Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
P283,669.75
2. Separation Pay: (16 May 2000 to 21 Nov. 2003)
one month for every year of service
(P33,700.00 x 4) = P134,800.00
Total = P 418,469.75
The other claims are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 21
With the NLRC's 10 October 2005 denial of the motion for
reconsideration of the foregoing decision, 22 HCPTI elevated
the case to the CA through the Rule 65 petition
forcertiorari docketed before said court's then Special Tenth
Division as CA-G.R. SP No. 92491. 23 In view of the 3
November 2005 Entry of Judgment issued by the
NLRC, 24Morales filed a motion for execution 25 which
remained unresolved due to the parties' signification of their
Page | 2
The Issues
Morales proffers the following issues for resolution in seeking
the reversal of the CA's 19 June 2006 Decision and 14 August
2006 Resolution, to wit:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE CHANGE IN THE
DESIGNATION/POSITION OF PETITIONER
CONSTITUTED CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. DaTICE
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION DECISION WHICH HAS GAINED
FINALITY MAY BE PREVENTED EXECUTION BY
REASON OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY
RESPONDENTS. 29
The Court's Ruling
We find the petition impressed with merit.
Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work
because "continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in
rank or a diminution in pay" 30 and other benefits. Aptly called
a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but
We have carefully pored over the records of the case but found
no evidentiary basis for the CA's finding that Morales was
designated as head of HCPTI's Operations
Department 37 which, as indicated in the corporation's plantilla,
had the Vice-President for Operations at its helm. 38 On the
contrary, Morales' demotion is evident from the fact that his
reassignment entailed a transfer from a managerial position to
one which was not even included in the corporation's plantilla.
For an employee newly charged with functions which even the
CA recognized as pertaining to the Operations Department, it
also struck a discordant chord that Morales was, just the same,
directed by HCPTI to report to Filart, its Vice-President for
Finance 39 with whom he already had a problematic working
relationship. 40 This matter was pointed out in Morales' 31
March 2003 protest but was notably brushed aside by HCPTI by
simply invoking management prerogative in its inter-office
memorandum dated 4 April 2003. 41 DIEAHc
Page | 3
LOLITA
S. CONCEPCION, petitioner, vs. MINEX IMPORT
CORPORATION/MINERAMA CORPORATION,
KENNETH MEYERS, SYLVIA P. MARIANO and VINA
MARIANO, respondents.
amount at the bottom of the cabinet the night before, and how
she had found upon reporting to work that morning that the
contents of the cabinet were in disarray and the money already
missing.
SO ORDERED.
Page | 4
Issues
SO ORDERED.
On May 13, 2002, the CA denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. 8
Page | 5
Page | 6
Page | 7
Factual Antecedents
Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
On September 1, 1993, MORESCO II, a rural electric
cooperative, hired Cagalawan as a Disconnection Lineman on a
probationary basis. On March 1, 1994 Cagalawan was appointed
to the same post this time on a permanent basis. 9 On July 17,
2001, he was designated as Acting Head of the disconnection
crew in Area III sub-office of MORESCO II in Balingasag,
Misamis Oriental (Balingasag sub-office). 10 In a
Memorandum 11 dated May 9, 2002, MORESCO II General
Manager Amado B. Ke-e (Ke-e) transferred Cagalawan to Area I
sub-office in Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental (Gingoog suboffice) as a member of the disconnection crew. Said
memorandum stated that the transfer was done "in the exigency
of the service."
In a letter 12 dated May 15, 2002, Cagalawan assailed his
transfer claiming he was effectively demoted from his position
as head of the disconnection crew to a mere member thereof. He
also averred that his transfer to the Gingoog sub-office is
inconvenient and prejudicial to him as it would entail additional
travel expenses to and from work. He likewise sought
clarification on what kind of exigency exists as to justify his
transfer and why he was the one chosen to be transferred.
In a Memorandum 13 dated May 16, 2002, Ke-e explained that
Cagalawan's transfer was not a demotion since he was holding
the position of Disconnection Head only by mere designation
and not by appointment. Ke-e did not, however, state the basis
of the transfer but instead advised Cagalawan to just comply
with the order and not to question management's legitimate
prerogative to reassign him.
Page | 8
Page | 9
Page | 10
Page | 11
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioners sought to reconsider this ruling via a Motion for
Reconsideration, 15 insisting that respondents were not illegally
dismissed and that their reassignment or transfer as
utility/security personnel was indispensable, made in good faith
and in the exercise of a valid management prerogative. Hence,
such reassignment does not amount to constructive dismissal.
Page | 12
Page | 13
Page | 14
Page | 15
Page | 16
Page | 17
SO ORDERED. 15
Page | 18
Page | 19
We do not agree.
Page | 20
not yet been remitted. This prompted her to inquire from Beltran
on January 7, 1997 about the supposed payment and
immediately ordered the remittance of the same. Beltran,
however, failed to do so on that day and even on the next day
when she reported for work. Beltran subsequently went on leave
of absence on January 9 and 10, 1997. It was only on January
13, 1997 that the money with the pertinent documents were
handed over. 10
In a memorandum 11 dated February 25, 1997, the investigator
found Beltran guilty of misappropriating and withholding
Chang's payment of P15,164.48 and recommended her dismissal
from service thus:
For wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously withholding and/or
misappropriating for your personal purposes or benefit electric
bill payment of a Meralco customer, you have thereby violated
Section 7 par. (1) of the Company Code on Employee Discipline
which proscribes "(m)isappropriating, or withholding, Company
funds: penalized therein with dismissal from the service.
Because of this act of fraud and dishonesty, you have wil[l]fully
breached the trust and confidence reposed in you by your
employer.
xxx xxx xxx
Accordingly, Management is constrained to dismiss you for
cause from the service and employ of the Company, as you are
hereby so dismissed effective 13 March 1997, with forfeiture of
all rights and privileges. 12 (Emphasis supplied.)
By virtue thereof, Beltran was terminated effective March 13,
1997. 13
Beltran filed a complaint for illegal dismissal 14 against
MERALCO. She argued that she had no intention to withhold
company funds. Besides, it was not her customary duty to
collect and remit payments from customers. She claimed good
faith, believing that her acceptance of Chang's payment is
considered goodwill in favor of both MERALCO and its
customer. If at all, her only violation was a simple delay in
remitting the payment, which caused no considerable harm to
the company. Further, her nine years of unblemished service to
the company should be taken into account such that the penalty
of dismissal is not a commensurate penalty for the unintentional
act committed. cCSHET
MERALCO, on the other hand, maintained that under company
policy, Beltran had the duty to remit payment for electric bills by
any customer on the day the same was received. It opined that if
indeed the money was kept intact inside the drawer and was not
put to personal use, Beltran could have easily turned over the
Page | 21
she needed time to produce it. The NLRC thus ruled that
MERALCO validly dismissed Beltran from the service in the
exercise of its inherent right to discipline its employees.
In her Motion for Reconsideration, 18 Beltran attributed grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in basing its
conclusions on mere inferences and presumptions. Beltran
argued that she could not be guilty of withholding Chang's
payment, much more, misappropriating it. She alleged that
Garcia did not order her to remit the money on January 7, 1997
or on the following day. Further, records reveal that she was on
leave from January 9 to 10 to attend to her child who was
suffering from asthma. And since January 11 and 12 are
Saturday and Sunday, she deemed it appropriate to make the
remittance on the following Monday, January 13, 1997. Garcia,
however, refused to accept the money, saying that she already
committed withholding of company funds. IEaATD
The NLRC denied Beltran's Motion for Reconsideration. 19
Page | 22
DECISION
BRION, J p:
For resolution is the petition for review on certiorari 1 to nullify
the decision dated December 19, 2005 2 and the resolution dated
March 30, 2006 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered in CAG.R. SP No. 84907.
The Antecedents
On November 20, 2001, respondent Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr. filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, with prayer for reinstatement and
backwages, as well as damages (moral and exemplary) and
attorney's fees, against petitioner Canadian Opportunities
Unlimited, Inc. (company). The company, based in Pasong
Tamo, Makati City, provides assistance and related services to
applicants for permanent residence in Canada.
Dalangin was hired by the company only in the previous month,
or in October 2001, as Immigration and Legal Manager, with a
monthly salary of P15,000.00. He was placed on probation for
six months. He was to report directly to the Chief Operations
Page | 23
Page | 24
Page | 25
was not doing his job well, with the ready argument that the
company did not even bother to present Tecson's testimony.
In the face of Abad's direct statements, as well as those of his
co-employees, it is puzzling that Dalangin chose to be silent
about the charges, other than saying that the company could not
cite any policy he violated. All along, he had been complaining
that he was not able to explain his side, yet from the labor
arbiter's level, all the way to this Court, he offered no
satisfactory explanation of the charges. In this light, coupled
with Dalangin's adamant refusal to attend the company's "Values
Formation Seminar" and a similar program scheduled earlier, we
find credence in the company's submission that Dalangin was
unfit to continue as its Immigration and Legal Manager. As we
stressed earlier, we are convinced that the company had seen
enough from Dalangin's actuations, behavior and deportment
during a four-week period to realize that Dalangin would be a
liability rather than an asset to its operations. caAICE
We, therefore, disagree with the CA that the company could not
have fully determined Dalangin's performance barely one month
into his employment. As we said inInternational Catholic
Migration Commission, the probationary term or period denotes
its purpose but not its length. To our mind, four weeks was
enough for the company to assess Dalangin's fitness for the job
and he was found wanting. In separating Dalangin from the
service before the situation got worse, we find the company not
liable for illegal dismissal.
The procedural due process issue
Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Labor Code's Implementing
Rules and Regulations provides:
If the termination is brought about by the completion of a
contract or phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet
the standards of the employer in the case of probationary
employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served
the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of
termination.
The company contends that it complied with the above rule
when it asked Dalangin, through Abad's Memorandum dated
October 26, 2001, 39 to explain why he could not attend the
seminar scheduled for October 27, 2001. When he failed to
submit his explanation, the company, again through Abad,
served him a notice the following day, October 27, 2001,
terminating his employment. Dalangin takes strong exception to
the company's submission. He insists that the company failed to
comply with the rules as he was not afforded a reasonable time
to defend himself before he was dismissed.
Page | 26
Armand,
My expectations is [sic] that GX Shuttles should be 80% full by
the 3rd week (August 5) after launch (July 15). Pls. make that
happen. It has been more than a month since you came in. I am
expecting sales to be pumping in by now. Thanks.
1,987.28
6,975.46
Total
========
Earlier, however, or on October 4, 2004, Aliling filed a
Complaint 17 for illegal dismissal due to forced resignation,
nonpayment of salaries as well as damages with the NLRC
against WWWEC. Appended to the complaint was Aliling's
Affidavit dated November 12, 2004, 18 in which he stated: "5.
At the time of my engagement, respondents did not make known
to me the standards under which I will qualify as a regular
employee."
Nonong
Thereafter, in a letter of September 25, 2004, 10 Joseph R.
Lariosa (Lariosa), Human Resources Manager of WWWEC,
asked Aliling to report to the Human Resources Department to
PhP
4,988.18
P13,000.00
Transportation
3,000.00
Clothing Allowance
800.00
Page | 27
ECOLA
500.00
P17,300.00
10/06/04 - 12/07/04
P17,300.00 x 2.7 mos.
= P35,811.00
=========
Page | 28
Section 6(d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIIIA of the Labor Code
Page | 29
Page | 30
Page | 31
Page | 32
Page | 33
There being no data from which this Court can properly assess
Petitioner's full retirement benefits, the case is, thus, remanded
to the Labor Arbiter only for that purpose.
SO ORDERED.
Wilson B. Fermin (Fermin) was a forklift operator at Cosmos
Bottling Corporation (COSMOS), where he started his
employment on 27 August 1976. 4 On 16 December 2002, he
was accused of stealing the cellphone of his fellow employee,
Luis Braga (Braga). 5 Fermin was then given a Show Cause
Memorandum, requiring him to explain why the cellphone was
found inside his locker. 6 In compliance therewith, he submitted
an affidavit the following day, explaining that he only hid the
phone as a practical joke and had every intention of returning it
to Braga. 7
On 21 December 2002, Braga executed a handwritten narration
of events stating the following: 8
(b)Braga went out of the locker room and inadvertently left his
cellphone by the chair. Fermin was left inside the room.
(d)Braga asked if Fermin saw the cellphone, but the latter denied
noticing it.
DECISION
SERENO, J p:
Before this Court are two consolidated cases, namely: (1)
Petition for Review dated 26 October 2010 (G.R. No. 193676)
and (2) Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated 14
October 2010 (G.R. No. 194303). 1 Both Petitions assail the
Page | 34
On the other hand, Fermin contends that since the CA found that
the penalty of dismissal was not proportionate to his offense, it
should have ruled in favor of his entitlement to backwages. 24
It must be noted that in the case at bar, all the lower tribunals
were in agreement that Fermin's act of taking Braga's cellphone
amounted to theft. Factual findings made by administrative
Page | 35
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR LAWS; EMPLOYMENT; TERMINATION
THEREOF; VALID GROUNDS THEREFOR; BREACH OF
TRUST AND LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. When adequately
proven, the dual grounds of breach of trust and loss of
confidence constitute valid and ample bases to warrant
termination of an errant employee. (Manila Midtown
Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter), 159
SCRA 212 [1988]). The employer's obligation to give his
workers just compensation and treatment carries with it the
corollary right to expect from the workers adequate work,
diligence and good conduct. (Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of
the Phils. v. Lariosa, 148 SCRA 187 [1987]). In the last cited
case, this Court held: "Although as a rule this Court leans over
backwards to help workers and employees continue with their
employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts
of dishonesty in the handling of company property are a
different matter. "Thus under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an
employer may terminate an employment for 'serious misconduct'
or for fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or representative. "If there is
sufficient evidence that an employee has been guilty of a breach
of trust or that his employer has ample reasons to distrust him,
the labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer the
authority to dismiss such an employee."
Page | 36
Page | 37
brownout yet when the "incoming load report" was given at the
guard house and the checker slip given to the stock clerk. It
cannot be reason for the discrepancy. Besides, why should a
salesman prepare basic reports in the dark? The tampering to
reflect a bigger number of returns was effected when the
salesman presented his reports for the cashier and finance
officer. The allegation that the salesman would not risk his job
for such a small amount is not a defense because minor
pilferages or thefts carried on over a long period of time through
false reports or juggling of funds and properties may, as
intended by the employee, remain unnoticed but they would
destroy the company nonetheless if unchecked or tolerated. The
Labor Arbiter is wrong; the NLRC is correct insofar as the
appreciation of facts is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The dismissal of petitioner Fernando Vega from his employment
by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Incorporated is AFFIRMED
as valid and according to law.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 82580 &
84075, April 25, 1989)
[G.R. No. L-52056. October 30, 1980.]
BONIFACIO DE LEON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUGAR PRODUCERS
COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ALFREDO U. BENEDICTO and GWENDOLYN H.
GUSTILO, respondents.
DECISION
DE CASTRO, J p:
Petition for certiorari with prayer to annul the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission reversing the decision of
the Labor Arbiter which ordered respondents to reinstate
petitioner to his former position as Assistant Vice-PresidentManager of Sugar Producers Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc. without loss of seniority rights and with full
backwages to be computed from the date of his dismissal.
This case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal instituted
by herein petitioner against private respondents.
Petitioner started working with said corporation as a messenger
wayback in 1949. He held various positions therein, such as
bookkeeper, accountant, general office supervisor and Assistant-
Manager. He rose to the position as Assistant Vice-PresidentManager (Makati Office) in 1973 and held it continuously up to
1977. Prior to his dismissal, he was in the service for more than
28 years.
In October 1976, petitioner was sent to Korea on an official
business for respondent corporation. Before that, respondent
Alfredo Benedicto, president and general manager of the
corporation, verbally intimated to petitioner that the latter would
soon be appointed as Assistant Vice-President for Finance,
preparatory to his assuming the position of Vice-President for
Finance upon the resignation of the then incumbent.
In early November 1976, petitioner was instructed to attend the
staff meeting at Bacolod every second and fourth Tuesdays of
every month starting January 1977. Arrangements were made to
enable petitioner to go to Bacolod on January 7, 1977.
Page | 38
"Atty. de Castillo:
"Mr. Benedicto:
No." 5
The act of respondents in dismissing petitioner without first
conducting a formal investigation is arbitrary and unwarranted.
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee differs from
and should not be confused with the manner in which such right
is exercised. 6 It must not be oppressive and abusive since it
affects one's person and property.
The Commission in its decision states that petitioner did not file
any retirement application, a fact likewise admitted by Mr.
Benedicto when he was interrogated by the Labor Arbiter. 7 We
agree with the observation of the Labor Arbiter that if the intent
to retire is not clearly established or if the retirement is
involuntary, it is to be treated as a discharge. There is no
showing that petitioner had the slightest intention to retire or
avail of the retrenchment program as alleged by private
respondents. The retirement of petitioner was, therefore, forced
upon him by his employer and was not done voluntarily. 8
While a Managerial employee may be dismissed merely on the
ground of loss of confidence, the matter of determining whether
the cause for dismissing an employee is justified on ground of
loss of confidence, cannot be left entirely to the employer.
Impartial tribunals do not rely only on the statement made by
employer that there is "loss of confidence" unless duly proved or
sufficiently substantiated. We find no reason to disturb the
findings of the Labor Arbiter that the charges against petitioner
were not fully substantiated, and "there can be no valid reason
for said loss of confidence. Anent the charges of unauthorized
withdrawal of the plastic bags by petitioner's brother, and
unauthorized additional bonus, the arbiter found no anomaly
considering that the evidence presented during the proceedings
discloses that the withdrawal and the granting of bonus were all
approved and ratified by the board. Thus, the Commission erred
in dismissing the complaint and acted with patent abuse of
discretion. Its assailed decision fails to establish by substantial
evidence the involvement of petitioner in the alleged anomalies
imputed to him. Without such supporting evidence, the
Page | 39
NACHURA, J p:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 dated August
29, 2006 and the Resolution 2 dated May 16, 2007 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91631.
The Facts
The facts of the case are as follows.
Respondent was a probationary employee of petitioner
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation
(petitioner Supermarket) for a period of five (5) months, or from
October 15, 1997 until March 14, 1998. 3 She underwent six (6)
weeks of training as a cashier before she was hired as such on
October 15, 1997. 4
Two weeks after she was hired, or on October 30, 1997,
respondent reported to her supervisor the loss of cash amounting
to Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos
(P20,299.00) which she had placed inside the company locker.
Petitioner Jess Manuel (petitioner Manuel), the Operations
Manager of petitioner Supermarket, ordered that respondent be
strip-searched by the company guards. However, the search on
her and her personal belongings yielded nothing. 5
Respondent acknowledged her responsibility and requested that
she be allowed to settle and pay the lost amount. However,
petitioner Manuel did not heed her request and instead reported
the matter to the police. Petitioner Manuel likewise requested
the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office for an inquest. 6
On November 5, 1997, an information for Qualified Theft was
filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. Respondent
was constrained to spend two weeks in jail for failure to
immediately post bail in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00). 7
On November 25, 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and damages. 8
On March 12, 1998, petitioners sent to respondent by mail a
notice of termination and/or notice of expiration of probationary
employment dated March 9, 1998. 9 HIaTCc
Page | 40
Page | 41
Page | 42
Page | 43
Page | 44
Page | 45
Page | 46