error in 9udg#ent. &o be serious, the #isconduct #ust be o' such grave and

aggravated character.

Gven i' %gad did not co##it the alleged charge o' 'ictitious rei#burse#ent o' crating

e2pense, he was 'ound to have acted without authority, a serious in'raction a#ounting

to the't o' co#pany property, in the unauthori@ed withdrawal and sale o' the * pieces

o' LPA cylinders owned by the co#pany. alte2, as the e#ployer, has discharged the

burden o' proo' necessary in ter#inating the services o' %gad, who was ascertained to

have blatantly abused his position and authority. &hus, %gads dis#issal 'ro#

e#ploy#ent based on () acts tanta#ount to serious #isconduct or will'ul violation o'

co#pany rules and regulationsC and (+) will'ul breach o' trust and con'idence as "epot

?uperintendent was law'ul and valid under the circu#stances as #andated by %rticle

+:+ (a) and (c) o' the Labor ode.

G.R. No. 1-6019 March 29, 2010

#I!E DIAMOND !RADING ORPORA!ION a%&/or JERR+ )+ a%& JE$$IE )+, Petitioners, vs.

NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$ OMMI$$ION, NORLI!O E$O!O, MAR+ GRAE PA$!ORIL a%&MARIA M+RNA OMELA,Respondents.

BRION,J.:

(A!$

Petitioner hite #iamond (rading orporation 4the company5 is engaged in $uying and selling second hand motorvehicles2 Berry


14/83

three employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and its two top officers.

(he conflict lies in the precise role Pastoril played in the irregularity that attended the company!s sale of a used

(oyota (own ce on =e$ruary 67, 6??. (he la$or ar$iter found su$stantial evidence showing that Ascoto, /melaand Pastoril were legally dismissed due to fraud committed in connection with the sale. (he +*R and the saw

the case differently, $ut only with respect to Pastoril. (hey found that Pastoril had no participation in thecommission of the fraud $ecause she merely handed the deed of sale to )uino, the $uyer2 in short, she had no

knowledge of the discrepancies in the entries of the purchase price in the original receipt given to )uino, the

duplicate copy of the receipt retained $y the company, and the deed of sale given to )uino.

I$$)E

hether the erred in affirming the +*R decision finding that Pastoril had $een illegally dismissed and

awarding her $ackwages and separation pay

#ELD

Jes. (he records support the la$or ar$iter!s factual and legal conclusions.

e find that the +*R misappreciated the facts and the grossly erred in upholding the la$or tri$unal!s findings.

Pastoril!s involvement in the )uestiona$le transaction was much more than handing over to )uino his copy of the

deed of sale. (he payment of the purchase price, the issuance of the receipt and the handing of the deed of sale to

)uino were not separate isolated acts. (hey occurred in one continuous logical se)uence with the players in closepro8imity with one another.


15/83

#A* S("**/, B.:

=(S:

Petitioner Reno =oods, "nc. 4Reno =oods5 is a manufacturer of canned meat products of whichCicente Khu is the president and is $eing sued in that capacity. Respondent +enita apor4apor5 was an employee of Reno =oods until her dismissal.

"t is a standard operating procedure of petitioner-company to su$3ect all its employees toreasona$le search of their $elongings upon leaving the company premises. (he guard on dutyfound si8 Reno canned goods wrapped in nylon leggings inside apor!s fa$ric clutch $ag. (heonly other contents of the $ag were money $ills and a small plastic medicine container.

Petitioners accorded apor several opportunities to e8plain her side, often with the assistance ofthe union officers of +agkakaisang *akas ng 1anggagawa 4+*15 H Katipunan. "n fact, afterpetitioners sent a +otice of (ermination to apor, she was given yet another opportunity forreconsideration through a la$or-management grievance conference held on +ovem$er %>, %.


16/83

hether the +*R committed grave a$use of discretion amounting to lack or e8cess of3urisdiction in granting financial assistance to an employee who was validly dismissed for theftof company property.

9A*#:

e grant the petition.

onviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find 3ust cause for termination of employment.

apor was ac)uitted in riminal ase +o. 6?>-@7-1+ $ased on reasona$le dou$t. "n his#ecision, the trial 3udge entertained dou$ts regarding the guilt of apor $ecause of twocircumstances: 4%5 an ensuing la$or dispute 4though it omitted to state the parties involved5, and465 the upcoming retirement of apor. (he trial 3udge made room for the possi$ility that thesecircumstances could have motivated petitioners to plant evidence against apor so as to avoidpaying her retirement $enefits. (he trial court did not categorically rule that the acts imputed to

apor did not occur. "t did not find petitioners! version of the event as fa$ricated, $aseless, orunrelia$le. "t merely acknowledged that seeds of dou$t have $een planted in the 3uror!s mindwhich, in a criminal case, is enough to ac)uit an accused $ased on reasona$le dou$t. (hepertinent portion of the trial court!s #ecision reads:

#uring the cross e8amination of the accused, she was confronted with a document that must $erelated to a la$or dispute. 8 8 8 (he ourt noted very clearly from the transcript of stenographicnotes that it must have $een su$mitted to the +*R. (his is indicative of a la$or dispute which,although not claimed directly $y the accused, could $e one of the reasons why she insinuated thatevidence was planted against her in order to deprive her of the su$stantial $enefits she will $ereceiving when she retires from the company. "ncidentally, this document was never included inthe written offer of evidence of the prosecution.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 171189 March 9, 2011

LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., LORENZO Y. SUMULONG III, Petitioners,vs.VIRGINIA E. PACIA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

The Facts


17/83

In 1982, respondent Virginia E. Pacia (Pacia) was hired by LREI. At the time of herdismissal, she was the assistant manager and officer-in-charge of LREIs AccountingDepartment under the Finance Administrative Division.

On October 28, 1998, LREIs acting general manager, petitioner Sumulong, through Ms.Julie Ontal, directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16477 worth P150,000.00 aspartial payment for LREIs outstanding obligation to the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Bank (BPI-FB). Pacia did not immediately comply with the instruction. After tworepeated directives, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737526 in the amount ofP150,000.00. Later, Sumulong again directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No.16478 in the amount of P175,000.00 to settle the balance of LREIs outstandingindebtedness with BPI-FB. Pacia once again was slow in obeying the order. Due to theinsistence of Sumulong, however, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737527 inthe amount of P175,000.00.

To explain her refusal to immediately follow the directive, Pacia reasoned out that thefunds in LREIs account were not sufficient to cover the amounts to be indicated in thechecks.

The next day, October 29, 1998, Sumulong issued a memorandum3 ordering Pacia toexplain in writing why she refused to follow a clear and lawful directive.

On the same day, Pacia replied in writing and explained that her initial refusal toprepare the checks was due to the unavailability of funds to cover the amounts and thatshe only wanted to protect LREI from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law.4

On November 6, 1998, Pacia received a notice of termination5 stating, among others,that she was being dismissed because of her willful disobedience and their loss of trustand confidence in her.

ISSUE:In essence, the main issue to be resolved is whether Pacias dismissal was justifiedunder the circumstances.

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1)the employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is characterized by awrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable,lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had beenengaged to discharge.17

Let it be noted at this point that the Court finds nothing unlawful in the directive ofSumulong to prepare checks in payment of LREIs obligations. The availability or


18/83

unavailability of sufficient funds to cover the check is immaterial in the physicalpreparation of the checks.1avvphi1

Pacias initial reluctance to prepare the checks, however, which was seemingly an act ofdisrespect and defiance, was for honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI

and Sumulong from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law18 was foremost in hermind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an obstinate defiance ofcompany authority. The Court takes into consideration that Pacia, despite her initialreluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she was tasked to do it.

The Court also finds it difficult to subscribe to LREI and Sumulongss contention that thereason for Pacias initial reluctance to prepare the checks was a mere afterthoughtconsidering that "check no. 0000737527 under one of the check vouchers shereluctantly prepared, bounced when it was deposited."19 Pacias apprehension was

justified when the check was dishonored. This clearly affirms her assertion that she wasjust being cautious and circumspect for the companys sake. Thus, her actuation should

not be construed as improper conduct.

In finding for Pacia, the Court is guided by the time-honored principle that if doubt existsbetween the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of

justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The rule in controversies between a laborerand his master distinctly states that doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or inthe interpretation of agreements and writing, should be resolved in the former's favor.20

[G.R. Nos. 163293 & 163297 : December 13, 2010]EQUITA!E "#I AN$ %N' AN# DE R UNIAN$, IN#.(,)"ETITINER,*+. #A+TR A. D"R,)))RE+"NDENT.

DE! #A+TI!!, J.:

A bank manager's abuse of authority in implementing bank policies is an abuse of thetrust reposed in him by his employer which constitutes as a just cause for his termination.

-c/s:

On October 1, 197, respondent was employed by then !"# $ank %!"#$&, now hereinpetitioner $anco e Oro (nibank, #nc.)*#n 199, he was assigned as branch manager of !"#$'s+akati "inema $ranch.

On uly -, 199/, !"#$'s Operations 0ubcenter ead, 2abriel, called the attention of!"#$'s Ayala3+akati Area ead, +allillin, regarding a number of !45 di6idend checks beingsent for clearing by !"#$ +akati "inema $ranch. #t appears that respondent ompor allowed4u 8uentes %8uentes&, a client3depositor of !"#$ +akati "inema $ranch who opened "hecking


19/83

Account on uly 1, 199, to deposit se6eral second3endorsed !45 di6idend checks beginningthe last uarter of 199.

#n a +emo dated October -:, 199/, respondent was directed to e;plain in writing why nodisciplinary action should be taken against him for committing the following serious policy

6iolations the city #ayor approved the

reco##endation and dis#issed "r. Gsta#pa. &he latter #oved 'or reconsideration but this was

denied, pro#pting hi# to appeal to the ivil ?ervice o##ission (?). &he ? denied "r.

Gsta#pas appeal, corrected the deno#ination o' his o''ense to gross neglect o' duty, and

a''ir#ed his dis#issal. &he ? also denied "r. Gsta#pas #otion 'or reconsideration 'or lac1

o' #erit. "r. Gsta#pa appealed to the ourt o' %ppeals (%) by petition 'or review under Rule

=/. &he % a''ir#ed the resolutions o' the ?. &he % also 'ound no #erit in his #otion 'orreconsideration. 5ence, this petition.

Issue 67! Gsta#pa is guilty o' gross neglect o' duty

5eld 8es. G#o%% '$7l$+) o/ (u)y ($'o)$% * /l*7#*') *'( +ul&*l$ #$/u%*l o# u'-ll-'7'$%%

o/ * &$#%o' )o &$#/o# * (u)y. I) 3*% $$' 3$l( )3*) 7#o%% '$7l-7$'+$ $-%)% 3$' *

&ul-+ o//-+-*l% #$*+3 o/ (u)y -% /l*7#*') *'( &*l&*l$.10

"r. Gsta#pa clai#s that the city 'ailed to show that he had an obligation to respond to the

"avao ity bo#bing and that no one advised hi# o' his duties and responsibilities as city health

o''ices oordinator to the "isaster oordinating ouncil. But "r. Gsta#pa cannot clai#

ignorance o' his duties. &he local govern#ent code, the provision o' which he #ay be assu#ed

to 1now, provides that a govern#ent health o''icer has the duty, a#ong others, to be in the

'rontline o' the delivery o' health services, particularly during and in the a'ter#ath o' #an-#ade

and natural disasters and cala#ities.;< 4urther#ore, as Medical 7''icer HI, one o' his

speci'ied duties was Dto act as head o' a tas1 'orce unit 'or any untoward events in his area o'

responsibility.E It was precisely because o' his position as Medical 7''icer HI that he had been

designated "isaster oordinator 'or his o''ice.


26/83


27/83

Bn 4> March 9113, respondent *iled a co"plaint *or illeal dis"issal +ith the la-or ar-iter pra!in *or pa!"ent o*

separation pa!, -ack+aes and attorne!s *ees.

7


28/83

!*+)%"

In **0, respondents uliet %lcoseba (uliet) and 4lordelinda %rao-arao(4lordelinda) were e#ployed as sales attendants o' herein petitioner FL%? Ideas reations (FL%?), a gi't bouti3ue. %s part o' their duties and

responsibilities, uliet and 4lordelinda were tas1ed to sell FL%?s products,prepare wee1ly sales reports and assist the cler1 in the #onthly inventory o'saleable goods.

In 4ebruary +, the "epart#ent o' Labor and G#ploy#ent ("7LG) inspected theoutlet o' FL%? in %yala enter in ebu where uliet and 4lordelinda wereassigned and 'ound that it violated several labor standards laws. &he "7LG latersent FL%? a !otice o' ?u##ary Investigation, directing it to pay the salarydi''erential o' its e#ployees 'ro# anuary to %ugust + a#ounting toP/,/.+:.

FL%? subse3uently directed uliet and 4lordelinda, by Me#orandu# o' !ove#ber+/, +, to e2plain and$or investigate an alleged inventory discrepancy whichentailed the a#ount o' P=:,*./. %nd therea'ter suspended uliet and4lordelinda 'or seven days, by Me#orandu# o' !ove#ber +*, +, starting"ece#ber , + 'or gross negligence o' duties and responsibilities.

Both uliet and 4lordelinda thus 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal suspension andwithholding o' salaries be'ore the !ational Labor Relations o##ission (!LR).4inding 'or petitioners, Labor %rbiter Hioleta 7rti@-Bantug, ruled that there

was no illegal dis#issal. 7n appeal, the !LR, li1ewise held that there was noillegal dis#issal. 7n herein respondents #otion 'or reconsideration, the !LRJpartially reconsidered.J

Petitioners and respondents both #oved 'or reconsideration o' the !LR?epte#ber /, += Resolution. By Resolution o' March :, +>, the !LR deniedrespondents second #otion 'or reconsideration 'or being a prohibited pleadingbut granted petitioners #otion 'or reconsideration. It accordingly reinstatedits %pril *, += "ecision which, it bears recalling, held that there was noillegal dis#issal and set aside Jthe #onetary award 'or lac1 o' 9urisdiction.JRespondents, via certiorari, elevated the case to the ourt o' %ppeals which, by"ecision o' March +, +, reversed and set aside the !LR. 5ence thispetition.

I%%u$"6hether or not the respondents were validly dis#issed.

H$l("!7. %rticle +:+ (b) and (c) o' the Labor ode provide that an e#ployer #ayter#inate an e#ployee 'or Jgross and habitual neglect by the e#ployee o' hisdutiesJ and 'or J'raud.J In both instances, substantial evidence is necessary


29/83

'or an e#ployer to e''ectuate any dis#issal. Fncorroborated assertions andaccusations by the e#ployer do not su''ice, otherwise the constitutionalguaranty o' security o' tenure o' the e#ployee would be 9eopardi@ed.

%rticle +:+ (b) i#poses a stringent condition be'ore an e#ployer #ay ter#inate

an e#ploy#ent due to gross and habitual neglect by the e#ployee o' his duties.&o sustain a ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent based on this provision o' law, thenegligence #ust not only be gross but also habitual.

Petitioners assert that respondents 'ailed to regularly underta1e a #onthlyphysical inventory o' the outlets #erchandise. &he assertion 'ails to persuade.4or the #ost part, inventory preparation and reporting did not 'all onrespondents shoulders since they were to Jassist the ;stoc1< cler1J only.

In cases o' ter#ination o' e#ployees based on 9ust causes, the law #andates the'ollowing re3uisites

(i) % written notice served on the e#ployee speci'ying the ground or grounds'or ter#ination, and giving said e#ployee reasonable opportunity within whichto e2plain his side.

(ii) % hearing or con'erence during which the e#ployee concerned, with theassistance o' counsel i' he so desires, is given opportunity to respond to thecharge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against hi#.

(iii) % written notice o' ter#ination served on the e#ployee, indicating thatupon due consideration o' all the circu#stances, grounds have been establishedto 9usti'y his ter#ination. (e#phasis supplied)

&hus a 'irst notice in'or#ing and bearing on the charge #ust be sent to thee#ployee. Ma3uiling v. Philippine &uberculosis ?ociety, Inc., e#phasi@es thatthe 'irst notice #ust in'or# outright the e#ployee that an investigation will beconducted on the charges speci'ied in such notice which, i' proven, will resultin the e#ployees dis#issal.

&his notice will a''ord the e#ployee an opportunity to avail all de'enses ande2haust all re#edies to re'ute the allegations hurled against hi# 'or what isat sta1e is his very li'e and li#b his e#ploy#ent. 7therwise, the e#ployee #ay

9ust disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous conse3uence to beanticipated. %bsent such state#ent, the 'irst notice 'alls short o' there3uire#ent o' due process...222

In the present case, the only ti#e petitioners apprised respondents o' grossneglect o' duties and dishonesty as grounds 'or the ter#ination o' the services

was by Me#orandu# o' "ece#ber /, +.&he #e#orandu# did not in'or# outright respondents that an investigation would


30/83

be conducted on the charges particulari@ed therein which, i' proven, wouldresult to their dis#issal. It li1ewise did not contain a plain state#ent o' theparticular charges o' #al'easance or #is'easance.

G.R. No%. 16>2> F 16>24 D$+$$# 8, 2010

EUITABLE PCI BAN 9No BANCO DE ORO UNIBAN, INC.;, P$)-)-o'$#,%.CASTOR A. DOMPOR, R$%&o'($').

DEL CASTILLO, J."

!ACTS" Respondent astor %. "o#por, branch #anager o' petitioner G3uitable PIBan1s (now Banco "e 7ro Fniban1, Inc.) Ma1ati ine#a Branch was dis#issed 'ro#e#ploy#ent by petitioner on the grounds o' serious policy violations, will'ul breach o'trust, and loss o' con'idence, with 'urther sanction o' 'or'eiture o' bene'its andcontingent restitution o' the total a#ount o' P0,+,>0.0 including costs. It was 'oundout in an audit report that 0,=: PL"& second-endorsed dividend chec1s, covered by//+ deposit slips, and with a total a#ount o' P0./ #illion, were drawn on Ri@alo##ercial Ban1ing orporation-Ma1ati and #ade payable to di''erent payeecorporations and pro#inent personalities. &hese chec1s were therea'ter 'raudulentlynegotiated in 'avor o' Lu@ 4uentes, a client-depositor o' PIB Ma1ati ine#a Branch

who is allowed by respondent to open chec1ing account no. 0+-==:- to depositseveral second-endorsed PL"& dividend chec1s. %n investigating co##ittee dis#issedhi# due to the lac1 o' #erit o' his e2planation with regards to the 'ollowing seriouspolicy violations

) 4ailure to co#ply with PIB %ccounting Procedure Manual (%PM) !o.

+0B.>%.b which states that chec1s payable to corporations, societies, 'ir#s, etc.'or credit to a personal account and$or chec1s with unusual endorse#ent shouldnot be acceptedC+) %llowing$approving the acceptance o' second-endorsed chec1s despite %yala-Ma1ati %rea #anage#ents instruction to stop accepting this type o' deposits onune +, **0C and/) 4ailure to co#ply with redit Policy ?upervision (P?) !o. 0 which prohibitsthe purchase o' second-endorsed PL"& chec1s totalingP>0,=/>.+0 in theabsence o' approved credit line on 7ctober +>, **>.

&herea'ter, he 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal be'ore the Regional %rbitrationBranch o' the !LR, averring that his dis#issal was without 9ust cause as the allegedloss o' trust and con'idence is not substantial. &he Labor %rbiter rendered a "ecision'inding respondents dis#issal valid. &he !LR a''ir#ed the decision o' the Labor%rbiter. 5owever, the ourt o' %ppeals, on petition 'or certiorari, ruled in 'avor o' therespondent. 5ence, the petitioner 'iled this Motion or Reconsideration.

ISSUE" 6hether or not respondent co##itted will'ul disobedience and will'ul breach o'trust su''icient as 9ust causes 'or his dis#issal.


31/83

HELD" 8es. &o 9usti'y will'ul breach o' trust, it re3uires that Dthe loss o' con'idence #ustnot be si#ulatedC it should not be used as a subter'uge 'or causes which are illegal,i#proper or un9usti'iedC it #ay not be arbitrarily asserted in the 'ace o' overwhel#ingevidence to the contraryC it #ust be genuine, not a #ere a'terthought to 9usti'y earlieraction ta1en in bad 'aithC and, the e#ployee involved holds a position o' trust and

con'idence.E6hile petitioners #anual o' procedures does not absolutely prohibit thenegotiation or acceptance o' second-endorsed chec1s 'or deposits, it does e2presslydisallow the acceptance o' chec1s endorsed by corporations, societies, 'ir#s, etc. andchec1s with unusual endorse#ents. %s shown by the records, this e2plicit policy wastransgressed by respondent intentionally and will'ully.

Respondent, as ban1 #anager, has the duty to ensure that ban1 rules are strictlyco#plied with not only to ensure e''icient ban1 operation which is i#bued with publicinterest but also to serve the best interest o' the ban1 as he holds a position o' trust andcon'idence. %s e#phasi@ed by petitioner, respondent was in charge o' the overallad#inistration o' the branch and is tas1ed to ensure that all policies and procedures are

strictly 'ollowed. I'(u-)*ly, *'y '$7l-7$'+$ -' )3$ $$#+-%$ o/ 3-% #$%&o'%--l-)-$%+*' $ %u//-+-$') 7#ou'( /o# lo%% o/ )#u%) *'( +o'/-($'+$ ($*'($( y 3-%&o%-)-o'. %s held in Gtcuban, r. v. ?ulpicio Lines, Inc., Dthe #ere e2istence o' a basis'or believing that ;a #anagerial< e#ployee has breached the trust o' his e#ployer wouldsu''ice 'or his dis#issal 2 2 2. ;P0 Au7u%) 8, 2010

CENTUR CANNING CORPORATION, RICARDO T. PO, JR. *'( AMANCIO C.

RONUILLO,Petitioners,

vs.


32/83

7n March /, ***, respondent prepared a %PGQ 'or# 'or e2ternal 'a2 #ode#s and ter#inal

server, per order o' &echnical 7perations Manager and endorsed it to the ?ecretary o'

G2ecutive Hice-President Ricardo &. Po, 'or the latters signature. &he 'ollowing day, March =,

***, respondent trans#itted it to Purchasing 7''icer Lorena Pa@ in &aguig Main 7''ice. Pa@

processed the paper and 'ound that so#e details in the %PGQ 'or# were le't blan1. ?he also

doubted the genuineness o' the signature o' Po, as appearing in the 'or#. Pa@ then trans#ittedthe %PGQ 'or# to Purchasing Manager Hirgie Aarcia and in'or#ed her o' the 3uestionable

signature o' Po.

?uspecting hi# to have co##itted 'orgery, respondent was as1ed to e2plain in writing the

events surrounding the incident. 5e vehe#ently denied any participation in the alleged 'orgery.

Respondent was, therea'ter, suspended on %pril +, ***. ?ubse3uently, he received a !otice

o' &er#ination 'ro# %r#ando . Ron3uillo, on May +, ***, 'or loss o' trust and con'idence.

"ue to the 'oregoing, respondent, on May +=, ***, 'iled a o#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal, non-

pay#ent o' overti#e pay, separation pay, #oral and e2e#plary da#ages and attorneys 'eesagainst petitioner and its o''icers.

L% rendered a "ecision dated "ece#ber 0, *** dis#issing the co#plaint 'or lac1 o' #erit. &he

!LR declared respondents dis#issal to be illegal and directed petitioner to reinstate

respondent with 'ull bac1wages and seniority rights and privileges. Petitioner 'iled a #otion 'or

reconsideration. &he !LR reversed itsel' and rendered a new "ecision upholding dis#issal o'

his co#plaint. % rendered 9udg#ent in 'avor o' respondent and ordered petitioner to reinstate

respondent, without loss o' seniority rights and privileges, and to pay respondent 'ull bac1wages

'ro# the ti#e his e#ploy#ent was ter#inated on May +, *** up to the ti#e o' the 'inality o' its

decision.

I%%u$ 6hether or not respondents dis#issal due to loss o' trust and con'idence is illegal.

H$l( &he law #andates that the burden o' proving the validity o' the ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent

rests with the e#ployer. 4ailure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily #ean

that the dis#issal was not 9usti'ied and, there'ore, illegal. Fnsubstantiated suspicions,

accusations, and conclusions o' e#ployers do not provide 'or legal 9usti'ication 'or dis#issing

e#ployees. In case o' doubt, such cases should be resolved in 'avor o' labor, pursuant to the

social 9ustice policy o' labor laws and the onstitution. Petitioner based respondents dis#issalon its unsubstantiated suspicions and conclusion that since respondent was the custodian and

the one who prepared the %PGQ 'or#s, he had the #otive to co##it the 'orgery. 5owever, as

correctly 'ound by the !LR in its original "ecision, respondent would not be bene'ited by the

purchase o' the sub9ect e3uip#ent.


33/83

G#ployers are allowed a wider latitude o' discretion in ter#inating the services o' e#ployees

who per'or# 'unctions which by their nature re3uire the e#ployers 'ull trust and con'idence and

the #ere e2istence o' basis 'or believing that the e#ployee has breached the trust o' the

e#ployer is su''icient, this does not #ean that the said basis #ay be arbitrary and un'ounded.

&he right o' an e#ployer to dis#iss an e#ployee on the ground that it has lost its trust and

con'idence in hi# #ust not be e2ercised arbitrarily and without 9ust cause. Loss o' trust andcon'idence, to be a valid cause 'or dis#issal, #ust be based on a will'ul breach o' trust and

'ounded on clearly established 'acts. &he basis 'or the dis#issal #ust be clearly and

convincingly established. It #ust rest on substantial grounds and not on the e#ployers

arbitrariness, whi#, caprice or suspicionC otherwise, the e#ployee would eternally re#ain at the

#ercy o' the e#ployer. In the case at bar, there is neither direct evidence nor substantial

docu#entary evidence pointing to respondent as the one liable 'or the 'orgery o' the signature

o' Po.

&he ourt 'inds that it would be best to award separation pay instead o' reinstate#ent, in viewo' the strained relations between petitioner and respondent. Respondent was dis#issed due to

loss o' trust and con'idence and it would be i#practical to reinstate an e#ployee who# the

e#ployer does not trust, and whose tas1 is to handle and prepare delicate docu#ents.

&he "ecision and Resolution o' the ourt o' %ppeals are %44IRMG" with M7"I4I%&I7!. &he

order o' reinstate#ent is deleted, and in lieu thereo', Petitioner is "IRG&G" to pay respondent

separation pay. &he case is RGM%!"G" to the Labor %rbiter 'or the purpose o' co#puting

respondents 'ull bac1wages, inclusive o' allowances and other bene'its co#puted 'ro# the

date o' his dis#issal on May +, *** up to the 'inality o' the decision, and separation pay in

lieu o' reinstate#ent e3uivalent to one #onth salary 'or every year o' service, co#puted 'ro#

the ti#e o' his engage#ent by petitioner on %ugust **/ up to the 'inality o' this decision.

22. A'7 % PNB

A.R. !o. :0+ une 0, +

LFHIMI!"% %. %!A, Petitioner,

vs.

P5ILIPPI!G !%&I7!%L B%!, Respondent.

4acts


34/83

&his case is about the dis#issal o' an e#ployee 'or o''enses co##itted during her e#ploy#ent

in a govern#ent-owned corporation but which o''enses were discovered a'ter the privati@ed

corporation rehired her to wor1 'or it. Peitioner %ng clai#ed that respondent P!B, then a

govern#ent-owned corporation, hired her as a probationary cler1. But she rose 'ro# the ran1s,

eventually beco#ing an %ssistant "epart#ent Manager, a position she held when the P!B was

privati@ed and when she, li1e her co-e#ployees, was dee#ed auto#atically retired. P!Bad#inistratively charged her with serious #isconduct and will'ul breach o' trust 'or ta1ing part in

a sca#, called J1iting operation,J where a depositor used a conduit ban1 account 'or depositing

several un'unded chec1s drawn against the sa#e depositors other current accounts and 'ro#

which conduit ban1 account he later withdrew those chec1s. P!B heaped other charges against

%ng o' serious #isconduct and gross violation o' the ban1s rules and regulations wherein she

issued si2 certi'icates o' deposit in a#ounts e2ceeding the true deposit balance o' various

depositors, issued two ban1 co##it#ents 'or providing a credit line in 'avor o' a govern#ent

contractor without authority, co##itted tardiness and Junder ti#e.E In the answer to the charge

%ng clai#ed that it was not a J1iting operation,J but an acco##odation o' a very valued client

and the issuance o' the certi'icates had been a #ar1eting strategy and prevent their valued

clients to #ove to other ban1s. %ng also

clai#ed that she was not covered by the circular governing o''ice hours because she was a

ban1 o''icer. Managerial e#ployees, according to her, wor1ed beyond the usual eight hours and

even wor1ed on ?aturdays and ?undays. ?he added that, since the ban1 had already #ade

deductions 'or tardiness on her pay chec1, she cannot any#ore be ad#inistratively charged 'or

it. %ng 'urther pointed out that the causes 'or her ter#ination too1 place when she was yet a

govern#ent o''icial. &he P!B had since ceased to be govern#ent-owned. I' she were to be

charged 'or those causes, the 9urisdiction over her case would lie with the ivil ?ervice

o##ission. Gven then, since she already retired 'ro# the govern#ent service, the

e#ploy#ent that could be ter#inated no longer e2isted. %ng 'iled co#plaint against illegal

dis#issal, illegal deductions, non-pay#ent o' /th #onth pay, allowances, separation pay, and

retire#ent bene'its with prayer 'or pay#ent o' #oral and e2e#plary da#ages, attorneys 'ees,

and litigation e2penses. &he Labor %rbiter 'ound P!Bs dis#issal o' %ng illegal 'or 'ailure to

show that the dis#issal was 'or a valid cause and a'ter notice and hearing. ?peci'ically, the P!B

'ailed to prove any basis 'or loss o' trust. &he !LR deleted the award o' da#ages because o'

absence o' bad 'aith on the part o' the P!B o''icers but #aintained the L%s 'inding that the

P!B had not proved loss o' trust as a ground 'or dis#issal. &he ourt o' %ppeals 'ound a valid

reason to uphold %ngs dis#issal 'ro# the service 'or will'ul breach o' the trust reposed in her by

the P!B.

Issue 6hether or not there was will'ul breach o' trust and con'idence.

5eld


35/83

$%.%ng clai#s that her dis#issal by P!B, the private corporation, was illegal since she

had co##itted no o''ense under its e#ploy. &he o''ense 'or which she was re#oved too1 place

when the govern#ent still owned P!B and she was then a govern#ent e#ployee. But while

P!B began as a govern#ent corporation, it did not #ean that its corporate being ceased and

was subse3uently reestablished when it was privati@ed. It re#ained the sa#e corporate entity

be'ore, during, and a'ter the change over with no brea1 in its li'e as a corporation.

onse3uently, the o''enses that %ng co##itted against the ban1 be'ore its privati@ation

continued to be o''enses against the ban1 a'ter the privati@ation. But, since the P!B was

already a private corporation when it loo1ed into %ngs o''enses, the provisions o' the Labor

ode governed its disciplinary action. &he P!B right'ully separated her 'ro# wor1 'or will'ul

breach o' the trust that it reposed in her under the Labor ode. 5er de'ense that the P!B did

not su''er any loss is o' no #o#ent. &he 'ocal point is that she betrayed the trust o' the ban1 in

her 'idelity to its interest and rules.

ANABEL BENJAMIN a%& RENA!O ON$OLAION *. AMELLAR ORPORA!IONG.R. No. 1-88-8 Ar:l 5, 2010

ARPIO MORALE$, J.

(A!$

mellar orporation 4mellar5 provides information technology services to localgovernment units including computeri'ing their system and operations. mellar hired na$elEen3amin 4na$el5 as the Pro3ect #ata ontroller of its ontent Euild


36/83

(andoc later sent also na$el a memorandum of 1ay D, 6??; apprising her of her actsor omissions tantamount to willful $reach of trust, among others, for which her dismissal wassought. /n 1ay %, 6??;, (andoc issued onsolacion a memorandum informing him of hisdismissal for willful $reach of trust reposed in him. (he following day, (andoc issued na$el a

+otice on #ecision to #ismiss. mellar underscores that na$el falsely reported the completionof work in the "mus pro3ect2 that she failed to follow ordinary procedures and instructions, tomonitor and correct operational errors, and to comply with the lawful orders of her superiors. sfor onsolacion, mellar asserts that he too misrepresented that the "mus pro3ect had $eencompleted2 that he failed to follow procedures and instructions, to provide written instructionsfor the separation of currently transacted records to the officials of "mus, to advise or $elatedlyadvise the data controllers of the separation of the records, and to send the template letter orfollow the time frame for sending such letter.

I$$)E

9A(9AR PA("("/+ARS /11"((A# "**=


37/83

documentary evidence to lend truth to its allegations. "t harps on supposed numerouscomplaints it received on their pro3ects, yet only one written complaint on the 1a$inipro3ect was presented..3o0* A$v!o, 0 !$. vs. P)o-0) & G!"*$0 P4$0s, I-., 0 !$.

G.R. No. 1656, M!)-4 , 21

!-s/


38/83

no alid causes *or the dis"issal o* petitioners#e"plo!ees o*


39/83


40/83

petitioner "ade "ention o* another round *or the dis"issal o* respondent, that o* serious "isconduct,+hen she su-"itted altered or ta"pered receipts to support her clai" *or rei"-urse"ent. Such alleationappears to -e a "ere a*terthouht, -ein tardil! raised onl! in the /epl!.

In this liht, the alleed in*ractions o* respondent could hardl! -e considered serious "isconduct. It is+ell to stress that in order to constitute serious "isconduct +hich +ill +arrant the dis"issal o* ane"plo!ee, it is not su**icient that the act or conduct co"plained o* has iolated so"e esta-lished rules orpolicies. It is e@uall! i"portant and re@uired that the act or conduct "ust hae -een done +ith +ron*ulintent. Such is, ho+eer, lackin in the instant case.

'en +hen an e"plo!ee is *ound to hae transressed the e"plo!ers rules, in the actual i"position o*penalties upon the errin e"plo!ee, due consideration "ust still -e ien to his lenth o* serice and thenu"-er o* iolations co""itted durin his e"plo!. /espondent had no preious record in her 5 !earso* serice. /espondent also countered that she acted in ood *aith and +ith no +ron*ul intent +hen shesu-"itted the receipts in support o* her clai" *or rei"-urse"ent o* "eal allo+ance. Accordin torespondent, onl! the dates or ite"s +ere altered on the receipts. She did not clai" "ore than +hat +asallo+ed as "eal e=pense *or the da!s that she rendered oerti"e +ork. She -elieed that thesu-"ission o* receipts +as si"pl! *or records#keepin, since she actuall! rendered oerti"e +ork on thedates that she clai"ed *or "eal allo+ance. All told, this Court holds that the penalt! o* dis"issal i"posedon respondent is undul! oppressie and disproportionate to the in*raction +hich she co""itted. A lihter

penalt! +ould hae -een "ore ust.

P#ILIPPINE AIRLINE$, IN.,petitioner, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$OMMI$$ION a%& AIDA M. 4)IJANO,respondents.G.R. +o.%6;6/cto$er 6?, 6?%?*A/+R#/-#A S(R/,%.:

(A!$

omplainant Lui3anostarted as an accounting clerk in #ecem$er %D> until she $ecame1anager-gents Services ccounting #ivision 4S#5 in %7.S#, the specific unit in P*charged with the processing, verification, reconciliation, and validation of all claims forcommission filed $y agents worldwide, is under the direct supervision and control of the CicePresident-omptroller, and within the scope of the audit program of the Cice President-"nternaludit & ontrol.

"n %7, an investigating committee 4(he Aspino ommittee5 formally charged Lui3anoas 1anager-S# in connection with the processing and payment of commission claims toGoldair Pty. *td. 4Goldair5 wherein P* overpaid commissions to the latter amounting toseveral million ustralian dollars during the period %7-%7>. Specifically, Lui3ano was

charged as 1anager-S# with the following:=ailure on the 3o$ and gross negligence resultingin loss of trust and confidence in that you failed to:a. A8ercise the necessary monitoring, controland supervision over your Senior ccounts nalyst2 $. dopt and perform the necessary checksand verification procedures2 c. Re)uire or otherwise cause a final reconciliation of the remaining$alance due as commission claims to Goldair.

(he Senior ccounts nalyst 4urammeng5 was specifically assigned to handle andprocess commissions of agents in, among others, the ustralia Region, and Goldair was among


41/83

the travel agents whose production reports and commission claims were handled $y her.urammeng was accused of failing to verify the completeness of the documents supporting theclaims2 to trace and match each ticket in the production report su$mitted $y Goldair with the"(, ESP and (/ sales report2 and to perform a complete verification of the netFnet amountsclaimed in the production reports against the approved marketing arrangements. 9owever,

urammeng had already resigned and $ecame a resident of anada at the time of theinvestigation.

(he Aspino ommittee placed Lui3ano under preventive suspension and at the same timere)uired her to su$mit her answer to the charges. s directed, Lui3ano su$mitted her answer.

(he other mem$ers of the Aspino ommittee wrote a dissenting opinion impleading othersenior officers. /n Buly 6, %?, another dministrative charge involving the same Goldairanomaly was filed, this time including the other officers, for gross incompetence andinefficiency, negligence, imprudence, mismanagement, dereliction of duty, failure to o$serveandFor implement administrative and e8ecutive policies, and related acts or omissions.0 Pending

the result of investigation $y another committee 4(he /campo ommittee5, the P* Eoard of#irectors suspended respondents.(he P* Eoard of #irectorsconsidered respondents resignedfrom the service effective immediately, for loss of confidence and for acts inimical to the interestof the company.

(he *a$or r$iter dismissed private respondent!s complaint.Private respondent filed an

appeal $efore the +*R which set aside the decision of the *. Petitioner filed a 1otion forReconsideration $ut this was denied $y the +*R. 9ence, this petition for #ertiorari.

I$$)E hether or not private respondent!s termination on the ground of loss ofconfidence is valid.

#ELDJAS.t the onset, it should $e noted that the parties do not dispute the validity of private

respondent!s dismissal from employment for loss of confidence and acts inimical to the interestof the employer. (he assailed #ecision of the +*R was emphatic in declaring that it was notprepared to rule as illegal the preventive suspension and eventual dismissal from the service ofprivate respondentQ and rightfully so $ecause the last position that private respondent held,1anager-S# 4gents Services ccounting #ivision5, undenia$ly )ualifies as a position oftrust and confidence.

*oss of confidence as a 3ust cause for termination of employment is premised from thefact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. (his situation holdswhere a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, orcare and protection of the employer!s property. Eut, in order to constitute a 3ust cause fordismissal, the act complained of must $e work-related0 such as would show the employeeconcerned to $e unfit to continue working for the employer.


42/83

(he Resolution underscored private respondent!s acts of mismanagement and grossincompetence which made her fail to detect the irregularities in the Goldair account that resultedin huge financial losses for petitioner.

G.R. No. 1519: O-o*0) 2, 21A$-!!)! vs. P4$0 Co""0)-!$ ! I0)!o!$ B!'LEONARDO;DE CASTRO, 3./

ACTS/ 0 o* the 455; /eised /ules o* Ciil


43/83

Loss o* con*idence as a ust cause *or ter"ination o* e"plo!"ent is pre"ised *ro" the *act

that an e"plo!ee concerned holds a position o* trust and con*idence. This situation holds +here

a person is entrusted +ith con*idence on delicate "atters, such as the custod!, handlin, or

care and protection o* the e"plo!ers propert!. 7ut, in order to constitute a ust cause *or

dis"issal, the act co"plained o* "ust -e J+ork#relatedJ such as +ould sho+ the e"plo!ee

concerned to -e un*it to continue +orkin *or the e"plo!er. As 7ranch Manaer o* the /ialAenue 7ranch o* the respondent -ank, petitioner undou-tedl! held a position o* trust and

con*idence.

As a eneral rule, e"plo!ers are allo+ed a +ider latitude o* discretion in ter"inatin the

e"plo!"ent o* "anaerial personnel or those +ho, +hile not o* si"ilar rank, per*or" *unctions

+hich -! their nature re@uire the e"plo!ers *ull trust and con*idence. This "ust -e

distinuished *ro" the case o* ordinar! rank and *ile e"plo!ees, +hose ter"ination on the -asis

o* these sa"e rounds re@uires a hiher proo* o* inole"ent in the eents in @uestion "ere

uncorro-orated assertions and accusations -! the e"plo!er +ill not su**ice.

8ith respect to the


44/83


45/83

inadvertently.It #ust rest on substantial grounds and not on the e#ployers arbitrariness, whi#s, capricesor suspicionC otherwise, the e#ployee would eternally re#ain at the #ercy o' the e#ployer. &here #ust,there'ore, be an actual breach o' duty co##itted by the e#ployee which #ust be established bysubstantial evidence.

In the present case, logic dictates that the #onitoring o' the duties and activities o' the e#ployeeswho are reporting at the Batangas site would 'all on the person N in this case, ?enia N appointed tooversee the operations o' the co#pany in that area. Li#a did not re'ute this clai# #ade by uevas.5ence, it is ?enia who should have been called to answer 'or any 'raud co##itted at the Batangas site.

uevas duty inso'ar as the arrienocollections are concerned, is to see to it that these are ti#elyre#itted to the head o''ice. In the present case, the ourt agrees with Li#a that uevas was re#iss inthis particular duty.

uevas negligence or carelessness in handling the arrieno collections, however, are not9usti'iable grounds 'or Li#as loss o' trust and con'idence in her, especially in the absence o' any#alicious intent or 'raud on uevas part. Loss o' trust and con'idence ste#s 'ro# a breach o' trust'ounded on a dishonest, deceit'ul or 'raudulent act.In the case at bar, respondent did not co##it any act

which was dishonest or deceit'ul. ?he did not use her authority as the 4inance and %d#inistrationManager to #isappropriate co#pany property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by Li#a with

respect to her responsibility to i#ple#ent co#pany rules. &he #ost that can be attributed to respondent isthat she was re#iss in the per'or#ance o' her duties. &his, though, does not constitute dishonest ordeceit'ul conduct which would 9usti'y the conclusion o' loss o' trust and con'idence. &here was node#onstration o' #oral perverseness that would 9usti'y the clai#ed loss o' trust and con'idence attendantto respondents 9ob. %s such, she does not deserve the penalty o' dis#issal 'ro# e#ploy#ent, especiallyin the absence o' any showing that she has co##itted prior in'ractions in her si2 years o' service to Li#abe'ore her dis#issal.

It also bears to point out that uevas dis#issal inspires suspicion o' ill #otive on the part o' Li#aconsidering that?eniawas cleared o' any accountability and allowed to resign when he should be the 'irstto be #ade liable, considering that he was the one who had direct and i##ediate control and supervisionover the arrienotransactions and collections. onversely, i' there was indeed no basis to hold ?enialiable, then the ourt agrees with uevas that with #ore reason should she be e2onerated o' the charges

o'loss o' trust and con'idence arising 'ro# the alleged non-re#ittance o' the arrieno collections. &here isalso no showing that Li#a too1 steps to hold accountable the other e#ployees who, ad#ittedly, wereguilty o' 'ailing to re#it their arrienocollections.

G.R. No. 1-120 (e=rar< 16, 2010P#ILIPPINE JO)RNALI$!$, IN. PJI7, Petitioner,vs.NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$ OMMI$$ION, LABOR ARBI!ER (EDRIEL $.PANGANIBAN a%& ED)ARDO $. RIVERA,Respondents.

(A!$ PB" is a corporation engaged in the pu$lication of omens Bournal. Private respondent

Aduardo S. Rivera is the purchasing manager. 9is primary duty involved the canvassing andpurchase of paper and other materials for PB"s day-to-day operations.

"n +ovem$er 6??6, omens Bournal implemented a calendar insertion pro3ect re)uiringpaper-coated materials. Rivera canvassed and purchased D7,@?? sheets of paper, from the +ationPaper Products orporation 4NAPPCO5 at PD.@? a sheet for the total amount of P@,6@?.??.

/n Banuary 7, 6??;, PB"s orporate Secretary and hief *egal ounsel, tty. Ru$yRui'-Eruno issued a memorandum re)uiring Rivera to e8plain in writing why he s&ou'd not beter"inated fro" e"p'o("ent for defrauding or atte"pting to defraud t&e Co"pan( ) )) in the


46/83

canvassing and purchase of omen!s Bournal!s paper re)uirements. (he memo alluded to are'iab'e *uotation fro" NAPPCO for +,$--- s&eets of t&is .ind of paper /it& e)a#t'( t&e sa"espe#ifi#ations$ s&o/s a pri#e of on'( P01-2s&eet

Rivera su$mitted his written e8planation, denying that he defrauded or attempted todefraud PB". "n support of his position, he attached a letter from +PP/s Cice-President

Kenneth hong e8plaining the details of the purchase transaction with +PP/.s a result ofthis letter-e8planation, Rui'-Eruno issued a memorandum on the same day to ssistantPurchasing 1anager Bean lvarado, re)uiring her to e8plain the difference in the )uotation ofPD.@? from +PP/ and P.6DFpiece 46;86>5 and P.D7Fpiece 46@86>5 from *1/, anothersupplier.

/n the same day, lvarado su$mitted her e8planation, stating that she signed the canvasssheet as instructed $y Rivera, $ut she was not aware that Rivera included *1/. She claimedthat the canvass sheet itself showed that the figures were written $y Rivera himself.

"n a memorandum dated =e$ruary >, 6??;,Rui'-Eruno notified Rivera of the terminationof his service effective =e$ruary 7, 6??;, on t&e ground of 'oss of #onfiden#e after findingRiveras a#ts and o"issions are indi#ative of fraud and a #'ear "anifestation of (our inabi'it(

as a !anager to prote#t t&e Co"pan(3s interests./n /cto$er %, 6??;, Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PB", #elaru', A8ecutive Cice-President rnold Eanares and Rui'-Eruno.

(he *a$or r$iter foundthat Riveras dismissal was for cause on the ground that he#o""itted a#ts of dis&onest($ or &as #o""itted fraud $ecause as purchasing manager H aposition of trust and confidence H Rivera had the duty to canvass and purchase PB"!s neededmaterials in a manner most $eneficial to the company. Rivera failed in this regard.

/n appeal, the +*R reversed the la$or ar$iters decision, ruling that Riveras dismissalwas illegal. "t opined that: lvarado!s statements cannot pre3udice Rivera as the rig&ts of apart( #annot be pre4udi#ed b( an a#t$ de#'aration$ or o"ission of anot&er.

(he denied the petition for lack of merit. "t declared that after a t&oroug& eva'uationof t&e eviden#e sub"itted b( t&e parties$ fro" t&e fa#ts borne b( t&e re#ords in t&is #ase$ /e are

#onstrained to ru'e t&at t&e dis"issa' of Rivera based on 'oss of #onfiden#e is not #'ear'(estab'is&ed and supported b( substantia' eviden#e.

I$$)E: hether or not Rivera was illegally dismissed $y PB"

#ELD ontrary to the !s pronouncement, we find su$stantial evidence in the records to3ustify Riveras dismissal. s the companys purchasing manager, Rivera held a position of trustand confidence2 his role in the procurement of the companys operational re)uirements is critical.

9ad the matter involved only the PD.@? pricing compared to the alleged re'iab'e*uotation of P;.?, there is no )uestion that Rivera could not $e found lia$le as +PP/denied having $een made any )uotation at P;.?. s the investigation of the transactionunraveled, however, the company uncovered reasons to seriously dou$t Riveras integrity and hisrelia$ility as a purchasing manager.

(he canvass of prices of production supplies is routine work for any purchasingdepartment. "t was Rivera!s duty as purchasing manager, and that of his department, to look forprices that would $e most advantageous to the company. Rivera failed to perform this duty. 9eallowed the purchase of materials at a price considera$ly higher than the )uotations of othersuppliers in the market. =or his own reasons, he settled on one supplier on the prete8t that the


47/83


48/83

perform manual la$or, such as tilling the land in a private cemetery andFor digging earthworks inpetitioner corporation!s construction pro3ects."n Buly 6??, an inspection team from the SSS went topetitioner corporation!s office to check its compliance with the SSS law. /n Buly 66, 6??, petitionerstold Sato that they could no longer afford to pay his wages, and he was advised to look for employment inother construction companies. Sato, however, found difficulty in finding a 3o$ $ecause he had $een

$lacklisted in other construction companies and was prevented from entering the pro3ect sites ofpetitioners.

Respondent +iloEerdin 4Eerdin5 was hired $y petitioners in 1arch %% as a steelmanFla$orer2respondent necito S. Parantar, Sr. 4Parantar5 was hired in =e$ruary %> as a steelman2 and respondentRomeo 1. *acida, Br. 4*acida5 was hired in 1arch 6??% as a la$orer. t the start of their employment,they were re)uired $y petitioners to sign several documents purporting to $e employment contracts. (heyimmediately signed the documents without verifying their contents for fear of forfeiting theiremployment./n Buly 6, 6??, the pro3ect engineer of respondents Eerdin, Parantar, and *acida

instructed them to affi8 their signatures on various documents. (hey refused to sign the documents$ecause they were written in Anglish, a language that they did not understand. "rked $y theirdiso$edience, the pro3ect engineer terminated their employment. /n the same date, they were given theirweekly wages. 9owever, the wages that were paid to them were short of three 4;5 days worth of wages, aspenalty for their refusal to sign the documents. (he following day, they were not allowed to enter thework premises.

/n Buly 6D, 6??, respondents filed their respective complaints with the Regional r$itration Eranch ofe$u ity for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages 4wage differentials5, holiday pay, thirteenth 4%; th5month pay, and service incentive leave pay.

Petitioners, on the other hand, admitted that respondents were employed $y them and were assigned intheir various construction pro3ects. 9owever, they denied that they illegally terminated respondents!employment. ccording to petitioners, respondents a$andoned their work when they failed to report forwork starting on Buly 66, 6??. Petitioner corporation sent letters advising respondents to report for work,$ut they refused. Petitioner corporation maintained that respondents are still welcome, if they desire towork.

*a$or r$iter rendered a decisionfinding that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment./nappeal, the +ational *a$or Relations ommission 4+*R5 reversed the ruling of the *a$or r$iter. In apetition for certiorari, the ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed. written notice ofdismissal is not a pre-re)uisite for a finding of illegal dismissal. Respondents did not a$andon their work.(hey were refused entry into the company!s pro3ect sites.


49/83

ISSUE: 5&et&er or not CA erred in reinstating t&e de#ision of t&e Labor Arbiter$ de#'aring t&at

respondents /ere i''ega''( ter"inated fro" e"p'o("ent b( petitioner #orporation$ and t&at respondents

are entit'ed to t&eir "onetar( #'ai"s

RULING: e sustain the ruling of the . Petitioner corporation failed to prove that respondents weredismissed for 3ust or authori'ed cause. "n an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandirests on theemployer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.

=or a$andonment to e8ist, it is essential 4a5 that the employee must have failed to report for work or musthave $een a$sent without valid or 3ustifia$le reason2 and 4$5 that there must have $een a clear intention tosever the employer-employee relationship manifested $y some overt acts. (he employer has the $urden ofproof to show the employees deli$erate and un3ustified refusal to resume his employment without anyintention of returning. 1ere a$sence is not sufficient. (here must $e an une)uivocal intent on the part of

the employee to discontinue his employment.

+otwithstanding these assertions of petitioner corporation, we sustain the ruling of the . (he reasonwhy respondents failed to report for work was $ecause petitioner corporation $arred them from enteringits construction sites. "t is a settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has$een served does not necessarily constitute a$andonment. (he intent to discontinue the employment must$e shown $y clear proof that it was deli$erate and un3ustified. Petitioner corporation failed to show overtacts committed $y respondents from which it may $e deduced that they had no more intention towork. Respondents! filing of the case for illegal dismissal $arely four 45 days from their alleged

a$andonment is totally inconsistent with our known concept of what constitutes a$andonment.

G.R. No. 166=11 Au7u%) >, 2010

ELPIDIO CALIPA,Petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRIANGLE ACE CORPORATION *'(JOSE LEE,Respondents.

PERALTA, J."

!ACTS"In ***, a labor co#plaint was 'iled by herein petitioner Glpidioalipay, together with%l'redo Mission and Grnesto "i#alanta against herein private respondents &riangle %ceorporation and ose Lee. &hey alleged that in May **:, Lee con'ronted alipay and Missionregarding their alleged participation and assistance in "i#alantas clai# 'or disability bene'its

with the ???. "espite their denials, Lee scolded alipay and Mission. %ccording to the#, thisincident later led to their dis#issal in the sa#e #onth. Private respondents vehe#ently deniedthe clai#s o' the petitioner. Private respondents countered that the ter#ination o' alipay andthe other co#plainants was valid. Petitioner was on absence without leave (%67L) 'or >days.&hus,their ter#ination was proper on the ground o' abandon#ent o' wor1.


50/83

ISSUE"

. "id petitioner abandon his wor1 which is a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination o' his servicesO+. Is the issue o' abandon#ent reconcilable with the 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegal

dis#issal with a prayer 'or reinstate#entO

HELD"

. 8G?. Petitioner alipay had 'ailed to report 'or wor1 'or un1nown reasons. 5is continuedabsences without the private respondents approval constituted gross and habitual neglect

which is a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination under %rticle +:+ o' the Labor ode.

+. !7. %bandon#ent is totally inconsistent with the i##ediate 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegaldis#issal, #ore so i' the sa#e is acco#panied by a prayer 'or reinstate#ent. In this case, thepetitioner did not want to be reinstated. Petitioner 'iled his co#plaint #ore than one year a'terhis alleged ter#ination 'ro# e#ploy#ent. Moreover, in the co#plaint 'or# which he personally'illed up and 'iled with the !LR, he only as1ed 'or pay#ent o' separation pay and other#onetary clai#s. 5e did not as1 'or reinstate#ent. It is only in his Position Paper later preparedby their counsel that he as1ed 'or reinstate#ent. &his is an indication that petitioner never hadthe intention or desire to return to their 9obs.

&he petition is "G!IG".

PILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MO(EMENT =PRRM>,s.(IRGILIO E. PULGAR

Facts:


51/83

$'L2:&B, the court ruled that


52/83

% reversed L%s decision. obarrubias abandoned her 9ob having 'ailed toreport bac1 'or wor1 despite several notices.ISSUE"67! there is abandon#ent.

HELD"Petition 'ails 4or > ti#es, she was noti'ied in writing by respondent to resu#e teaching 'or the

+nd se# 'ollowing the service o' suspension during the st se#. Petitioner neverever replied to those notices

&hat her acceptance o' the o''er could be constituted as a waiver o' her clai#s isnot indeed a valid e2cuse.

"el Monte vs. !LR the 'iling o' an illegal dis#issal case contradicts theallegations the she abandoned her 9ob is not applicable.

&he co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal sprang not 'ro# her dis#issal due toabandon#ent but 'ro# her suspension.

"7&RI!G &he 'iling o' a co#plaint with a prayer 'or reinstate#ent negates an

intention to sever the e#ployer-e#ployee relationshipC the sa#e conte#plates anaction #ade subse3uent to the dis#issal.

Petition denied.

%bandon#ent

CRC AGRICULTURAL TRADING *'( ROLANDO B. CATINDIG, &$)-)-o'$#%

%. NLRC *'( ROBERTO OBIAS, #$%&o'($')%

G.R. No. 14466=. D$+$$# 2>, 200.

B#-o', J.

!ACTS"

Petitioners (R %gricultural &rading and Rolando atindig) engaged the services o' the

respondent (Roberto 7bias) in **> as a driver. &hey, in 'act, re3uested the respondent to live

inside their co#pound so he (respondent) could be readily available when the petitioners

needed his services.

7n #ere suspicion that respondent sub#itted to the# 'alsi'ied receipts 'or the repair o' the

alternator o' their vehicle, petitioners stopped tal1ing to respondent and li1ewise ceased 'ro#

giving respondent wor1 assign#ents.


53/83

%s a result, respondent and his 'a#ily #oved out o' petitioners co#pound and #oved to a

nearby place. &herea'ter, he 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal be'ore the Labor %rbiter. 5e

said he was not given a notice o' ter#ination.

Petitioners #aintained that they lost trust and con'idence in the respondent a'ter their discovery

o' the 'raud that respondent allegedly co##itted so that they no longer engaged his services.

&hey also argue that respondent abandoned his wor1.

&hey argued that an e#ployee who had abandoned his wor1, li1e the respondent, is no di''erent

'ro# one who voluntarily resignedC both are not entitled to separation pay and to salary

di''erentials.

LA!"R AR!#TER

7bias was a regular e#ployee whose services could only be ter#inated a'ter theobservance o' due processC

disregarded the petitioners charge o' abandon#ent against the respondentC

awarded respondent the 'ollowing ?eparation Pay, Bac1wages, ?IL, /th #onth pay,?alary "i''erential and %ttorneys 4ees.

NLRC

respondent was not illegally dis#issed because Jit was respondent who decided to #ovehis 'a#ily out o' petitioners lotJC

deleted the labor arbiters award o' bac1wages and attorneys 'ees but awardedseparation pay and salary di''erentials.

CA

reversed and set aside the !LR resolution dated %ugust >, +0, and reinstated thelabor arbiters decision.

disregarded the petitioners charge o' abandon#ent against the respondent 'or

petitioners 'ailure to show that there was deliberate and un9usti'ied re'usal on the part o'

the respondent to resu#e his e#ploy#entC respondents 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal #ani'ested his desire to return tohis 9ob, thus negating the petitioners charge o' abandon#ent.

ISSUE"


54/83

"id respondents act o' #oving out o' his e#ployers pre#ises constitute abandon#ent o' his

wor1O

HELD"

&he respondent did not abandon his 9ob, he was constructively dis#issed.

%bandon#ent o' wor1, or the deliberate and un9usti'ied re'usal o' an e#ployee to resu#e his

e#ploy#ent, is a 9ust cause 'or the ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent under paragraph (b) o' %rticle

+:+ o' the Labor ode, since it constitutes neglect o' duty.

&he 9urisprudential rule is that abandon#ent is a #atter o' intention that cannot be lightly

presu#ed 'ro# e3uivocal acts.

&o constitute abandon#ent, two ele#ents #ust concur

(1) the

Documents

Case Digests Arts 282-284