Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corporation vs.

National Labor Relations

Commission

FACTS:
Eddie Damalerio was a roomboy for Maranaw Hotels. One day, he was
cleaning the room of one of the guests when he saw the private stuff of the
guest scattered all over the floor. So he took it upon him to pick those up and
put in the guests bag but then when he was doing so the guest (Jamie
Glaser) entered the room and saw Damalerios hand inside Glasers bag.
Glaser filed a complaint against Damalerio. After investigation by the hotel,
Damalerio was dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Damalerio was illegally dismissed.

RULING:
Yes. Although it was not completely proper for Damalerio to be touching the
things of a hotel guest while cleaning the hotel rooms, personal belongings
of hotel guests being off-limits to roomboys, under the attendant facts and
circumstances, the dismissal of Damalerio was unwarranted. To be sure, the
investigation held by the hotel security people did not unearth enough
evidence of culpability. It bears repeating that Glaser lost nothing. Although
Maranaw Hotels may have reasons to doubt the honesty and trustworthiness
of Damalerio, as a result of what happened, absent sufficient proof of guilt,
Damalerio, who is a rank-and-file employee, cannot be legally dismissed.
As for the service charges received by Maranaw Hotels during the period
where he was not able to work hes entitled to the shares therefrom. But if he
chooses not to be reinstated by reason of the estranged relations with the
hotel, hes entitled to separation pay but without the shares from the service
charges anymore.

Manila Electric Company vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 78763, July 12, 1989
FACTS:
Private respondent Signo was employed in petitioner company as supervisorleadman since January 1963 up to the time when his services were
terminated on May 18, 1983.
In 1981, a certain Fernando de Lara filed an application with the petitioner
company for electrical services at his residence at Peafrancia Subdivision,
Marcos Highway, Antipolo, Rizal. Private respondent Signo facilitated the
processing of the said application as well as the required documentation for
said application at the Municipality of Antipolo, Rizal. In consideration
thereof, private respondent received from Fernando de Lara the amount of
P7,000.00. Signo thereafter filed the application for electric services with the
Power Sales Division of the company.
It was established that the area where the residence of de Lara was located
is not yet within the serviceable point of Meralco, because the place was
beyond the 30-meter distance from the nearest existing Meralco facilities. In
order to expedite the electrical connections at de Lara's residence, certain
employees of the company, including respondent Signo, made it appear in
the application that the sari-sari store at the corner of Marcos Highway, an
entrance to the subdivision, is applicant de Lara's establishment, which, in
reality is not owned by the latter.
As a result of this scheme, the electrical connections to de Lara's residence
were installed and made possible. However, due to the fault of the Power
Sales Division of petitioner company, Fernando de Lara was not billed for
more than a year. As a result, services of the respondent were terminated
and this prompted respondent to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid
wages and separation pay. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision directing

the petitioner to reinstate respondent without back wages. Both parties

appealed to the Commission and were dismissed by the Commission for lack
of merit and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Signo should be dismissed from petitioner
company on grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
HELD:
No. This Court has held time and again, in a number of decisions, that
notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach
of trust by an employee, nevertheless, dismissal should not be imposed, as it
is too severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable
length of time in the service of his employer.
Agabon vs. NLRC, November 17, 2004
FACTS:
Virgilio and Jenny Agabon were cornice installers of Riviera Home
Improvements, a company engaged in the business of selling ornamental
construction materials. They were employed from January 2, 1992 until
February 23, 1999, when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. The
Agabons filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA, who ruled in
their favor. The NLRC reversed on appeal. The CA sustained the NLRCs
decision. The Agabons further appealed to the SC, disputing the finding of
abandonment, and claiming that the company did not comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.
ISSUE:
WON the Agabons were illegally dismissed.
HELD: NO
Ratio:
Substantive due process (Employees must be dismissed for just or
authorized cause): SC upheld the finding of abandonment, because the act of
the Agabons in seeking employment elsewhere clearly showed a deliberate
intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Procedural due process (for just cause, there must be a written notice
informing him of grounds for termination, a hearing or opportunity to be
heard, and a final notice of termination stating the grounds therefore): There
was no due process because employer did not send the requisite notices to

the last known address of the employees. Employer only gave a flimsy
excuse that the notice would be useless because the employees no longer
lived there. This is not a valid excuse, they should have still sent a notice as
mandated by law.
For not sending the requisite notices, the employer should be held liable for
non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.

DANILO J. MAGOS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, HON. MARISSA MACARAIG-GUILLEN and PEPSI
COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., respondents.

FACTS:
Danilo J. Magos became an employee of PEPSI on 5 April 1987. He rose from
the ranks until he was appointed Route/Area Manager covering different
areas in Northern Mindanao. On 1 March 1991 he was assigned to handle the
Butuan Plant in Surigao City.
In July l991 PEPSI entered into a Sales and Distributorship Agreement with
one Edgar Andanar covering the entire Siargao Island. The Agreement
included, among others, the following terms: (a) that the Distributor shall be
the sole agent of PEPSI in the entire Siargao Island, Surigao City, and (b) that
PEPSI would not directly or indirectly sell to or serve anybody in the covered
territory of the Distributor unless extremely necessary.
On 8 April 1992 Andanar complained formally to the Plant General Manager
Val Lugti that petitioner was still serving Tony Chua and Boy Lim, clients who
were both within the area of the agreement. On 15 April 1992 District
Manager Reynaldo Booc issued a memorandum to petitioner to stop effective
immediately "giving deals to Siargao Island dealers, unless and only, if

Andanar cannot supply them due to unavoidable circumstances beyond his

control," and only up to a specified limit.
On the basis of these reports, Magos was notified by Booc of his temporary
recall effective 1 July 1992 on the ground of his "continued refusal to follow
orders/instructions of a superior after 2 or more successive reminders or
warnings." He was also required to submit a written explanation, which he
did on 30 June 1992 citing among others: (a) the lack of proper turnover of
jurisdiction to distributor and guidelines thereto; (b) the rapid conversion to
Coke of previous big account dealers like Boy Lim in Siargao; and, (c) the
lack of ability of Andanar to supply such dealers.
Finding Magos explanation insufficient PEPSI on 27 July 1992 notified Magos
of an administrative investigation against him on grounds of disobedience
and breach of trust and confidence as shown by the reports of Endozo and
Ganzon, the audit reports of the Home Office Auditors, the complaint of
Andanar and the memorandum of Booc. On 7 September 1992, Magos was
notified of his termination for disobedience and breach of trust and
confidence.
On 25 September 1992 Magos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages, 13th month pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days,
night shift pay and allowances.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion for
denying him the right to present evidence on his behalf and for sustaining
the legality of his dismissal.

HELD:
Petitioner was subsequently terminated despite all the pertinent
explanations he had given to his immediate superiors for alleged violation of
the above-mentioned Company Rules and Regulations and for alleged loss of
trust and confidence.

Evidently, Magos regarded his sales to Siargao Island dealers covered by the
Sales and Distributorship Agreement with Andanar as "saving measures." As
a consequence, he earned the ire of his superiors for persistently ignoring
the agreement. He further risked losing his job by presenting what he
deemed as "pertinent explanations" to justify the questioned sales. Thus,
even if no hearing was conducted on Magos disobedience, the requirement
of due process was sufficiently met where petitioner was accorded the
chance to explain his side. The award of indemnity in the sum of P2,000.00
therefore is no longer warranted in the light of this finding.
As the dismissal is with just cause, back wages cannot be
awarded. Separation pay may however be granted as a form of equitable
relief.

REYNALDO VALDEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and NELBUSCO, INC., respondents

FACTS:
Petitioner was hired by private respondent as a bus driver on commission
basis, with an average earning of P6,000.00 a month. On February 28, 1993,
the air-conditioning unit of the bus which petitioner was driving suffered a
mechanical breakdown. Respondent company told him to wait until the airconditioning unit was repaired. Meanwhile, no other bus was assigned to
petitioner to keep him gainfully employed.
Thereafter, petitioner continued reporting to his employers office for work,
only to find out each time that the air-conditioning unit had not been
repaired. Several months elapsed but he was never called by respondent
company to report for work. Later, petitioner found out that the bus formerly
driven by him was plying an assigned route as an ordinary bus, with a newlyhired driver.
On June 15, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for
illegal dismissal, with money claims for labor standard benefits, and for
reimbursement of his bond and tire deposit. He claimed that the reason why
respondent company did not allow him to drive again was due to his refusal
to sign an undated company-prepared resignation letter and a blank affidavit
of quitclaim and release.
Private respondent, on the other hand, admitted that it told petitioner to wait
until the air-conditioning unit of the bus was repaired. However, private
respondent alleged that after the bus driven by the petitioner broke down
due to his fault and negligence, the latter did not report for work. He

supposedly informed the management later that he was voluntarily resigning

from his employment in order to supervise the construction of his
house. Consequent to his resignation, petitioner demanded the return of his
cash bond and tire deposit. Respondent company required him to secure the
necessary management clearance and other pertinent papers relative to his
resignation. Instead of complying with those requirements, petitioner filed
the instant complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed, and whether or not
petitioner is entitled to back wages and separation pay starting from the
time he was laid off.
HELD:
The cardinal rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the burden
of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause, failing in which it would
mean that the dismissal is not justified. This rule applies adversely against
herein respondent company since it has utterly failed to discharge
that onus by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, 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 back wages, inclusive of
allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.
Thus, it being clearly established that herein petitioner was constructively
dismissed, the decision of the Labor Arbiter awarding him back wages and
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, plus the refund of his cash bond and
tire deposit, is definitely in order.