I.

Analogous Circumstances

G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008

ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

FACTS: THIS case portrays the peculiar story of an international flight steward who
was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline
company.
The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166
pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew
Administration Manual of PAL.
In 1984, the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him to an extended
vacation until November 1985. He was allowed to return to work once he lost all the
excess weight. But the problem recurred. He again went on leave without pay from
October 17, 1988 to February 1989.
Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight, petitioner
remained overweight. On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL decision for
him to remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight
standards. Again, he was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks, which
he failed to comply with.
On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for
weight check would be dealt with accordingly. He was given another set of weight
check

dates,

which

he

did

not

report

to.

On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge
for violation of company standards on weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is
being discriminated as those similarly situated were not treated the same.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his inability to
attain his ideal weight, and considering the utmost leniency extended to him which
spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5) years, his services were considered
terminated effective immediately.
LABOR ARBITER: held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the
nature of the job of petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied
with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his
duties.
NLRC affirmed.
CA: the weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed
because he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight standards. It is obvious
that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by petitioner for purposes of
escaping the result of his dismissal for being overweight.
ISSUE: WON he was validly dismissed.

HELD: YES
A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that
they constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. The
dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioners claims that
obesity is a disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly
shows that it is possible for him to lose weight given the proper attitude,
determination, and self-discipline. Indeed, during the clarificatory hearing on
December 8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that [t]he issue is could I bring my
weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is yes. I can do it now.
Petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the
company physician, per the advice of PAL.
In fine, We hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work
as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor
Code that justifies his dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended,
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it, [v]oluntariness basically

means that the just cause is solely attributable to the employee without any external
force influencing or controlling his actions. This element runs through all just causes
under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action or omission.
Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although
it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).

G.R No. 170181 June 26 2008

HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES
vs.
IBANEZ

FACTS:
Felicito Ibanez (tireman), Elmer Gacula (Crane Operator), ElmerDagotdot (Welder),
Aligwas Carolino (Welder), Ruel Calda (Warehouseman)filed a complaint at the NLRC
for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages. The
group alleged that the contract they have is good for three months, subject to
automatic renewal if there is no notice of termination from Hanjin, and that the
contract would automatically terminate upon the completion of the project. They
further averred that during the time they were dismissed, the project was still ongoing
and Hanjin hired people for the positions that they had vacated. Lastly, they also
allege that they are entitled to a completion bonus as part of the industry practice and
this was substantiated by past payroll payments. Hanjin failed to furnish a copy of the
contract agreements withthe dismissed group. Instead it showed the quitclaims that
had been executed by the group that released Hanjin and its representatives from any
claims with their employment. It contained clearance certificates thats how that
respondents are free from accountability.

ISSUE:
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

WON the members of the dismissed group are project employees?

HELD:
No, Hanjin was unable to prove they were not regular employees. The rehiring of
construction workers on a project to project basis does not confer upon them regular
employment status, since their re-hiring is only a natural consequence of the fact that
experienced construction workers are preferred. Employees who are hired for carrying
out a separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and
duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time
of the employment , are properly treated as project employees and their services may
be lawfully terminated upon the completion of a project. Should the terms of their
employment fail to comply with this standard, they cannot be considered project
employees. Hanjin was unable to show the written contracts it had with the workers.
White the absence of the contract does not grant permanent status it is the burden of
the employer to prove that the employees were aware that their contract with the
company is for per project only. While Hanjin submitted a termination report including
the workers names to prove that the services of their services were only contracted for
a per project basis, Hanjin only submitted one report. It was unable to disprove the
allegation of the workers that they were part of a pool that Hanjin contacts once a
project is to be completed. Employers cannot mislead their employees, whose work is
necessary and desirable in the former's line of business, by treating them as though
they are part of a work pool from which workers could be continually drawn and then
assigned to various projects and thereafter denied regular status at any time by the
expedient act of filing a Termination Report. This would constitute a practice in which
an employee is unjustly precluded from acquiring security of tenure, contrary to public
policy, morals, good customs and public order. Hanjin alleged that per Department
Order 19, Series of 1993 of DOLE, the payment of completion bonus is further proof
that the workers were only project employees as Hanjin is mandated by law to pay it to
the temporary workers whose contracts are about to end upon the completion of the
project. SC views the completion bonus terminology here reflects the fact that the
project has already been completed and that is the premium they wished to pay.
Quitclaims are viewed with disfavor, especially when (a.) There is clear proof that the
waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person (b.) Where the terms are
unconscionable in its face. For quitclaims to be valid, it must constitute a reasonable
settlement commensurate to their legal rights. It does not preclude them from seeking

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

benefits they were entitled to such as back wages. The respondents were also not
granted the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

570 SCRA 373 (2008)

U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO
v. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO
FACTS:
Valerie Anne H. Hollero was hired as a management trainee and was eventually
promoted to facilities manager by U-Bix Corporation (U-Bix). Hollero and three other
employees were later sent to the United States for two months of training for a newly
acquired franchise. Before she left, she signed a contract with U-Bix which reads that
VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO shall remain in the employ of U-BIX CORPORATION
for a period of five (5) years from completion of her U.S. Training otherwise she shall
reimburse U-BIX CORPORATION for all costs (prorated) and expenses which U-BIX
CORPORATION incurred for her (Hollero's) training in the U.S
U-Bix, citing Holleros supposed pattern of tardiness, absences, neglect of duties and
lack of interest, terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence. U-Bix
then filed against Hollero before the Labor Arbiter for the reimbursement of training
expenses and damages. Subsequently, Hollero also filed a complaint against U-Bix for
illegal dismissal.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of Hollero is
valid and legal and ordered her to pay U-Bix the reimbursement of her training. It
dismissed Holleros complaint for lack of merit. On appeal before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), the NLRC reversed the LAs decision. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed but subsequently denied by NLRC. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the lower courts decision.
ISSUES: Whether or not Hollero was illegally dismissed by U-Bix
HELD: An employer who seeks to dismiss an employee must afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if
he so desires.
U-Bix failed to discharge the burden of proof that Holleros dismissal is for a valid and
just cause
In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for
a valid and just cause. While an employer enjoys a wider latitude of discretion in
terminating the employment of managerial employees, managerial employees are also
entitled to security of tenure and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time and
without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation.
In the case at bar, U-Bix failed to substantiate their allegations of Holleros habitual
absenteeism, habitual tardiness, neglect of duties, and lack of interest. Daily time
records, attendance records, or other documentary evidence attesting to these grounds
could have readily been presented to support the allegations but none was.
The merits of a complaint for illegal dismissal do not depend on its prayer but on
whether the employer discharges its burden of proving that the dismissal is valid.
U-Bix failed to comply with the procedural due process of dismissing an employee In
another vein, the Court finds that U-Bix and Bravo failed to comply with the
procedural requirements for a valid dismissal. Hollero being a manager did not excuse
them from observing such procedural requirements.
The notice does not inform outright the employee that an investigation will be
conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to her
dismissal. It does not contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or
misfeasance nor categorically state the effect on her employment if the charges are
proven to be true. It does not apprise Hollero of possible dismissal should her
explanation prove unsatisfactory. Besides, the U-Bix and Bravo did not even establish
that Hollero received the memorandum.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

Neither did U-Bix and Bravo show that they conducted a hearing or conference during
which Hollero, with the assistance of counsel if she so desired, had opportunity to
respond to the charge, present her evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against
her. The meeting with Hollero on December 23, 1996 did not satisfy the hearing
requirement, for Hollero was not given the opportunity to avail herself of counsel.
Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that an employer who seeks to dismiss an
employee must afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
with the assistance of his representative if he so desires. Expounding on this
provision, the Court held that '[a]mple opportunity' connotes every kind of
assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare
adequately for his defense including legal representation.

574 SCRA 427 (2008)

MCDONALDS (KATIPUNAN BRANCH), et al. v. MA. DULCE ALBA
FACTS:
Ma. Dulce Alba (Alba) was hired as part of the service crew of McDonalds Katipunan
Branch. During the orientation of newly hired employees, McDonald s provided Alba
with a copy of the Crew Employee Handbook on rules and regulations including its
meal policies, which state that an employee was not permitted to eat inside the crew
room while on duty, and that doing so would result in summary dis missal.
Rizza Santiago (Santiago), another crew member, reported to the store manager Ki t
Alvarez (Alvarez) that she witnessed Alba eating inside the crew room during her duty.
McDonald s thus suspended Alba for five days because of the incident. When asked
about it, Alba explained that she did indeed ate inside the crew room but that it was
only because she was had a stomach ache due to hunger. Nevertheless, McDonald s
found Alba guilty of flouting company regulations and immediately terminated her
services. Alba thus lodged a complaint against McDonald s before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) which dismissed it without prejudice. Alba re-filed her
complaint, and after submission of the parties respective posit ion papers and
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

responsive pleadings, Labor Arbiter Pablo Espiritu Jr. found in favor of Alba, holding
that while she violated the meal policy of McDonald s, dismissal was too harsh a
penalty, and suspension without pay would have sufficed. Mc Donald s appealed the
finding of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, which denied the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the violation of the meal policy amounts to serious or wil lful
misconduct which would justify dismissal
HELD:
There is no dispute that Alba violated McDonald s meal policy. The only issue is
whether such violation amounts to or borders on "serious or willful" misconduct or
willful disobedience, as petitioners posit, to call for respondent s dismissal. By any
measure, the Supreme Court holds not. With respect to serious misconduct, it is not
sufficient that the act or the con duct complained of must have violated some
established rules or policies. It must have been performed with wrongful intent.
McDonald s, on which the onus of proving lawful cause in sustaining the dismissal of
Alba lies, failed to prove that her misconduct was induced by a perverse and wrongful
intent, they having merely anchored their claim that she was on her knowledge of the
meal policy. While McDonalds wields a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation
of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of its employees, these
must, however, be fair and reasonable at all times, and the corresponding sanction s
for violations thereof, when prescribed, must be commensurate thereto as well as to
the degree of the infraction. Given Alba s claim that she was having stomach pains
due to hunger, which is not implausible, the same should have been properly taken
into account in the imposition of the appropriate penalty for violation of the meal
policy. McDonald s suspension for five days sufficed. With that penal ty, the necessity
of cautioning other employees who may be wont to violate the same policy was not
compromised. Moreover, McDonald s likewise failed to prove any resultant material
damage or prejudice on their part as a consequence of respondent's questioned act.
Their claim that the act would cause "irremediable harm to the company s business"
is too vague to merit consideration.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

G.R. No. 172670, January 20, 2009

RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM AND/OR EVELYN CINENSE, Petitioners,
vs.
MARCIAL BALUYOT, Respondent.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

FACTS:

Herein petitioner RBC Cable Master System (petitioner RBC) is a cable firm engaged in
the business of providing home cable service. Sometime in March 1996, petitioner
RBC hired herein private respondent Marcial Baluyot as a Lineman.
In the middle part of the year 2000, private respondent learned that his outstanding
loan from cash advances accumulated to P18,000.00. The cash advances he made
[were] pursuant to a long time practice for the employees of petitioner RBC to advance
amounts of money in the form of cash vales with the condition that the same be
deducted from their monthly salaries on a staggered or periodic basis. Respondent
alleged that he delivered his motorcycle as a security for said loans. But petitioner
avers that such motorcycle was actually leased, which lease only ceased when
respondent no longer owned said vehicle because of non-payment of its financing.
On February 1, 2001, when private respondent reported for work, he was informed
that no blank official receipts could be issued to him for his collection job for that day
or for a month because he is being suspended. Thus, for one month, he did not report
for work and when he reported back to duty, he was told by petitioner RBC that he is
now out of job and is considered terminated.
Petitioner RBC denied dismissing private respondent by contending that it was private
respondent who abandoned his work when, sometime in March 2001, he left without
any notice and never returned back for work. They also alleged that respondent
committed several infractions such

as misappropriations and falsification

of

documents.
LABOR ARBITER ruled that private respondent abandoned his job and committed acts
of dishonesty such as theft of company funds and property.
NLRC ruled that private respondent did not abandon his job but was illegally
dismissed.
ISSUE:

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

WON respondent was illegally dismissed

HELD:

YES

After respondent was punished with suspension by petitioners, he was admitted back
to work on the condition that he will not repeat the same violations and he will pay
back the sums he owed. This proved that petitioners had condoned the infractions
previously committed by the respondent.
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur:
(1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and
(2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second
element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
Mere absence is not sufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a
deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without
any intention of returning.
In the case at bar, the charge of abandonment is belied by the following
circumstances: First, the high improbability of private respondent to intentionally
abandon his work considering that he had already served a penalty of suspension for
his infractions and violations as well as the petitioners tacit condonation of the
infractions he committed, by permitting him to go back to work and by asking him to
execute a promissory note. It is incongruent to human nature, that after having ironed
things out with his employer, an employee would just not report for work for no
apparent reason. Secondly, there was no proof that petitioner sent private respondent
a notice of termination on the ground of abandonment, if indeed it is true that he
really failed to go back to work. Section 2, Rule XVI, Book V, Rules and regulations
implementing the Labor Code provides that any employer who seeks to dismiss a
worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular act or omission
constituting the ground for his dismissal. In cases of abandonment of work, the notice

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

shall be served at the workers last known address. For this reason, We are
constrained to give credence to private respondents assertion that he attempted to
report back to work but he was just asked to leave as he was considered terminated.
And lastly, private respondents filing of a case for illegal dismissal with the labor
arbiter negates abandonment. As held by the Supreme Court, a charge of
abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement.
Finally, an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full
backwages and reinstatement. If reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is awarded
to the employee. In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu
of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one (1) month
salary for every year of service.

G.R. No. 171814

South Davao Development Co. Inc. vs. Sergio L. Gamo
FACTS:
South Davao Development Company (SDDC) is the operator of a coconut and mango
farm in Davao Oriental and Davao del Sur. In 1963, SDDC hired Sergio Gamo
(Gamo) as a foreman. Sometime in 1987, SDDC appointed Gamo as a copra maker
contractor. Some of the copra workers of SDDC were later transferred by SDDC to
Gamo as his copraceros.
From 1987 to 1999, Gamo and SDDC entered into a profit-sharing agreement wherein
70% of the net proceeds of the sale of copra went to SDDC and 30% to Gamo. In this
arrangement, the copra workers were paid by Gamo from his 30% share.
Subsequently, SDDC wanted to standardize payments to its contractors in its
coconut farms. However, SDDC and Gamo were not able to agree on a new payment
scheme. Despite this, Gamo and his copraceros started to do harvesting work. SDDC,
upon notice, told them to stop. Eventually, Gamo and SDDC agreed that Gamo may
continue with the harvest provided that it would be his last contract with SDDC.
Gamo suggested to SDDC to look for a new contractor since he was not amenable to
the new payment scheme that it proposed.
Since SDDC did not renew the contract of Gamo, the latter and his copra workers
alleged that they were illegally dismissed. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint
ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship between SDDC and Gamo et
al. The NLRC shared the position with the labor arbiter and ruled that the nature of
the job of Gamo et al. could not result in an employer-employee relationship. On the

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

other hand, the Court of Appeals ruled that an employer-employee relationship

existed.
SSDCs alleges that the current business practice 1 in the coconut industry treats
copraceros as independent contractors.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals failed to take judicial notice of the accepted
practice of independent contractors in the coconut industry.
HELD:
(1) NO. According to Expertravel vs. CA,2 matters of judicial notice have three
material requisites: (i) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(ii) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (iii)
it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
An invocation that the Court take judicial notice of certain facts should satisfy the
requisites, a mere prayer for its application shall not suffice. In this case, the Court
cannot take judicial notice of the alleged business practices in the copra industry.
The record is bereft of any indication that the matter is of common knowledge to
the public and that it has the characteristic of notoriety.
594 SCRA 683 (2009)
ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION
FACTS:
Abelardo P. Abel, an employee of the Philex Mining Corporation, was implicated in an
irregularity occurring in the subsidence area of Philexs mine site. An investigation
was promptly launched by the corporations officers by conducting several fact-finding
meetings. Philex found Abel guilty of (1) fraud resulting in loss of trust and confidence
and (2) gross neglect of duty, and was meted out the penalty of dismissal from
employment. Abel thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) with claims for annual vacation leave pay.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Abel was dismissed illegally. He found that Philex failed to
prove by substantial evidence the alleged fraud committed by Abel, explaining that the
suggestively incriminating telephone conversations would not suffice to lay the basis
for Philexs loss of trust and confidence. On the charge of gross negligence, the Labor
Arbiter held that no negligence was present as Philex itself admitted that Abel reported

1 These practices include: (i) that copra making activities are done quarterly; (ii)
that the workers can contract with other farms; and (iii) that the workers are
independent from the land owner on all work aspects.
2 G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

the underloading to Tabogader, who was then in charge of the subsidence area where
the alleged anomaly was happening.
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that Abel was guilty of
gross and habitual neglect of duty as he approved the operations even with the gross
underloading; and that he did not act on Lupegas report concerning certain
irregularities. Abels failure to perform his duty of inspecting ANSECAs operations and
vacillation on certain matters during the company investigation, among other things,
constituted sufficient basis for Philexs loss of trust and confidence. Abel appealed to
the Court of Appeals via certiorari which dismissed the motion. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of Abel is valid
HELD:
The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of
employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal.
Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide
legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be
resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the
Constitution.
The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that
the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. Verily, the
Court must first determine if Abel holds such a position.
The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust
and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must
be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The
basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not necessary. Philex Mining Corporations evidence against Abel
fails to meet this standard. The Labor Arbiter correctly found that the alleged
telephone conversations between Abel and Didith Caballero of ANSECA would not
suffice to lay the basis for Philex Mining Corporations loss of trust and confidence in
Abel.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

G.R. No. 163788, August 24, 2009

Ester B. Maralit v. Philippine National Bank
Facts:
Petitioner, Ester B. Maralit worked for respondent, Philippine National Bank. She
began as a casual clerk and climbed her way to become branch manager. In 1998,
PNB offered its personnel an early retirement plan. Under the PNB issued General
Circular, the personnel with pending administrative cases or who under preliminary
investigation may avail the Special Separation Incentive Plan (SSIP). In 1998, PNBs

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

Internal Audit Group (IAG) found that Maralit violated Bank policies which resulted in
the return of unfunded checks amounting to P54,950,000.00. IAG recommended thata
Maralit be required to submit her written explanation under oath. Later, Maralit filed
her application for early retirement. However, PNB charged her with serious
misconduct, gross violation of bank rules and regulations, and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the bank. PNB directed her to submit her written answer under
oath and explain why she should not be punished under Article 282 of the Labor Code
for serious misconduct, wilful breach of trust, gross violation of bank rules and
regulations. PNB placed Maralit under preventive suspension. Moreover, PNB
conditionally approved Maralits application for early retirement provided that the
decision in said investigation does not disqualify her from such benefits. Subsequently,
PNB found Maralit guilty of serious misconduct, gross violation of bank rules and
regulations, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. PNB dismissed
her from service with forfeiture of her retirement benefits. Maralit filed a complaint for
non-payment of retirement benefits and separation pay and for damages against PNB.
Labor Arbiter held that Maralit is entitled for the retirement benefits since she was not
under preliminary investigation when she filed her application for early retirement and
when PNB approved it, there was still no decision on the administrative case against
her. PNB illegally dismissed her. PNB appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed Labor
Arbiters decision. The Court of Appeals set aside NLRCs decision and found that
Maralit was under preliminary investigation when she filed her application for early
retirement.

Issue:
Whether or not Maralit was illegally dismissed by Philippine National Bank and
entitled to retirement benefits.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. PNB may rightfully
terminate Maralits services for a just cause including serious misconduct. Serious
misconduct is improper conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, a forbidden act, or a dereliction of duty. Maralit violated bank policies which
resulted in the return of unfunded checks. Having been dismissed for a just cause,
Maralit is not entitled to her retirement benefits.
G.R. No. 163270, September 11, 2009
Eduardo M. Tomada Sr. v. RFM Corporation-Bakery Flour Division and Jose
Maria Concepcion III
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

FACTS:
Sometime in 1998, Eduardo Tomada Sr. filed a complaint against RFM Corporation
Bakery Flour Division and Jose Ma. Concepcion Jr. for illegal dismissal before Labor
Arbiter. Tomada stated that the company dismissed him from work because he was
allegedly sleeping on his job during his working time and failed to detect the fire which
was taking place inside his work area. He argued that he was not sleeping and never
negligent in his job. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tomada`s case for lack of merit and
found that Tomada was grossly remiss in performing his assigned duties and his
separation from work was justified. Tomada appealed before the NLRC but the latter
dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. NLRC reiterated the Labor Arbiter`s findings
that Tomada was not only absent from his are of responsibility at the time of fire but
was also sleeping in the screen room. Tomada appealed to Court of Appeals which
ruled that Tomada`s dismissal from employment was valid since leaving his post and
sleeping while on duty rendered Tomada unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position. The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC`s award of
separation pay since he serve 20 years to RFM Corporation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tomada was negligent in his job and validly dismissed by his employer.
RULING:
The petition has no merit. Tomada`s acts constitute serious misconduct and a just
cause of dismissal under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code. By sleeping on the job and
leaving his work area without prior authorization, Tomada did not merely disregard
company rules but also failed to live up to his company`s reasonable expectations.
Tomada was validly dismissed by RFM Corporation since he is guilty of serious
misconduct under dereliction of duty and gross negligence and he is not entitled to
financial assistance or separation pay.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

G.R. No. 179507, October 2, 2009

Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet and/or Serafin Ramirez v. Myrna B. Letran and
Mary Grace Espadero
FACTS:
Espadero had been employed by Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet as Cashier.
Sometime in 2002, when she reported for duty, she discovered that her time card was
already punched in. She found out that certain Joselito Caliayagan was the one who
punched in her time card. Espadero failed to report it to her supervisor. Espadero
contented that she was dismissed outright without being given opportunity to explain.
She claimed that petitioners called her and asked her to make admission letter of
admission as condition for her re-employment. After writing the letter, she was asked
to wait for an assignment. However, the company issued a Memorandum terminating
her for violation of company rules and regulations. Because of this, Espadero filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter declared that
petitioners are liable for illegally terminating Espadero since petitioners failed to prove
that Espadero deliberately caused another person to punch in her time card on her
behalf. Petitioners was ordered to reinstate Espadero and pay her full backwages.
NLRC reversed Labor Arbiters findings. Respondents filed a petition before Court of
Appeals which rendered a ruling affirming Labor Arbiters pronouncement that
Espadero was not afforded due process. It also observed that the punishment of
dismissal was too harsh and unjustified.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Espaderos infraction constitutes serious misconduct.

RULING:
The Supreme granted the petition.
Espadero`s position as a cashier is one that requires a high degree of trust and
confidence, and that her infraction reasonably taints such trust and confidence
reposed upon her by her employer. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot be
faulted for losing their trust in Espadero. An employee occupying a job which requires
utmost fidelity to her employers, she failed to report to her immediate supervisor the
tampering of her time card. Moreover, the peculiar nature of Espadero`s position
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

aggravates her misconduct. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the misconduct must
be serious, must be of such a grave character, and not merely trivial or unimportant.
To constitute just cause for termination, it must be in connection with the employee`s
work.

G.R. No. 165199, November 27, 2009

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Inocencio B. Berbano Jr.
FACTS:
Inocencio B. Berbano Jr. alleged that he was hired by the respondent, Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as Engineering Assistant. Sometime in 1994,
Berbano learned that phone number which is under investigation by the Quality
Control Inspection Office due to the unauthorized installation of service features
which he admitted that he was responsible for such installation for purposes of study
and testing as being trained as EWSD OMC Specialist. After due investigation,
Berbano received a Memorandum asking him to explain and he subsequently
submitted written explanation. Finding an unacceptable explanation, PLDT dismissed
him from the service. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the
reinstatement of Berbano to his previous position without loss of seniority rights and
backwages. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that PLDT is
not guilty of illegal dismissal. Berbano appealed to the Court of Appeals and granted
his petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the misconduct of Berbano was serious as to warrant his dismissal.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
The misconduct of Berbano is not serious of nature as to warrant respondent`s
dismissal from service. The records of this case are bereft of any showing that the
alleged misconduct was performed by respondent with wrongful intent. Moreover,
respondent`s misconduct did not result in any economic loss on the part of petitioner

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

since the service features were not yet available in the market at the time respondent
caused its unauthorized installation.

G.R. No. 182570, January 27, 2009

Romeo N. Ventura v. Court of Apeals, National Labor Relations Commission,
Genuino Ice Co. Inc., and Hector Genuino,
FACTS:
Petitioner, Romeo N. Ventura was hired by Genuino Ice Co., Inc. as Field Auditor
sometime in April 1987 up to 2004 or for a period of more than seventeen years. An
employee of the company named Glicerio Alido informed petitioner that he heard from
a contractor of ice-cube generators that the petitioner`s nephew was involved in the
theft of the company`s properties who eventually resigned on September 2004. The
petitioner submitted to the management his Partial Audit Report which provides that
Lejos, petitioner`s nephew, came to his house and revealed the theft of company
properties that was committed and the identities of the employees involved.
Subsequently, a Notice of Preventive Suspension was served to the petitioner for his
failure to report the theft, despite his prior knowledge of the criminal activities.
Petitioner was charged with suspension of evidence and of withholding information to
cover up for the crime committed. The company considered it as a serious violation of
company rules and regulations particularly a breach of the trust and confidence
reposed in petitioner. Petitioner denied the violation and alleged that he informed his
immediate superior. Subsequently, the company informed petitioner that a case was
already filed with Prosecutor`s office impleading him as an accessory to the crime of
theft. The petitioner filed a case against the company for illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter rendered decision in favour of the petitioner. The NLRC reversed the Labor
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

Arbiter`s decision. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner`s complaint for illegal
dismissal must be dismissed having been terminated from employment for a valid
cause.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner, Romeo Ventura was terminated for a just cause.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
Under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code, loss of trust and confidence is one of the just
causes for dismissing an employee, where the employees is entrusted with duties of
confidence on delicate matters, such as care and protection and handling or custody of
the employer`s property.
The basis of terminating the employment of petitioner actually came from petitioner
himself due to the substantial and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the narration of
facts in his Audit Report and his ``Sagot na Sinumpaang Salaysay`` filed before the
company, and his pleadings before the lower tribunals and before the Supreme Court.
It cannot be denied that he withheld this information from his immediate supervisor
and from the company, a clear breach of trust and confidence the company had
reposed in him as one of its Auditors.

G.R. No. 180465, July 31, 2009

Eric Dela Cruz and Raul M. Lacuata v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.,
FACTS:
On August 12, 2000, Raymund Sales, a salesman of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.
figured in a motor vehicle accident while driving respondent`s motor vehicle which he
was then not authorized to use. Sales was hospitalized of the accident. After initial
investigation, the respondent issued separate memoranda to herein petitioners who
are sales supervisors to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against
them for violation of Employee`s Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations vis--vis
Article 282 of the Labor Code. Further investigation was conducted by respondent and
it showed that petitioners conspired to have an ``altered report`` prepared to make it
appear that sales was not under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident.
Petitioners were dismissed from employment which lead them to file separate
complaints for illegal suspension and dismissal against respondent. The Labor Arbiter
found that Dela Cruz was illegally dismissed and ordered for his reinstatement while
Lacuata was found to be at fault. The NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter`s decision. The
Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos
Labor Law Review

Court of Appeals held that petitioens were validly dismissed for wilful breach of
confidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to back wages.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
By obtaining an altered police report and medical certificate, petitioners deliberately
attempt to cover up the fact that Sales was under the influence of liquor. In so doing,
they committed acts which are inimical to respondent`s interests and stability not only
of management but of the company itself through deceitful means and methods.
Thus, they committed a work-related wilful breach of the trust and confidence reposed
in them.

G.R. No. 183196, August 19, 2009

Chona Estacio and Leopoldo Manliclic v. Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, Inc.
and Loliano E. Allas
FACTS:
Respondent, PELCO I is an electric cooperative duly organized, incorporated, and
registered pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 269. respondent Engr. Alas is the
General Manager of respondent PELCO I. Petitioner Estacio had been employed at
PELCO I as a bill custodian since 1977 while petitioner Manliclic had been working for
PELCO I as a bill collector since 1992. Sometime in 2002, the Internal Auditor of

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review

respondent, PELCO I submitted accounting of which includes the accountability of

Ms. Estacio amounting to P123,807.14. Engr. Allas issued a Memorandum informing
Estacio of her audit findings and direct her to explain. Unsatisfied with Estacio`s
explanation, Engr. Allas issued a Memorandum charging Estacio with gross negligence
of duty. The investigating committee found Estacio guilty of dishonesty and gross
negligence of duty and recommended her dismissal from service with forfeiture of
benefits. The petitioners filed illegal dismissal against the respondents. The Labor
Arbiter ruled in favour of respondents. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter`s decision
and ordered the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and pay them backwages. The
Court of Appeals annulled and set aside NLRC`s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner were illegally dismissed by the respondents.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
The Court rules that there is valid cause for petitioners` dismissal from eight day sof
July and for days of August 2002. As a result, Estacio`s improper accounting and
records keeping the amount of P123,807.14 remains unremitted to PELCO I. On the
other hand, Manliclic committed a breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer
as a bill collector by misappropriating the payment collection which provides the
respondent with financial resources to continue its operations. PELCO I cannot afford
to continue in its employ dishonest bill collectors. Thus, this constitutes valid cause of
dismissal from service.

Kristine Joy G. Delos Santos

Labor Law Review