No. 8. The Peninsula Manila v.

Elaine Alipio

FACTS:
Petitioner, is a corporation engaged in the hotel business. The hotel operates a
clinic 24-hours a day and employs three regular nurses who works eight hours
each day on separate shifts. The hotel also engages the services of reliever nurses
who substitute for the regular nurses who are either off-duty or absent.
Respondent was hired merely as a reliever nurse. However, she had been
performing the usual tasks and functions of a regular nurse since the start of her
employment. Hence, after about four years of employment in the hotel, she
inquired why she was not receiving her 13th month pay. Santos, the general
manager, directed Alipio not to report for work anymore.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Alipio was illegally dismissed.

RULING:
An employment is deemed regular when the activities performed by the
employee are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business. However, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service, even though
intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and while
such activity exists.
In this case, records show that Alipio’s services were engaged by the hotel
intermittently from 1993 to 1998. Her services as a reliever nurse were necessary
and desirable. Therefore, she had become a regular employee as early as 1994.
Clearly, Alipio was illegally dismissed because petitioner failed on both counts to
comply with the twin-notice rule for a valid termination.

No. 9. Rosario Gatus v Quality House Inc.

FACTS:
Petitioner is an assembler of respondent when the latter placed the former under
preventive suspension through a notice on the ground that petitioner’s husband
mauled Echavez her supervisor.
The petitioner in her response explained that she was experiencing difficulties in
her work caused by her co-employees including her supervisor due to her trade
union activities. The petitioner responded to the preventive suspension by filing a
complaint for illegal suspension and damages against respondent. In a
memorandum, the respondent through Director Go, terminated the petitioner’s
employment.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.

RULING:
There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner was
dismissed for just cause. That petitioner’s transgression merits the penalty of
dismissal is fully supported by our past rulings. It is at the very least a serious
misconduct of a grave and aggravated character that directly violated the
personal security of another employee due to an employment-related cause. The
petitioner was not denied due process because the law only requires ample
opportunity to be heard which in this case was given to the petitioner.