Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v.

NLRC/SALAZAR
Case Digest

G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992


Digest by Clar

Submitted 30 August 2016

PETITIONER: GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION

(GMCR)
RESPONDENT: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(NLRC) and IMELDA SALAZAR (private respondent)
PONENTIA: Justice Romero
Nature of the case: Regarding the alleged Illegal Dismissal of SALAZAR
Doctrine according to the Syllabus: VERBA LEGIS

FACTS OF THE CASE


Parties Involved/Characters:
Imelda Salazar General System Analyst of GMCR
Delfin Saldivar Manager for Technical Operations support of
GMCR
Agustin Maramara Companys Internal Auditor
Richard Yambao Owner and Manager of Elecon Engineering
which is a supplier of GMCR
Story:
It is alleged that Salazar and Saldivar are very close. It is also
mentioned that they share an apartment.
1984, reports shows that the company equipment and sare parts worth
thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing. A report
prepared by Maramara indicated that:
-

Saldivar entered into a partnership with Yambao


Saldivar recommended Elecon
The missing aircon was used by Saldivar for personal use
(recovered by replevin)
Salazar (respondent) got involved because she is a signed witness
of the Articles of Partnership of the two

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR


Case Digest

She knows where the missing aircon is, failed to report it.

(1984) Because of those, Salazar was suspended and was given time
to explain herself (for 30 days/one month). After 3 days she already filed a
complaint against GMCR for illegal dismissal (illegal suspension at first
then it escalated to that).
(1985) Heared by Labor Arbiter in favor of Imelda Salazar, awarded
her reinstatement, backwages and other benefits plus moral damages.
(1987) NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter decision but backwages of 2
years only; no moral damages
Thus this petition by GMCR before SC

Issue
Is she illegally dismissed based on the Labor Code and Constitutional
guarantee?

Held
She was illegally dismissed.
The Court pointed out Art 279 of the Labor Code, which talks about
the Security of tenure for regular employees which states that:
xxx An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent xxx

Corollary to it is the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the


Labor Code (IRR) stating that employer cannot terminate regular
employees without just cause or authorized by laws 1 and if such
employeed get illegally dismissed, he or she will be entitled to be back in
his/her position or be reinstated without loss of seniority rights plus
backwages2

1
IRR of Labor Code, Sec. 2
2 IRR of Labor Code, Sec. 3

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR


Case Digest

The priority is clearly leaned towards the employee or to labor.The


Court pointed out the opening paragraph on Labor and the 1973
Constitution on Article 2 which enshrines full protection to labor. In the
1986 ConCom, they have designed Social Justice an Human rights to
reduce social, economic and political inequalities.
Court held that the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous.
Under statcon, if the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be applied literally [Verba Legis]
(Additional, away from statcon, she is not in a fiduciary position so she
can be reinstated because strained relations arent relevant in her position)

Disposition
NLRC decision AFFIRMED
Reinstated Imelda, backwaged of 2 years.

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR


Case Digest

DOCTRINE: Verba Legis


Plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi
sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that
the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or
will and preclude the court from construing it differently.

The legislature is

presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and
to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute.
Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be
no departure. Neither does the provision admit of any quali cation. If in the
wisdom of the Court, there may be a ground or grounds for non- application of
the above-cited provision, this should be by way of exception, such as when the
reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between the
employer and the employee. (Copy pasted from the GMCR v. NLRC case)
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Labor Code Art. 279
Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate
the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other bene ts or their monetary equivalent computed from the time
his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement
IRR on Labor Code
"Sec. 2. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause as provided in the Labor
Code or when authorized by existing laws.
Sec. 3. Reinstatement. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to backwages."' (Emphasis
supplied)