G.R. No.

180660

July 20, 2010

MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT, INC. Petitioner, vs. NITO DUAL, Respondent. PERE , J.: !ACTS" MaribagoBluewater Beach Resort, Inc. (Maribago), a corporation operating a resort hotel and restaurant in Brgy. Maribago, Lapu-Lapu ity, hired !ito "ual ("ual) as waiter and pro#oted hi# later as outlet cashier at its Poolbar$%llegro Restaurant. &he case 'iled by "ual against Maribago was grounded on Maribago(s alleged illegal dis#issal o' "ual 'or dishonesty a'ter it 'ound out about the discrepancy in a receipt dated )anuary *, +,, at -,., p.#. It presented as evidence said receipt issued by "ual which showed that only P/, ,/0.,, was re#itted by the latter corresponding to 0 sets o' dinner ordered by )apanese tourists at around 0./, p.#. (who then as1ed 'or the bill later at *.,, p.#.), when in 'act the order slip corresponding to said receipt showed that a total o' -+ sets o' dinner were ordered. It also showed evidence that it had given "ual and the other concerned e#ployees the opportunity to e2plain the#selves by re3uesting the# to attend clari'icatory hearings. Maribago argued that it only dis#issed "ual a'ter it conducted the investigation. 4or his part, "ual ad#itted that he indeed issued the receipt presented by Maribago as evidence but argued that the order slip given to hi# was already altered to show that instead o' -+ sets o' dinner, only 0 sets were served. 5ence, because o' the cancellation, the guests only pay the a#ount re'lected in the receipt 'or 0 sets o' dinner instead o' the P-,, -,,.,, 'or -+ sets o' dinner. &he Labor %rbiter (L%)ruled that "ual was illegally dis#issed and ordered 'or "ual(s reinstate#ent but the !LR reversed L%(s decision on the ground that "ual(s act o' depriving Maribago o' its law'ul revenue is tanta#ount to 'raud against the co#pany which warrants dis#issal 'ro# the service. 4alsi'ication o' co##ercial docu#ents as a #eans to #alverse co#pany 'unds constitutes 'raud against the co#pany. 5owever, the ourt o' %ppeals reversed the decision o' the !LR . ISSUE. 67! "ual(s alleged action constitutes serious #isconduct to warrant his dis#issal. HELD. 8es, it does. "ual(s acts constitute serious #isconduct which is a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination under the law(Labor ode, %rt. +:+;a<). &he't co##itted by an e#ployee is a valid reason 'or his dis#issal by the e#ployer. %lthough as a rule, the ourt leans over bac1wards to help wor1ers and e#ployees continue with their e#ploy#ent or to

#itigate the penalties i#posed on the#, acts o' dishonesty in the handling o' co#pany property are a di''erent #atter. In the present case, what was da#ning to the cause o' "ual is the receipt which he ad#ittedly issued. &he receipt was issued long a'ter the guests had le't (*.,, p.#.) and a'ter the alteration o' the order slip (*.=> p.#.) was done. ?uch 'act led the ourt to conclude that he consented to and participated in the ano#aly. 6ithal, the law, in protecting the rights o' the laborers, authori@es neither oppression nor sel'-destruction o' the e#ployer. 6hile the onstitution is co##itted to the policy o' social 9ustice and the protection o' the wor1ing class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be auto#atically decided in 'avor o' labor. &he #anage#ent also has its own rights, as such, are entitled to respect and en'orce#ent in the interest o' si#ple 'air play. !ote. Regarding the due process re3uire#ent, petitioner had co#plied with it as clearly shown by the 'acts. G.R. No. 160506 March 9, 2010 JOEB M. ALIVIADO, et. al. Petitioners, vs. PRO !ER " GAMBLE P#IL$., IN ., a%& PROMM'GEM IN ., Respondents. DEL A$!ILLO, J.: (A !$:Petitioners initially worked as merchandisers of P&G and thereafter all individually signed employment contracts with either Promm-Gem or S PS for periods of more or less five months at a time. Promm-Gem or S PS provided the petitioners! wages and imposed disciplinary measures on erring merchandisers. "n #ecem$er %&&%, petitioners filed a complaint against P&G for regulari'ation, service incentive leave pay and other $enefits with damages. (he complaint was later amended to include the matter of their su$se)uent dismissal. (he *a$or r$iter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship $etween petitioners and P&G. Such ruling was appealed to the +*R, and the , $ut $oth upheld the decision of the *a$or r$iter. I$$)E: -hether or not Petitioners were illegally dismissed. #ELD: Prior to delving into the issue at hand, it is important to reiterate that Petitioners are now employed $y Promm-Gem or S PS. (he ,ourt held that while Promm-Gem is an independent contractor, the same cannot $e said a$out S PS. P&G and S PS entered into a .*a$or /nly ,ontract0 there$y making P&G the direct employer of the petitioners employed $y S PS. -e now discuss the issue of whether petitioners were illegally dismissed. (he termination letters given $y Promm-Gem to its employees uniformly specified the cause of dismissal as grave misconduct and $reach of trust 1isconduct has $een defined as improper or wrong conduct2 the transgression of some esta$lished and definite rule of action, a for$idden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful in character implying wrongful intent and not mere error of 3udgment. (he misconduct to $e serious must $e of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. (o $e a 3ust cause for dismissal, such misconduct 4a5 must $e serious2 4$5 must relate to the performance

of the employee!s duties2 and 4c5 must show that the employee has $ecome unfit to continue working for the employer. "n other words, in order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph 4a5 of rticle 676 of the *a$or ,ode, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some esta$lished rules or policies. "t is e)ually important and re)uired that the act or conduct must have $een performed with wrongful intent. "n the instant case, petitioners-employees of Promm-Gem may have committed an error of 3udgment in claiming to $e employees of P&G, $ut it cannot $e said that they were motivated $y any wrongful intent in doing so. s such, we find them guilty of only simple misconduct for assailing the integrity of Promm-Gem as a legitimate and independent promotion firm. misconduct which is not serious or grave, as that e8isting in the instant case, cannot $e a valid $asis for dismissing an employee. 1eanwhile, loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal, must $e $ased on the willful $reach of the trust reposed in the employee $y his employer. /rdinary $reach will not suffice. $reach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without 3ustifia$le e8cuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. *oss of trust and confidence, as a cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsi$ility or of trust and confidence. s such, he must $e invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as custody, handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. nd, in order to constitute a 3ust cause for dismissal, the act complained of must $e work-related and must show that the employee is unfit to continue to work for the employer. "n the instant case, the petitionersemployees of Promm-Gem have not $een shown to $e occupying positions of responsi$ility or of trust and confidence. +either is there any evidence to show that they are unfit to continue to work as merchandisers for Promm-Gem. ll told, we find no valid cause for the dismissal of petitioners-employees of PrommGem. 9ence, the dismissal is illegal. -ith regard to the petitioners placed with P&G $y S PS, they were given no written notice of dismissal. (he records show that upon receipt $y S PS of P&G!s letter terminating their :1erchandising Services ,ontact: effective 1arch %%, %&&;, they in turn ver$ally informed the concerned petitioners not to report for work anymore. <nlike Promm-Gem which dismissed its employees for grave misconduct and $reach of trust due to disloyalty, S PS dismissed its employees upon the initiation of P&G. "t is evident that S PS does not carry on its own $usiness $ecause the termination of its contract with P&G automatically meant for it also the termination of its employees! services. =rom all indications S PS, e8isted to cater solely to the need of P&G for the supply of employees in the latter!s merchandising concerns only. <nder the circumstances prevailing in the instant case, we cannot consider S PS as an independent contractor. Going $ack to the matter of dismissal, it must $e emphasi'ed that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the employer. "n termination cases, the $urden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for 3ust and valid cause. "n the instant case, P&G failed to discharge the $urden of proving the legality and validity of the dismissals of those petitioners who are considered its employees. 9ence, the dismissals necessarily were not 3ustified and are therefore illegal.

oca

ola vs. Aacayan

Petitioner co#pany gives #eal and transportation e2penses as rei#burse#ent 'or e2penses incurred while rendering overti#e wor1 worth P->,(#a2i#u# allowed). tRespondent Aacayan, then a ?enior 4inancial %ccountant, was #ade to e2plain the alleged alterations in three (/) receipts which she sub#itted to support her clai# 'or rei#burse#ent o' #eal e2penses, to wit. -) Mc"onald(s Receipt !o. :B>=*/ dated 7ctober -, -**= 'or P---.,,C +) ?ha1ey(s Pi@@a Parlor Receipt !o. -++0>: dated !ove#ber +,, -**= 'or P-B=.,0C and /) ?ha1ey(s Pi@@a Parlor Receipt !o. =-+B= dated )uly -*, -**= 'or P-/,.>,. Petitioner co#pany sent respondent Aacayan several #e#oranda re3uiring her to e2plain why her clai#s 'or rei#burse#ent should not be considered 'raudulent since there were alterations, i.e., the dates o' issuance o' the receipts and the 'ood ite#s purchased as enu#erated thereon, in the receipts she sub#itted. Aacayan denied the alterations. Petitioner co#pany then conducted a hearing and 'or#al investigation to give respondent Aacayan an opportunity to e2plain the issues against her and to present her side. %'ter attending the 'irst scheduled hearing and participating thereat, respondent Aacayan did not attend the succeeding hearings. In a letter dated %pril =, -**>, petitioner co#pany dis#issed respondent Aacayan 'or 'raudulently sub#itting ta#pered and$or altered receipts in support o' her petty cash rei#burse#ents in gross violation o' the co#pany(s rules and regulations. Petitioner co#pany now begs us to reconsider this pronounce#ent, arguing that respondent Aacayan(s position as a D?enior 4inancial %ccountant with the )ob "escription o' a 4inancial Pro9ect %nalystE has duties which clearly 3uali'y her as one occupying a position o' trust and responsibility !LR . dis#issed the co#plaint 'iled by Aacayan %. reversed with order o' reinstate#ent Issue. 67! DL7?? 74 &RF?& %!" 7!4I"G! G,E %? % )F?& %F?G 47R &GRMI!%&I7! (65I 5 I? !7& RG?&RI &G" &7 M%!%AGRI%L GMPL78GG?) %! BG %PPLI" &7 D?FPGRHI?7R? 7R 7&5GR PGR?7!!GL 7 FP8I!A P7?I&I7!? 74 RG?P7!?IBILI&8.E

5eld. 4rist decision o' ? dated "ece#ber ->, +,-,- dis#issal has no basis ?econd decision (an MR was 'iled by petition)- 8G?. In the instant case, respondent Aacayan was the ?enior 4inancial %ccountant o' petitioner co#pany. &he records reveal that she indeed handled delicate and con'idential #atters in the 'inancial analyses and evaluations o' the action plans and strategies o' petitioner co#pany. Respondent Aacayan was also privy to the strategic and operational decision-#a1ing o' petitioner co#pany, a sensitive and delicate position re3uiring the

latter(s ut#ost trust and con'idence. %s such, she should be considered as holding a position o' responsibility or o' trust and con'idence. Aacayan betrayed the trust and con'idence reposed on her when she, ironically a ?enior 4inancial %ccountant tas1ed with ensuring 'inancial reportorial$regulatory co#pliance 'ro# others, repeatedly sub#itted ta#pered or altered receipts to support her clai# 'or #eal rei#burse#ents, in gross violation o' the rules and regulations o' petitioner co#pany. Fpon review, even the ourt o' %ppeals did not absolve respondent Aacayan o' wrongdoing but rather #erely held that dis#issal was too harsh a penalty 'or her in'raction. we held that the language o' %rticle +:+(c) o' the Labor ode states that the loss o' trust and con'idence #ust be based on will'ul breach o' the trust reposed in the e#ployee by the e#ployer. 7rdinary breach will not su''iceC it #ust be will'ul. ?uch breach is will'ul i' it is done intentionally, 1nowingly, and purposely, without 9usti'iable e2cuse as distinguished 'ro# an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.%nd in the case o' supervisors or personnel occupying positions o' responsibility, li1e respondent Aacayan, the loss o' trust and con'idence #ust spring 'ro# the voluntary or will'ul act o' the e#ployee, or by reason o' so#e bla#eworthy act or o#ission on the part o' the e#ployee. #$%&o'($') G*+*y*' +*''o) ,-%)*.$'ly /-l$ * +l*-, /o# o0$#)-,$ ,$*l *llo1*'+$ #$-,2u#%$,$') /o# * (*y %3$ .'$1 %3$ 1*% 'o) $')-)l$( )o, *% %3$ (-( 'o) *+)u*lly #$'($# o0$#)-,$ 1o#.. %lthough the a#ounts involved in the sub9ect receipts were relatively s#all, or only the dates and$or ite#s ordered were altered or ta#pered with, respondent Aacayan(s act o' sub#itting 'raudulent ite#s o' e2pense adversely re'lected on her integrity and honesty, which is a#ple basis 'or petitioner co#pany to lose its trust and con'idence in her.

G.R. +o. %>;&;?, Septem$er %@, 6?%?

$ALVADOR E #ANO *. LIBER!+ !OLEDO Abad, J.:

FACTS:*i$erty (oledo filed charges of grave misconduct and conduct pre3udicial to the service against Reyes, Pere', Achano, and a certain Bohn #oe with the /ffice of the /m$udsman for allowing an unauthori'ed person, *i'a Pere', a stenographer in the office of the ,lerk of ,ourt of the R(, of 1anila, to deposit to her savings account second endorsed checks paya$le to the /ffice of the ,ity (reasurer of 1anila. Achano added that he was unaware, prior to the filing of the complaint, that Pere' had $een a$le to deposit in her accounts second-endorsed checks that were paya$le to the ,ity (reasurer of 1anila. 9e claimed that he might have inadvertently missed out the payee!s name on the check when he e8amined it prior to signing the stamp of approval on the dorsal side.

/n Septem$er ;?, 6??6 the /ffice of the /m$udsman found Reyes and Achano guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and meted out to them the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of leave credits and perpetual dis)ualification from employment in the government and in government-owned and controlled corporations.

ISSUE: -hether or not the /ffice of the /m$udsman erred in imposing on him the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of leave credits and perpetual dis)ualification from employment in the government service.

RULING: <nder Section @6, Rule "C of the ,ivil Service ,ommission!s <niform Rules on dministrative ,ases, grave misconduct carries with it the penalty of dismissal for the first offense. Section @;, however, allows mitigating circumstances to $e considered in the determination of the penalties to $e imposed. -hile Achano claims good faith, the ,ourt cannot close its eyes to the fact that he approved for deposit to Pere'!s personal account a$out 6D other second-endorsed checks paya$le to the ,ity (reasurer of 1anila. 9is violation of the $anking rules was certainly willful and dishonest.

s cting Eranch ,ashier, petitioner was charged with responsi$ility of handling the $ank!s daily transactions, which could run into large amounts. (here is a tremendous difference $etween the degree of responsi$ility, care, and trustworthiness e8pected of a clerk or ordinary employee in the $ureaucracy and that re)uired of $ank managers, cashiers, finance officers, and other officials directly handling large sums of money and properties.(he evidence clearly shows that Achano took light of such responsi$ility and flagrantly disregarded esta$lished $anking rules and practices. 9is misconduct and dishonesty paved the way for the commission of fraud against, and conse)uent damage to, the ,ity Government of 1anila. G.R. No. 141115. 6 Au7u%) 2010 NAG8A8AISANG LA8AS NG MANGGAGAWA SA 8EIHIN 9NLM8:OLALIA:8MU; *'( HELEN <ALEN UELA,Petitioners, vs. 8EIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondent. DEL CASTILLO, J." !ACTS"Petitioner 5elen Halen@uela was a production associate in respondent Ieihin Philippines, a co#pany engaged in the production o' inta1e #ani'old and throttle body used in #otor vehicles #anu'actured by 5onda. It is a standard operating procedure o' Ieihin to sub9ect all its e#ployees to reasonable search be'ore they leave the co#pany pre#ises. In +,,/, while 5elen was about to leave the co#pany pre#ises, she saw a pac1ing tape near her wor1 area and placed it inside her bag because it would be use'ul in her trans'er o' residence. 6hen the

lady guard on duty inspected 5elen(s bag, she 'ound the pac1ing tape inside her bag. &he guard con'iscated it and sub#itted an incident report. &he 'ollowing day, respondent co#pany issued a show cause notice to 5elen accusing her o' violating 4.+ o' the co#pany(s ode o' onduct, which says, J%ny act constituting the't or robbery, or any atte#pt to co##it the't or robbery, o' any co#pany property or other associate(s propertyE. ?aid act carries apenalty o' dis#issal. Paul upon, 5elen(s supervisor, called her to his o''ice and directed her to e2plain in writing why no disciplinary action should be ta1en against her.5elen, in her e2planation,ad#itted the o''ense and even #ani'ested that she would accept whatever penalty would be i#posed upon her. ?ubse3uently, 5elen received a noticein'or#ing her that Ieihin has decided to ter#inate her services. &hus, petitioners 'iled a co#plaintagainst respondent 'or illegal dis#issal. ISSUES" -. 67! the % erred in dis#issing petitioners( petition outright 'or not having been 'iled by an indispensable party. 8G?. +. 67! 5elen was #otivated by #alicious intent in ta1ing the pac1ing tape. 8G?. /. 67! the penalty o' dis#issal is too harsh and disproportionate to the o''ense co##itted by 5elen since the value o' the thing ta1en is very #ini#al. !7. =. 67! the re3uire#ent o' procedural due process was not observed by the respondent because the 'irst notice 'ailed to e2plain the charge being leveled against 5elen. !7. HELD" -. Petitioners 'ailed to include the na#e o' the dis#issed e#ployee 5elen Halen@uela in the caption o' their petition 'or certiorari as well as in the body o' the said petition. Instead, they only indicated the na#e o' the labor union !ag1a1aisangLa1asngManggagawasa Ieihin (!LMI7L%LI%) as the party acting on behal' o' 5elen.%s a result, the % rightly dis#issed the petition based on a 'or#al de'ect.Fnder ?ection B, Rule / o' the Rules o' ourt, Jparties in interest without who# no 'inal deter#ination can be had o' an action shall be 9oined as plainti''s or de'endants.J I' there is a 'ailure to i#plead an indispensable party, any 9udg#ent rendered would have no e''ectiveness. It is Jprecisely Kwhen an indispensable party is not be'ore the court that an action should be dis#issed.( &he absence o' an indispensable party renders all subse3uent actions o' the court null and void 'or want o' authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. +. Misconduct is de'ined as Jthe transgression o' so#e established and de'inite rule o' action, a 'orbidden act, a dereliction o' duty, will'ul in character, and i#plies wrong'ul intent and not #ere error in 9udg#ent.J4or serious #isconduct to 9usti'y dis#issal under the law, J(a) it #ust be serious, (b) #ust relate to the per'or#ance o' the e#ployee(s dutiesC and (c) #ust show that the e#ployee has beco#e un'it to continue wor1ing 'or the e#ployer.JIn the case at bar, 5elen too1 the pac1ing tape with the thought that she could use it 'or her own personal purposes. In other words, by her own ad#ission, there was intent on her part to bene'it hersel' when she atte#pted to bring ho#e the pac1ing tape in 3uestion.It is noteworthy that prior to this incident, there had been several cases o' the't and vandalis# involving both respondent co#pany(s property and personal belongings o' other e#ployees. In order to address this issue o' losses, respondent co#pany issued two #e#oranda i#ple#enting an intensive inspection procedure and re#inding all e#ployees that those who will be caught stealing and per'or#ing acts o'

vandalis# will be dealt with in accordance with the co#pany(s ode o' onduct. "espite these re#inders, 5elen too1 the pac1ing tape and was caught during the routine inspection. %ll these circu#stances point to the conclusion that it was not 9ust an error o' 9udg#ent on the part o' 5elen, but a deliberate act o' the't o' co#pany property.%lthough as a rule this ourt leans over bac1wards to help wor1ers and e#ployees continue with their e#ploy#ent or to #itigate the penalties i#posed on the#, acts o' dishonesty in the handling o' co#pany property are a di''erent #atter (4irestone &ire and Rubber o#pany o' the Philippines v. Lariosa). /. Fnder 9urisprudence, the case o' Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. NLRC, we re'rained 'ro# i#posing the supre#e penalty o' dis#issal to an e#ployee who too1 a bottle o' lighter 'luid because the value o' said 'luid very #ini#al co#pared to his salary. 5owever, the case at hand is very di''erent 'ro# the case o' alte2. %lthough the e#ployee there and 5elen had no prior violations, the 'or#er had a clean record o' eight years with his e#ployer. 7n the other hand, 5elen was not even on her second year o' service with Ieihin when the incident o' the't occurred. %lso, in this case, the respondent co#pany was dealing with several cases o' the't, vandalis#, and loss o' co#pany and e#ployees( property when the incident involving 5elen transpired. =. In the dis#issal o' e#ployees, the twin re3uire#ents o' notice and hearing are essential ele#ents o' due process. &he e#ployer #ust 'urnish the e#ployee with two written notices be'ore ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent can be legally e''ected. (a) a notice apprising the e#ployee o' the particular acts or o#issions 'or which his dis#issal is sought, and (b) a subse3uent notice in'or#ing the e#ployee o' the e#ployer(s decision to dis#iss hi#.J =-lavvphi1In this case, respondent co#pany 'urnished 5elen a show-cause notice accusing her o' violating 4.+ o' the co#pany(s ode o' onduct which says, J%ny act constituting the't or robbery, or any atte#pt to co##it the't or robbery, o' any co#pany property or other associate(s property.J ?uch notice su''iciently in'or#ed 5elen o' the charge o' the't o' co#pany property against her. ?he wasproperly apprised by the e#ployer o' the particular acts or o#issions 'or which dis#issal is sought.6ith regard to the re3uire#ent o' a hearing, the essence o' due process lies in an opportunity to be heard. ?uch opportunity was a''orded the petitioner when she was as1ed to e2plain her side o' the story. &he essence o' due process lies si#ply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held. Gven i' no hearing or con'erence was conducted, the re3uire#ent o' due process had been #et since he was accorded a chance to e2plain his side o' the controversy. &he petition is DENIED. )G44RG8 !% %AFG vs. ?FLPI I7 LI!G?, I! . G.R. No. 142586 4% &?

Sulpicio *ines, "nc. 4Sulpicio *ines5 hired +acague as :hepe de via3e: or the representative of Sulpicio *ines on $oard its vessel 1FC Princess of the -orld. Sulpicio *ines received an anonymous letter reporting the use of illegal drugs on $oard the ship. /n %G =e$ruary 6??;, ,easar (. ,hico, a housekeeper on the ship, su$mitted a report regarding the drug paraphernalia found inside the 1opalla Suite Room and the threat on his life made $y +acague and ,hief 1ate Reynaldo #oroon after he found the drug paraphernalia, Sulpicio *ines sent a notice of investigation to +acague informing him of the charges against him for use of illegal drugs and threatening a co-employee.-hen the ship docked in the port of 1anila on %7 =e$ruary 6??;,

some crew mem$ers of the ship, together with +acague, were su$3ected to a random drug test which resulted in the Positive. +acague went to ,hong 9ua 9ospital in ,e$u ,ity to undergo a voluntary drug test. (he drug test with ,hong 9ua 9ospital yielded a negative result. +acague su$mitted this test result to Sulpicio *ines. Sulpicio *ines sent a memorandum to +acague terminating him from the service. =eeling aggrieved, +acague filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal and for reinstatement with $ackwages. (he *a$or ar$iter ruled in favor of +acague however was overruled $y +*R,. "SS<A -hether or not the termination of the +acague was Calid 9A*#: +/. (he court ruled that Sulpicio *ines failed to clearly show that +acague was guilty of using illegal drugs. -e agree with the *a$or r$iter that the lack of accreditation of S.1. *a'o ,linic made its drug test results dou$tful. Section ;D of R. . +o. &%D@ provides that drug tests shall $e performed only $y authori'ed drug testing centers. 1oreover, Section ;D also prescri$es that drug testing shall consist of $oth the screening test and the confirmatory test. (he law is clear that drug tests shall $e performed only $y authori'ed drug testing centers. "n this case, Sulpicio *ines failed to prove that S.1. *a'o ,linic is an accredited drug testing center. Sulpicio *ines did not even deny +acague!s allegation that S.1. *a'o ,linic was not accredited. lso, only a screening test was conducted to determine if +acague was guilty of using illegal drugs. Sulpicio *ines did not confirm the positive result of the screening test with a confirmatory test. Sulpicio *ines failed to indu$ita$ly prove that +acague was guilty of using illegal drugs amounting to serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. Sulpicio *ines failed to clearly show that it had a valid and legal cause for terminating +acague!s employment. -hen the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. GR NO. 141=>= APRIL 2>, 2010 NAPOCOR, &$)-)-o'$# <%. OLANDESCA, #$%&o'($') PERALTA, J."

!ACTS" !%P7 7R is a govern#ent owned and controlled corporation 7landesca was 'irst e#ployed as an e2tension aide and was assigned at &iwi watershed. &herea'ter, he held various positions in the petitioners corporation.

%t the ti#e o' the alleged dishonesty, respondent 7landesca held the position o' ?upervising Property 7''icer at the %ngat River hydroelectric Plant. 7n several occasions respondent withdrew several ite#s 'ro# the warehouse$property o''ice, without the re3uired 6R?. 7n three occasions, respondent transported the ite#s during nightti#e. 7n so#e occasions, he even used the petitionerLs corporate vehicle to transport the #aterials he too1 'ro# the property o''ice. Respondent even used an outsider to withdraw interlin1 wires 'ro# the warehouse. all ite#s he withdrew 'ro# the property o''ice were duly recorded on the security logboo1 o' the security guard on duty. 5e used the 'oregoing ite#s to 'ence + develop#ent areas which are part o' the !P %ngat 6atershed %reas and Reservations. /days a'ter the last withdrawal, respondent replaced all the said ite#s he too1 at his own initiative. Largo, 'iled a co#plaint against respondent 'or grave #isconduct ru@, HP, ad#inistratively charged respondent with %cts o' "ishonesty RBI" reco##ended that respondent su''er the penalty o' dis#issal RespondentLs appeal to the ? was denied Respondent 'iled a petition 'or review with %. % Aranted the petition and ordered 7landescaLs reinstate#ent ISSUE" 67! 7landesca co##itted acts o' dishonesty

HELD" Petition without #erit. In P%A 7R vs. Rilloro@a, dishonesty is de'ined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or de'raudC unworthinessC lac1 o' integrityC lac1 o' honesty, probity or integrity in principleC lac1 o' 'airness and straight'orwardnessC disposition to de'raud, deceive or betray RespondentLs acts should not be construed as dishonesty. &he withdrawals o' the supplies were duly recorded in the security logboo1 M lac1 o' intent to deceive or de'raud the petitioner + 5e replaced the#, on his own initiative, without anyone instructing hi# to do so M lac1 o' intent to de'raud / !o clear showing that respondent #isappropriated or converted the ite#s 'or his own personal use or bene'it = &he o''ice o' the 7#buds#an dis#issed the co#plaint o' Largo against the respondent as there was no co#petent and su''icient evidence on record to show that there was intent to gain. Respondent however, violated reasonable o''ice rules and regulations by ta1ing properties without approve 6R?. &he appropriated penalty to be i#posed is repri#and Bac1 wages awarded.

S$#-ou% M-%+o'(u+)

CALTE? 9PHILIPPINES;, INC., ET.AL. <% HERMIE AGAD *'( CALTE? UNITED SUPER<ISORS@ ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 162014. APRIL 2>, 2010 CARPIO, J.

(A !$, -hen 9ermie gad, a supervisor in ,alte8 was transferred to the Eatangas depot of ,alte8 from its depot in *eyte in %&&6 he incurred crating e8penses for the transfer of his $elongings to Eatangas in the amount of P%@,@?? duly covered $y an official receipt and approved for reim$ursement $y petitioner.

year later, petitioner was investigated for the following charges: 4%5 the crating e8penses he reim$ursed from the company were were fictitious and 465 unauthori'ed withdrawal and sale of the *PG cylinders.

fter the investigation, gad was informed $y petitioner in writing that he is $eing dismissed from service on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence, $oth 3ust causes for termination of employment.

gad and the ,alte8 <nited Supervisors <nion filed a case against petitioners for illegal dismissal.

LABOR ARBITER there were no 3ust causes for gad!s termination of employment2 found no $asis for alleged fictitious crating e8pense $ecause it was covered $y an official receipt which served as $est evidence that said e8pense was actually incurred and the testimony of two other witnesses were not credi$le since they were not presented for cross-e8amination during the investigation 4hence hearsay5. s to the charge of unauthori'ed withdrawal and sale of the *PG cylinders, the * ruled that gad was denied the right to present his witnesses and other evidence in support of his defense which constitutes a denial of due process.

NLRC reversed LA ruled that there e8isted 3ust causes which 3ustified gad!s dismissal2 found that amount of crating e8pense reim$ursed $y gad was fictitious $ecause receipt not conclusive proof that the crating service was performed $y the contractor #elda. 9is testimony en3oys the presumption of regularity and good faith and was corro$orated $y two other witnesses. gad had no authority to withdraw the *PG cylinders from the #epot2 he did not o$serve e8isting company rules and regulations in procuring the re)uired forms, in the su$mission of periodic *PG cylinders inventory and in selling the *PG cylinders without the re)uisite $idding.

COURT OF APPEALS concurs with the findings of the * as to the first charge H there was no fraud in the crating e8penses concurs with the +*R, in finding that gad did not o$serve company policies in the withdrawal and sale of %&? *PG cylinders $ut said that dismissal is too harsh a punishment for a first infraction of an employee who was awarded for many years of meritorious service.

I$$)E, -hether the unauthori'ed withdrawal of the *PG cylinders, its sale without $idding and failure to account for the sale constituted serious misconduct that is a 3ust cause for terminationI

#ELD, (he ,ourt agrees with the * and the , that the charges on fraudulent crating e8penses have no $asis, the testimonies $eing hearsay and una$le to overcome the $est evidence presented $y respondent.

9owever, as to the second charge, the ,ourt said that the memorandum relied upon $y gad for the withdrawal of the %&? pieces of *PG cannot $e given credence since it does not pertain to the su$3ect *PG cylinders. 9e did not o$serve ,alte8!s rules and regulations when he transferred the said cylinders to 1illanes! compound and when he gave instructions for its sale without the re)uisite $idding. 9is failure to su$mit the periodic inventory report of the *PG cylinders to the accounting department, non-remittance of the proceeds of the sale of said *PG is a .serious infraction amounting to theft of company property. (his act is akin to a serious misconduct or willful diso$edience $y the employee of the lawful orders of his employer in connection with his

work, a 3ust cause for termination of employment recogni'ed under rticle 6764a5 of the *a$or ,ode.0

Misconduct N a transgression o' so#e established and de'inite rule o' action, a 'orbidden act, a dereliction o' duty, will'ul in character, and i#plies wrong'ul intent and not #ere error in 9udg#ent. &o be serious, the #isconduct #ust be o' such grave and aggravated character.

Gven i' %gad did not co##it the alleged charge o' 'ictitious rei#burse#ent o' crating e2pense, he was 'ound to have acted without authority, a serious in'raction a#ounting to the't o' co#pany property, in the unauthori@ed withdrawal and sale o' the -*, pieces o' LPA cylinders owned by the co#pany. alte2, as the e#ployer, has discharged the burden o' proo' necessary in ter#inating the services o' %gad, who was ascertained to have blatantly abused his position and authority. &hus, %gad(s dis#issal 'ro# e#ploy#ent based on (-) acts tanta#ount to serious #isconduct or will'ul violation o' co#pany rules and regulationsC and (+) will'ul breach o' trust and con'idence as "epot ?uperintendent was law'ul and valid under the circu#stances as #andated by %rticle +:+ (a) and (c) o' the Labor ode.
G.R. No. 1-6019 March 29, 2010

.#I!E DIAMOND !RADING ORPORA!ION a%&/or JERR+ )+ a%& JE$$IE )+, Petitioners, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$ OMMI$$ION, NORLI!O E$ O!O, MAR+ GRA E PA$!ORIL a%& MARIA M+RNA OMELA, Respondents. BRION, J.: (A !$, Petitioner -hite #iamond (rading ,orporation 4the company5 is engaged in $uying and selling second hand motor vehicles2 Berry <y is its owner and Bessie <y its President. (he company employed 1aria 1yrna /mela 4/mela5 in %&&& as assistant secretary, 1ary Bane Pastoril 4Pastoril5 in 6??? as secretary, and +orlitoAscoto 4Ascoto5 in 6??% as salesman. /n =e$ruary 67, 6??G, Ascoto consummated the sale of a (oyota (own ce to (eodoro $e3ar )uino 4 )uino5 for P6??,???.??. )uino tried $ut failed to haggle for a lower price. -hile the purchase price indicated in the original copy of the receipt issued to )uino was P6??,???.??, it was only P%&?,???.?? in the duplicate copy that remained with the company. (he receipt was issued $y /mela to )uino after he gave /melaP6??,???.?? in cash, which amount )uino counted in the presence of Pastoril. Pastoril then took out the deed of sale and handed it to )uino. (he deed showed that the consideration for the sale to $e P%&?,???.??. /n 1arch 7, 6??G, the company terminated the employment of Ascoto, /mela and Pastoril. /n 1arch %?, 6??G, the

three employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and its two top officers. (he conflict lies in the precise role Pastoril played in the irregularity that attended the company!s sale of a used (oyota (own ce on =e$ruary 67, 6??G. (he la$or ar$iter found su$stantial evidence showing that Ascoto, /mela and Pastoril were legally dismissed due to fraud committed in connection with the sale. (he +*R, and the , saw the case differently, $ut only with respect to Pastoril. (hey found that Pastoril had no participation in the commission of the fraud $ecause she merely handed the deed of sale to )uino, the $uyer2 in short, she had no knowledge of the discrepancies in the entries of the purchase price in the original receipt given to )uino, the duplicate copy of the receipt retained $y the company, and the deed of sale given to )uino. I$$)E, -hether the , erred in affirming the +*R, decision finding that Pastoril had $een illegally dismissed and awarding her $ackwages and separation pay #ELD, Jes. (he records support the la$or ar$iter!s factual and legal conclusions. -e find that the +*R, misappreciated the facts and the , grossly erred in upholding the la$or tri$unal!s findings. Pastoril!s involvement in the )uestiona$le transaction was much more than handing over to )uino his copy of the deed of sale. (he payment of the purchase price, the issuance of the receipt and the handing of the deed of sale to )uino were not separate isolated acts. (hey occurred in one continuous logical se)uence with the players in close pro8imity with one another. <nder these circumstances, to say that Pastoril merely handed over the deed of sale to )uino without even looking at the document or knowing what it contained, and without knowing what was actually happening, can hardly $e $elieved. (he deed of sale did not appear out of thin air2 some$ody in the company prepared the document. Given the positions of the three dismissed employees in the company and $ased on the se)uence of events, it could only $e Pastoril, the secretary, who prepared the deed of sale, not /mela. 9ad /mela prepared the deed aside from the receipt, then Pastoril!s presence and participation would have $een a surplusage2 /mela could have handed the receipt and the deed to )uino herself. Significantly, this conclusion finds support in )uino!s SinumpaangSalaysay in Buly 6??G,%& as well as a su$se)uent SinumpaangSalaysay dated #ecem$er ;, 6??@.6? =or the +*R, to disregard these very vital pieces of evidence constitutes grave a$use of discretion that the , should have discovered and reflected in its ruling. (o reiterate, Pastoril was not an innocent participant in the fraudulent sale of the company!s (oyota (own ce. She acted in concert with Ascoto and /mela in the transaction that defrauded their employer in the amount of P%?,???.?? H the difference in the vehicle!s actual price of P6??,???.?? paid $y the $uyer, and the price 4P%&?,???.??5 entered in the duplicate purchase receipt and in the deed of sale. Pastoril prepared and issued the deed of sale indicating that the vehicle was sold for P%&?,???.??, although she knew that the $uyer was $eing charged P6??,???.?? for the vehicle. <nder these facts, there was a conspiracy where every participant had made significant contri$utory acts.6;

G.R. +o. %DG?%D

1arch %@, 6?%?

RA+/ =//#S, "+,., andFor C",A+(A K9<, Petitioners, vs. +agkakaisang *akas ng 1anggagawa 4+*15 - K ("P<+ + on $ehalf of its mem$er, +A+"( , P/R, Respondent.

#A* , S("**/, B.: = ,(S: Petitioner Reno =oods, "nc. 4Reno =oods5 is a manufacturer of canned meat products of which Cicente Khu is the president and is $eing sued in that capacity. Respondent +enita ,apor 4,apor5 was an employee of Reno =oods until her dismissal. "t is a standard operating procedure of petitioner-company to su$3ect all its employees to reasona$le search of their $elongings upon leaving the company premises. (he guard on duty found si8 Reno canned goods wrapped in nylon leggings inside ,apor!s fa$ric clutch $ag. (he only other contents of the $ag were money $ills and a small plastic medicine container. Petitioners accorded ,apor several opportunities to e8plain her side, often with the assistance of the union officers of +agkakaisang *akas ng 1anggagawa 4+*15 H Katipunan. "n fact, after petitioners sent a +otice of (ermination to ,apor, she was given yet another opportunity for reconsideration through a la$or-management grievance conference held on +ovem$er %>, %&&&. <nfortunately, petitioners did not find reason to change its earlier decision to terminate ,apor!s employment with the company. +*1 filed on $ehalf of ,apor a complaintG for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioners with the 9ead r$itration /ffice of the +ational *a$or Relations ,ommission 4+*R,5 for the +ational ,apital Region. *a$or r$iter found that ,apor guilty of serious misconduct which is a 3ust cause for termination. =urther, the *a$or r$iter ruled that consistent with prevailing 3urisprudence, an employee who commits theft of company property may $e validly terminated and conse)uently, the said employee is not entitled to separation pay. /n appeal, the +*R, affirmed the factual findings and monetary awards of the *a$or r$iter $ut added an award of financial assistance. , affirmed the +*R,!s award of financial assistance to ,apor. "t stressed that the la$orer!s welfare should $e the primordial and paramount consideration when carrying out and interpreting provisions of the *a$or ,ode.

"SS<A:

-hether the +*R, committed grave a$use of discretion amounting to lack or e8cess of 3urisdiction in granting financial assistance to an employee who was validly dismissed for theft of company property. 9A*#: -e grant the petition. ,onviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find 3ust cause for termination of employment. ,apor was ac)uitted in ,riminal ,ase +o. 6?>-@7-1+ $ased on reasona$le dou$t. "n his #ecision, the trial 3udge entertained dou$ts regarding the guilt of ,apor $ecause of two circumstances: 4%5 an ensuing la$or dispute 4though it omitted to state the parties involved5, and 465 the upcoming retirement of ,apor. (he trial 3udge made room for the possi$ility that these circumstances could have motivated petitioners to plant evidence against ,apor so as to avoid paying her retirement $enefits. (he trial court did not categorically rule that the acts imputed to ,apor did not occur. "t did not find petitioners! version of the event as fa$ricated, $aseless, or unrelia$le. "t merely acknowledged that seeds of dou$t have $een planted in the 3uror!s mind which, in a criminal case, is enough to ac)uit an accused $ased on reasona$le dou$t. (he pertinent portion of the trial court!s #ecision reads: #uring the cross e8amination of the accused, she was confronted with a document that must $e related to a la$or dispute. 8 8 8 (he ,ourt noted very clearly from the transcript of stenographic notes that it must have $een su$mitted to the +*R,. (his is indicative of a la$or dispute which, although not claimed directly $y the accused, could $e one of the reasons why she insinuated that evidence was planted against her in order to deprive her of the su$stantial $enefits she will $e receiving when she retires from the company. "ncidentally, this document was never included in the written offer of evidence of the prosecution.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 171189 March 9, 2011

LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., LORENZO Y. SUMULONG III, Petitioners, vs. VIRGINIA E. PACIA, Respondent. DECISION

The Facts

In 1982, respondent Virginia E. Pacia (Pacia) was hired by LREI. At the time of her dismissal, she was the assistant manager and officer-in-charge of LREIs Accounting Department under the Finance Administrative Division. On October 28, 1998, LREIs acting general manager, petitioner Sumulong, through Ms. Julie Ontal, directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16477 worth P150,000.00 as partial payment for LREIs outstanding obligation to the Bank of the Philippine IslandsFamily Bank (BPI-FB). Pacia did not immediately comply with the instruction. After two repeated directives, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737526 in the amount of P150,000.00. Later, Sumulong again directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16478 in the amount of P175,000.00 to settle the balance of LREIs outstanding indebtedness with BPI-FB. Pacia once again was slow in obeying the order. Due to the insistence of Sumulong, however, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737527 in the amount of P175,000.00. To explain her refusal to immediately follow the directive, Pacia reasoned out that the funds in LREIs account were not sufficient to cover the amounts to be indicated in the checks. The next day, October 29, 1998, Sumulong issued a memorandum3 ordering Pacia to explain in writing why she refused to follow a clear and lawful directive. On the same day, Pacia replied in writing and explained that her initial refusal to prepare the checks was due to the unavailability of funds to cover the amounts and that she only wanted to protect LREI from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law.4 On November 6, 1998, Pacia received a notice of termination5 stating, among others, that she was being dismissed because of her willful disobedience and their loss of trust and confidence in her. ISSUE: In essence, the main issue to be resolved is whether Pacias dismissal was justified under the circumstances. The Court finds no merit in the petition.

The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.17 Let it be noted at this point that the Court finds nothing unlawful in the directive of Sumulong to prepare checks in payment of LREIs obligations. The availability or

unavailability of sufficient funds to cover the check is immaterial in the physical preparation of the checks.1avvphi1 Pacias initial reluctance to prepare the checks, however, which was seemingly an act of disrespect and defiance, was for honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and Sumulong from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law18 was foremost in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an obstinate defiance of company authority. The Court takes into consideration that Pacia, despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she was tasked to do it. The Court also finds it difficult to subscribe to LREI and Sumulongss contention that the reason for Pacias initial reluctance to prepare the checks was a mere afterthought considering that "check no. 0000737527 under one of the check vouchers she reluctantly prepared, bounced when it was deposited."19 Pacias apprehension was justified when the check was dishonored. This clearly affirms her assertion that she was just being cautious and circumspect for the companys sake. Thus, her actuation should not be construed as improper conduct. In finding for Pacia, the Court is guided by the time-honored principle that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The rule in controversies between a laborer and his master distinctly states that doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing, should be resolved in the former's favor.20

[G.R. Nos. 163293 & 163297 : December 13, 2010] EQUITA !E "#I AN$ %N&' AN#& DE &R& UNI AN$, IN#.(,) "ETITI&NER, *+. #A+T&R A. D&,"&R,))) RE+"&NDENT. DE! #A+TI!!&, J.: A bank manager's abuse of authority in implementing bank policies is an abuse of the trust reposed in him by his employer which constitutes as a just cause for his termination. -.c/s: On October 1, 197 , respondent was employed by then !"# $ank %!"#$&, now herein petitioner $anco 'e Oro (nibank, #nc.) *#n 199 , he was assigned as branch manager of !"#$'s +akati "inema $ranch. On ,uly -., 199/, !"#$'s Operations 0ubcenter 1ead, 2abriel, called the attention of !"#$'s Ayala3+akati Area 1ead, +allillin, regarding a number of !4'5 di6idend checks being sent for clearing by !"#$ +akati "inema $ranch. #t appears that respondent 'ompor allowed 4u7 8uentes %8uentes&, a client3depositor of !"#$ +akati "inema $ranch who opened "hecking

Account on ,uly 1., 199 , to deposit se6eral second3endorsed !4'5 di6idend checks beginning the last 9uarter of 199 . #n a +emo dated October -:, 199/, respondent was directed to e;plain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for committing the following serious policy 6iolations< 1& ;;; 8ailure to comply with )!"#$ Accounting !rocedure +anual* A!+ -/$. A.lb which states that checks payable to corporations, societies, firms, etc. for credit to a personal account and=or checks with unusual endorsement should not be accepted> -& )Allowing=appro6ing the acceptance of second3endorsed checks* despite Ayala3+akati Area management's instruction to stop accepting )this* type of deposits on ,une -7,199/)> and* :& ; ; ; failure to comply with )"redit !olicy 0uper6ision* %"!0& ?o. / which prohibits the purchase of second3endorsed !4'5 checks totaling ! /..: .-/ in the absence of appro6ed credit line on October - ,199 . @espondent submitted his reply on ?o6ember -A, 199/. On 8ebruary 7, 1997, respondent recei6ed a +emo dated ,anuary 7, 1997 dismissing him from employment on the grounds of serious policy 6iolations, willful breach of trust, and loss of confidence. 1ence, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal with money claims. Iss0es: 1. B=? the respondent was legally terminated based on wilful disobedience. -. B=? @espondent should be awarded separation pay. R01234: 1. CD0. 0ection %A&%l&%b& of petitioner's Accounting E !rocedures +anual pro6ides thus< . A""D!5#?2 F"1D"G0 O?4CF 'D!O0#5 ;;;; b. @efuse acceptance of checks endorsed by "orporations, 0ocieties, 8irms, etc. for credit to a personal account and=or checks with unusual endorsements. 5his e;plicit policy was transgressed by respondent intentionally and willfully. #t was not denied that on ,une -7, 199/, respondent was instructed by management to stop accepting second3endorsed checks due to the irregularities attendant to the transactions with 8uentes. 'espite such reasonable order, respondent still accommodated on two occasions in ,uly 199/ the re9uest of 8uentes to accept her checks.

D6en assuming that on the first occasion, respondent's acceptance of second3endorsed checks was with +allilin's appro6al, still, we find respondent guilty of willful disobedience and serious misconduct when he accepted, on the second occasion the deposit of second3endorsed checks. #n addition, the management had instructed him to stop accepting said checks. 2. NO. Be are aware that in se6eral instances this "ourt has awarded separation pay as a measure of social justice. 1owe6er, the matter of the award of separation pay based on social justice has been clarified in PLDT vs NLRC where the "ourt categorically declared that Fseparation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is 6alidly dismissed for cause o/5er /5.3 ser2o0s m2sco360c/; ; ;.F 4ikewise, we ruled in TMPCWA v. NLRC that in addition to serious misconduct, separation pay should not be conceded to an employee who was dismissed based on 7211801 62sobe62e3ce.
A.R. !o. -B0+:B, )anuary /-, +,-HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SER<ICES, INC. : MEDICAL CENTER MANILA, PG&I&I7!GR, H?. HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SER<ICES, INC. : MEDICAL CENTER MANILA EMPLOAEES ASSOCIATION:A!W AND EDNA R. DE CASTRO , RG?P7!"G!&?. PERALTA, J.: !*+)%. Between +.,, a.#. to /.,, a.#. o' March +=, -***, while respondent "e astro and ward-cler1 orientee Aina Auillergan were at the nurse station on night duty, one Ru'ina ausaren, an :-year-old patient con'ined at Roo# B+=-- o' petitioner hospital 'ell 'ro# the right side o' the bed as she was trying to reach 'or the bedpan. Because o' what happened, the niece o' patient ausaren sought assistance 'ro# the nurse station. Instead o' personally seeing the patient, respondent "e astro directed ward-cler1 orienteeAuillergan to chec1 the patient. &he vital signs o' the patient were nor#al. Later, the physician on duty and the nursing sta'' on duty 'or the ne2t shi't again attended to patient ausaren. Petitioners allege that the deliberate re'usal to attend to patient ausaren a'ter the latter 'ell 'ro# the bed 9usti'ies respondent "e astroLs ter#ination 'ro# e#ploy#ent due to serious #isconduct. &hey clai# that respondent "e astro 'ailed to. (a) personally assist the patientC (b) chec1 her vital signs and e2a#ine i' she sustained any in9uryC (c) re'er the #atter to the patientLs attending physician or any physician-on-dutyC and (d) note the incident in the report sheet 'or endorse#ent to the ne2t shi't 'or proper #onitoring. In her o##ent, respondent "e astro counters that there was no serious #isconduct or gross negligence co##itted, but si#ple #isconduct or #inor negligence which would warrant the penalty o' B to -= days o' suspension under the G#ployeeLs 5andboo1 o' petitioner hospital.

I%%u$. 6hether or not Gdna "e astro should be ter#inated 'ro# e#ploy#ent due to gross negligence. H$l(. %rticle +:+ (b) o' the Labor ode provides that an e#ployer #ay ter#inate an e#ploy#ent 'or gross and habitual neglect by the e#ployee o' his duties. It is incu#bent upon respondent "e astro to ensure that patients, covered by the nurse station to which she was assigned, be accorded ut#ost health care at all ti#es without any 3uali'ication or distinction. Respondent "e astroLs 'ailure to personally assist patient ausaren, chec1 her vital signs and e2a#ine i' she sustained any in9ury, re'er the #atter to the patientLs attending physician or any physician-onduty, and note the incident in the report sheet 'or endorse#ent to the ne2t shi't 'or proper #onitoring constitute serious #isconduct that warrants her ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent. !eglect o' duty, to be a ground 'or dis#issal, #ust be both gross and habitual. Aross negligence connotes want o' care in the per'or#ance o' oneLs duties. 5abitual neglect i#plies repeated 'ailure to per'or# oneLs duties 'or a period o' ti#e, depending upon the circu#stances. % single or isolated act o' negligence does not constitute a 9ust cause 'or the dis#issal o' the e#ployee."espite our 'inding o' culpability against respondent "e astroC however, we do not see any wrong'ul intent, deliberate re'usal, or bad 'aith on her part when, instead o' personally attending to patient ausaren, she re3uested !ursing %ssistant &atad and ward-cler1 orienteeAuillergan to see the patient, as she was then attending to a newly-ad#itted patient at Roo# B-,. !egligence is de'ined as the 'ailure to e2ercise the standard o' care that a reasonably prudent person would have e2ercised in a si#ilar situation. &he ourt e#phasi@es that the nature o' the business o' a hospital re3uires a higher degree o' caution and e2acting standard o' diligence in patient #anage#ent and health care as what is involved are lives o' patients who see1 urgent #edical assistance. %n act or o#ission that 'alls short o' the re3uired degree o' care and diligence a#ounts to serious #isconduct which constitutes a su''icient ground 'or dis#issal. 5owever, considering that this was the 'irst o''ense o' respondent "e astro in her nine (*) years o' e#ploy#ent with petitioner hospital as a sta'' nurse without any previous derogatory record and, 'urther, as her lapse was not characteri@ed by any wrong'ul #otive or deceit'ul conduct, the ourt dee#s it appropriate that, instead o' the harsh penalty o' dis#issal, she would be suspended 'or a period o' si2 (0) #onths without pay, inclusive o' the suspension 'or a period o' -= days which she had earlier served. &herea'ter, petitioner hospital should reinstate respondent Gdna R. "e astro to her 'or#er position without loss o' seniority rights, 'ull bac1wages, inclusive o' allowances and other bene'its, or their #onetary e3uivalent, co#puted 'ro# the e2piration o' her suspension o' si2 (0) #onths up to the ti#e o' actual reinstate#ent.

ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs. ESTRELITO NOTARIO,

G.R. No. 152166 FACTS: St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. (petitioner hospital), located at Que on Cit!, e"plo!ed respondent as In# $ouse Securit! %uard. &i"a!a 'lectro Corporation installed a closed#circuit tele(ision (CCT)) s!ste" in the pre"ises o* petitioner hospital to enhance its securit! "easures and conducted an orientation se"inar *or the in#house securit! personnel on the proper +a! o* "onitorin, (ideo ca"eras, su-.ect to certain ,uidelines. /espondent +as on dut! *ro" 0:11 p.". to 0:11 a.". o* the *ollo+in, da!. $is +ork consisted "ainl! o* "onitorin, the (ideo ca"eras. In the e(enin, o* 2ece"-er 31, 4550, 6ustin Ti-on, a *orei,ner, then attendin, to his 3#!ear#old dau,hter, Andanie 2e 7ru", reported to the "ana,e"ent o* petitioner hospital a-out the loss o* his "int ,reen tra(elin, -a,, +hich +as placed inside the ca-inet. Actin, on the co"plaint o* Ti-on, the Securit! 2epart"ent o* petitioner hospital conducted an in(esti,ation. 8hen the tapes o* (ideo ca"era recorder ()C/) no. 3 co(erin, the su-.ect period +ere re(ie+ed, it +as sho+n that the )C/ +as *ocused on the other hospital units. The ca"eras *ailed to record an! incident o* the*t at roo" 9:;. <etitioner hospital, issued a Me"orandu" to respondent, the CCT) "onitorin, sta** on dut!, directin, hi" to e=plain in +ritin,, +ithin 9> hours upon receipt thereo*, +h! no disciplinar! action should -e taken a,ainst hi" *or (iolatin, the nor"al rotation?se@uencin, process o* the )C/ and, conse@uentl!, *ailed to capture the the*t o* Ti-onAs tra(elin, -a, at roo" 9:;. /espondent e=plained that on the su-.ect dates, he +as the onl! personnel on dut! as no-od! +anted to assist hi". 7ecause o* this, he decided to *ocus the ca"eras on the Bld and &e+ Maternit! Cnits, as these t+o units ha(e hi,h incidence o* cri"e. Findin, the +ritten e=planation o* respondent to -e unsatis*actor!, petitioner hospital, throu,h Cali=ton, ser(ed on respondent a cop! o* the &otice o* Ter"ination, dis"issin, hi" on the ,round o* ,ross ne,li,ence?ine**icienc! under Section 4, /ule )II o* its Code o* 2iscipline. <etitioners alle,e that, -! not *ocusin, the CCT) ca"eras on the di**erent areas o* the hospital, respondent co""itted ,ross ne,li,ence +hich +arrants his dis"issal. Accordin, to the", there +as no need to pro(e that the act done +as ha-itual, as the occurrence o* the the*t e=posed the" to possi-le la+ suit and, additionall!, there "i,ht -e a repetition o* a si"ilar incident in the *uture i* respondent +ould re"ain in their e"plo!. /espondent "aintains that he +as not ne,li,ent in the dischar,e o* his duties. $e said that there +as no actual loss to petitioner hospital as no co"plaint or le,al action +as taken a,ainst the" and that the supposed co"plainant, Ti-on, did not e(en report the "atter to the police authorities. ISSC': 8hether or not respondent +as ille,all! dis"issed. /CLI&%: D'S. To e**ectuate a (alid dis"issal *ro" e"plo!"ent -! the e"plo!er, the La-or Code has set t+in re@uire"ents, na"el!: (4) the dis"issal "ust -e *or an! o* the causes pro(ided in Article 9E9 o* the La-or CodeF and (9) the e"plo!ee "ust -e ,i(en an opportunit! to -e heard and de*end hi"sel*. This *irst re@uisite is re*erred to as the su-stanti(e aspect, +hile the second is dee"ed as the procedural aspect. An e"plo!er can ter"inate the ser(ices o* an e"plo!ee onl! *or (alid and .ust causes +hich "ust -e supported -! clear and con(incin, e(idence. The e"plo!er has the -urden o* pro(in, that the dis"issal +as indeed *or a (alid and .ust cause. A perusal o* petitioner hospitals CCT) Monitorin, %uidelines, disse"inated to all in#house securit! personnel, re(eals that that there is no cate,orical pro(ision re@uirin, an in#house securit! personnel to o-ser(e a rotation se@uence procedure in *ocusin, the ca"eras so that the securit! "onitorin, +ould co(er as "an! areas as possi-le. Further, the Certi*ication issued -! $i"a!a 'lectro Corporation, indicatin, respondent as one o* the participants in the orientation conducted *or in#house securit! personnel contradicted the .oint state"ent, -! therein participants, +hich e=cluded respondent as one o* the attendees. Thus, the certi*ication cannot support petitioners theor! that respondent ou,ht to kno+ the rudi"ents o* "onitorin, the CCT) ca"eras

on the -asis that he +as one o* the participants in the said orientation. <ro-a-l!, respondent +as listed as one o* the participants, -ut he *ailed to attend. For his part, respondent denied ha(in, attended the said orientation and -ein, in*or"ed o* the SB< o* CCT) ca"eras. 2espite the *ore,oin,, respondent had -een e**icientl! per*or"in, his assi,ned task. In *act, petitioner hospital co""ended the (i,ilance o* respondent and other *our in#house securit! personnel in pre(entin, the occurrence o* the*ts and th+artin, the loss o* the personal -elon,in,s o* a con*ined patient. Cnder Article 9E9 (-) o* the La-or Code, an e"plo!er "a! ter"inate an e"plo!ee *or ,ross and ha-itual ne,lect o* duties. &e,lect o* dut!, to -e a ,round *or dis"issal, "ust -e -oth ,ross and ha-itual. %ross ne,li,ence connotes +ant o* care in the per*or"ance o* ones duties. $a-itual ne,lect i"plies repeated *ailure to per*or" ones duties *or a period o* ti"e, dependin, upon the circu"stances. A sin,le or isolated act o* ne,li,ence does not constitute a .ust cause *or the dis"issal o* the e"plo!ee. Cnder the pre(ailin, circu"stances, respondent e=ercised his -est .ud,"ent in "onitorin, the CCT) ca"eras so as to ensure the securit! +ithin the hospital pre"ises. )eril!, assu"in, ar,uendo that respondent +as ne,li,ent, althou,h this Court *inds other+ise, the lapse or inaction could onl! -e re,arded as a sin,le or isolated act o* ne,li,ence that cannot -e cate,ori ed as ha-itual and, hence, not a .ust cause *or his dis"issal. <etitioners lack o* .ust cause and non#co"pliance +ith the procedural re@uisites in ter"inatin, respondents e"plo!"ent renders the" ,uilt! o* ille,al dis"issal. Conse@uentl!, respondent is entitled to reinstate"ent to his *or"er position +ithout loss o* seniorit! ri,hts and pa!"ent o* -ack+a,es. $o+e(er, i* such reinstate"ent pro(es i"practica-le, and hardl! in the -est interest o* the parties, perhaps due to the lapse o* ti"e since his dis"issal, or i* he decides not to -e reinstated, respondent should -e a+arded separation pa! in lieu o* reinstate"ent.

G.R. No. 1--201

A1213t 16, 2010

JE$)$ E. D+ O O, JR., Petitioner, vs. E4)I!ABLE P I BAN5 6NO. BAN O DE ORO7, RENE B)ENAVEN!)RA AND $ILE$ $AMALEA, Respondents. (A !$, "n =e$ruary %&&>, petitioner was hired $y respondent $ank as ssistant 1anager andFor /", Eranch 9ead of its *ega'pi ,ity Eranch, Region C 4*ega'pi $ranch5. "n 6???, petitioner $ecame Eranch 9ead and in Septem$er 6??;, respondent $ank underwent an internal reorgani'ation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner $ecame the Personal Eanking 1anager 4PE15 of the *ega'pi $ranch. "n Bune 6??@, several clients of the *ega'pi $ranch filed complaints for alleged unauthori'ed a$stractions of various trust funds, treasury placements and deposits. Respondent $ank promptly commenced an investigation. ,onse)uently, :show cause: letters were issued to the officers of the *ega'pi $ranch, including Eranch ,enter 9ead Glena /rogo, former Service /fficer respondent Siles Samalea, Service /fficer "rene (a$u'o, /perations /fficers "melda Aspiritu and 1aria =e Gianan, "nvestment ,lerk ,arlo Luirong and the petitioner as the PE1. Petitioner was then preventively suspended from Septem$er 6?, 6??D to /cto$er 6?, 6??D. /n Septem$er 66, 6??D, while petitioner was under preventive suspension, he filed a complaint in the +*R, Regional r$itration Eranch +o. C alleging constructive dismissal and illegal suspension, and demanding reinstatementFseparation pay and payment of incentives, %;th month pay, $onuses, moral and e8emplary damages and attorney!s fees. 1eanwhile, respondent $ank rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty. /n Buly 6G, 6??>, the la$or ar$iter held that

petitioner was illegally dismissed. /n appeal, the +*R, reversed the la$or ar$iter!s decision. (he , su$se)uently affirmed the +*R,. I$$)E, -/+ petitioner was illegally dismissedI #ELD, Jes. s the $anking industry is impressed with pu$lic interest, all $ank personnel are $urdened with a high level of responsi$ility insofar as care and diligence in the custody and management of funds are concerned. Petitioner misera$ly failed to discharge this $urden. Petitioner violated his duties and responsi$ilities as PE1 when he signed and approved the su$3ect transactions without the necessary signatures of the concerned clients. s PE1, it was his o$ligation to ensure :that all documentary re)uirements 4were5 complied with $y clients $eing handled and that the $ank!s interest 4was5 at all times protected.: "t was incum$ent on him to enforce :strict compliance with $ank policies and internal control procedures while maintaining the highest level of service )uality.: "t is significant that petitioner did not even deny that it was he who signed, approved and facilitated the su$3ect transactions relating to the various a$stractions committed $y a $ank employee. "t was an implied admission that he was the one who opened the door for the commission of the unlawful a$stractions $y failing to ensure that all re)uirements for the opening of accounts were complied with. (his constituted gross negligence. s a PE1, petitioner should have e8ercised much care in performing his functions. Petitioner!s failure on three separate occasions to re)uire clients to sign the re)uisite documents 4a vital and standard procedure in all $anking transactions5 was a clear manifestation of serial negligence. Eecause of this gross negligence, ,arlo Luirong, respondent $ank!s ,ustomer Sales ssistant, was a$le to filch millions of pesos from respondent $ank $y manipulating clients! accounts. Petitioner!s assertion that neither Luirong nor any of the $ank operations personnel was under his supervision and that the day-to-day operations of his $ranch were the responsi$ility of the Eanking ,enter 9ead does not e8onerate him from lia$ility. 9e was duty-$ound to make certain that such documentary re)uirements were complied with in accordance with respondent $ank!s rules. Gross negligence connotes :want of care in the performance of one!s duties.: Petitioner!s failure to o$serve $asic procedure constituted gross negligence. 9is repeated failure to carefully o$serve his duties as PE1 clearly showed utter want of care. Petitioner!s $reach of respondent $ank!s policies intended to safeguard the $ank and its clients! funds was clearly inimical to the interests of his employer. *oss of confidence and dismissal from employment were therefore 3ustified. *oss of confidence applies to situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of employer!s money or property. :"f the employees are cashiers, managers, supervisors, salesmen or other personnel occupying positions of responsi$ility, the employer!s loss of trust and confidence in said employees may 3ustify termination of their employment.:
GROSS NEGLIGENCE "R. G"ILBGR&7 G?&%MP%, )R., vs I&8 A7HGR!MG!& 74 "%H%7 !*+)%"

&his case is about the 'ailure o' a city(s #edical health o''icer and disaster coordinator "R. G"ILBGR&7 G?&%MP%, )R to respond to a catastrophic bo#bing incident upon the e2cuse that he needed to attend 'irst to the needs o' his 'a#ily. 7n March =, +,,/, at around 0 p.#., a power'ul bo#b e2ploded at the passengers( ter#inal o' the "avao International %irport, 1illing ++ persons and in9uring --/ others. "r. Gsta#pa had 9ust arrived ho#e at that ti#e and was ta1ing care o' his one-year-old daughter. 5e learned o' the bo#bing incident between B to : p.#. 5is wi'e arrived at * p.#. 'ro# her wor1 at the"avao Medical enter where #ost o' the bo#bing victi#s were brought 'or treat#ent. ?he prevailed on "r. Gsta#pa to stay ho#e as she is 0 #onths pregnant and he did. "r. )osephine ). Hilla'uerte, the "avao ity 5ealth 7''icer, 3ueried the head o' the ity(s 5u#an Resource Manage#ent 7''ice (5RM7) regarding the status o' the case against "r. Gsta#pa 'or 'ailing to respond to the bo#bing incident. Reacting to this, the 5RM7 endorsed the #atter to the ity Legal 7''ice 'or veri'ication and investigation. 7n March -*, +,,= the %ssistant ity Legal 7''icer sub#itted an Investigation Report, 'inding a pri#a 'acie case against "r. Gsta#pa 'or neglect o' duty;-< and reco##ending the 'iling o' a 'or#al charge against hi#. %t the pretrial, "r. Gsta#pa waived his right to counsel. &he parties agreed to dispense with a 'or#al hearing and to 9ust sub#it their position papers or #e#oranda. 7n !ove#ber -+, +,,= the ity Legal 7''icer 'ound "r. Gsta#pa guilty o' DgraveE neglect o' duty and reco##ended his dis#issal. 7n 4ebruary :, +,,> the city #ayor approved the reco##endation and dis#issed "r. Gsta#pa. &he latter #oved 'or reconsideration but this was denied, pro#pting hi# to appeal to the ivil ?ervice o##ission ( ? ). &he ? denied "r. Gsta#pa(s appeal, corrected the deno#ination o' his o''ense to gross neglect o' duty, and a''ir#ed his dis#issal. &he ? also denied "r. Gsta#pa(s #otion 'or reconsideration 'or lac1 o' #erit. "r. Gsta#pa appealed to the ourt o' %ppeals ( %) by petition 'or review under Rule =/. &he % a''ir#ed the resolutions o' the ? . &he % also 'ound no #erit in his #otion 'or reconsideration. 5ence, this petition. Issue. 67! Gsta#pa is guilty o' gross neglect o' duty 5eld. 8es. G#o%% '$7l$+) o/ (u)y ($'o)$% * /l*7#*') *'( +ul&*2l$ #$/u%*l o# u'1-ll-'7'$%% o/ * &$#%o' )o &$#/o#, * (u)y.B6C I) 3*% 2$$' 3$l( )3*) 7#o%% '$7l-7$'+$ $D-%)% 13$' * &u2l-+ o//-+-*lE% 2#$*+3 o/ (u)y -% /l*7#*') *'( &*l&*2l$.B10C "r. Gsta#pa clai#s that the city 'ailed to show that he had an obligation to respond to the "avao ity bo#bing and that no one advised hi# o' his duties and responsibilities as city health o''ice(s oordinator to the "isaster oordinating ouncil. But "r. Gsta#pa cannot clai# ignorance o' his duties. &he local govern#ent code, the provision o' which he #ay be assu#ed to 1now, provides that a govern#ent health o''icer has the duty, a#ong others, to be in the 'rontline o' the delivery o' health services, particularly during and in the a'ter#ath o' #an-#ade and natural disasters and cala#ities.;--< 4urther#ore, as Medical 7''icer HI, one o' his speci'ied duties was Dto act as head o' a tas1 'orce unit 'or any untoward events in his area o' responsibility.E It was precisely because o' his position as Medical 7''icer HI that he had been designated "isaster oordinator 'or his o''ice.

6hen "r. Gsta#pa accepted his post and swore to per'or# his duties, he entered into a covenant with the city to act with dedication, speed, and courage in the 'ace o' disasters li1e the bo#bing o' populated places in the city. %s the % pointed out, the bo#bing incident on March =, +,,/ caused so #any deaths and in9uries that the victi#s had to be 'ar#ed out a#ong several hospitals in the city. Plainly, the ity needed public health o''icers to co#e to the rescue o' the victi#s in whatever way their su''erings or those o' their 'a#ilies could be assuaged. %s disaster coordinator, the city needed "r. Gsta#pa to organi@e and coordinate all e''orts to #eet the e#ergency. 8et, although he 1new o' the bo#bing, he chose to stay at ho#e. "r. Gsta#pa(s de'ense is not acceptable. % person(s duty to his 'a#ily is not inco#patible with his 9ob-related co##it#ent to co#e to the rescue o' victi#s o' disasters. "isasters do not stri1e every day. Besides, 1nowing that his 9ob as senior #edical health o''icer entailed the co##it#ent to #a1e a #easure o' personal sacri'ice, he had the choice to resign 'ro# it when he reali@ed that he did not have the will and the heart to respond. %ssu#ing that he had a oneyear-old daughter in the house, he could have ta1en her to relatives te#porarily while his wi'e was still on her way 'ro# wor1. But he did not. %nd when his wi'e arrived shortly at * p.#., he still did not leave under the prete2t that his wi'e was si2 #onths pregnant. 8et, he had in 'act per#itted her to wor1 away 'ro# ho#e up to the evening. 6hat #ar1ed his gross irresponsibility was that he did not even care to call up his superior or associates to in'or# the# o' his inability to respond to the e#ergency. %s a result, the city health o''ice 'ailed to provide the needed coordination o' all e''orts intended to cope with the disaster. 6ho 1nowsO Better coordination and dispatch o' victi#s to the right e#ergency roo#s could have saved #ore lives.

&he ourt 'inds no e2cuse 'or reinstating "r. Gsta#pa to the position he abandoned when it needed hi#.

# 17 BPI & BPI !"#$% B!&' (S. NLRC & A)!"*+$o %./. &o. 4;5E14, 6une 4E, 9141 ,!-.s/ /osario &. Ara"-ulo +as initiall! e"plo!ed as Clerk in 45;9 at Cit!trust 7ankin, Corp, +hich e(entuall! "er,ed +ith the 7<I. She later -eca"e Lead Teller, then as Sales Mana,er, and su-se@uentl!, as 7ank Mana,er in 7<I#San <a-lo, La,una 7ranch in 4550. Bn > Bcto-er 9114, respondent +as repri"anded *or the i"proper handlin, and retention o* a clients account. She +as trans*erred to 7<I Fa"il! 7ank in Los 7aGos, La,una on 94 &o(e"-er 9114. Bn 90 April 9119, a client o* 7<I#San <a-lo, La,una 7ranch re@uested *or a certi*ication o* her sa(in,s account. $er -alance re*lected an a"ount less than the actual a"ount deposited. $ence, 7<I conducted an in(esti,ation and disco(ered that its -ank teller, Teoti"a $elen A ucena +as "akin, unauthori ed +ithdra+als. 7<I conducted a thorou,h in(esti,ation and disco(ered that respondent had appro(ed se(eral +ithdra+als *ro" (arious accounts o* clients +hose si,natures +ere *or,ed. Bn 40 6anuar! 9113, respondent +as ser(ed +ith the notice o* ter"ination on the ,round o* loss o* trust and con*idence, *or ,ross (iolation o* policies and procedures.

Bn 4> March 9113, respondent *iled a co"plaint *or ille,al dis"issal +ith the la-or ar-iter pra!in, *or pa!"ent o* separation pa!, -ack+a,es and attorne!s *ees. 7<I essentiall! @uestions the a+ard o* separation pa!. It ar,ues that the (er! e=istence o* respondents si,nature on the *or,ed +ithdra+al slips in such *re@uenc! and in(ol(in, hu,e a"ounts o* "one!, transacted -e!ond -ankin, hours, and +ithout the presence o* the clients, should -e su**icient to hold respondent lia-le *or *raud, thus ne,atin, the *indin, o* ,ood *aith. 7<I stresses that under the principle o* co""and responsi-ilit!, respondent should -e held lia-le *or *ailure to detect the *raudulent acti(ities and irre,ularities in her -ranch. /espondents o"issions, as clai"ed -! 7<I, cannot -e considered as si"ple ne,li,ence or "isconduct. 8hile, respondent concedes that there is a le,al ,round to ter"inate her *or loss o* trust and con*idence on account o* si"ple ne,lect o* dut! and "isconduct in not -ein, a-le to properl! i"ple"ent and *ollo+ -ank policies and procedure. $o+e(er, she .usti*ies her entitle"ent to separation pa! in that her dis"issal +as not -ased on serious "isconduct, ,ross and ha-itual ne,lect o* dut!, nor did her conduct re*lect on her "oral character. Iss+0/ 8hether or not respondent should -e a+arded separation pa!.

10$2/ 8hile as a ,eneral rule, an e"plo!ee +ho has -een dis"issed *or an! o* the .ust causes enu"erated under Article 9E9 o* the La-or Code is not entitled to separation pa!, the Court has allo+ed in nu"erous cases the ,rant o* separation pa! or so"e other *inancial assistance to an e"plo!ee dis"issed *or .ust causes on the -asis o* e@uit!. )eril!, it "a! not -e a"iss to e"phasi e that i* an e"plo!ee has -een dis"issed *or a .ust cause under Article 9E9 o* the La-or Code, he is not entitled to separation pa!. In the instant case, respondent +as dis"issed on the ,round o* loss o* trust and con*idence. It is si,ni*icant to stress that *or there to -e a (alid dis"issal -ased on loss o* trust and con*idence, the -reach o* trust "ust -e +ill*ul, "eanin, it "ust -e done intentionall!, kno+in,l!, and purposel!, +ithout .usti*ia-le e=cuse. The -asic pre"ise *or dis"issal on the ,round o* loss o* con*idence is that the e"plo!ees concerned hold a position o* trust and con*idence. It is the -reach o* this trust that results in the e"plo!ers loss o* con*idence in the e"plo!ee. There*ore, respondent should -e denied o* separation pa!.

A.R. !o. -:,-+/, 4ebruary -:, +,-,. IFL%? I"G%? P RG%&I7!?, AIL 4R%! I? M%!I!A7 %!" M%. R% 5GL M%!I!A7, Hs. )FLIG& %L 7?GB% %!" 4L7R"GLI!"% %R%7-%R%7,

!*+)%" In -**0, respondents )uliet %lcoseba ()uliet) and 4lordelinda %rao-arao (4lordelinda) were e#ployed as sales attendants o' herein petitioner IFL%? Ideas P reations (IFL%?), a gi't bouti3ue. %s part o' their duties and responsibilities, )uliet and 4lordelinda were tas1ed to sell IFL%?Ls products, prepare wee1ly sales reports and assist the cler1 in the #onthly inventory o' saleable goods. In 4ebruary +,,,, the "epart#ent o' Labor and G#ploy#ent ("7LG) inspected the outlet o' IFL%? in %yala enter in ebu where )uliet and 4lordelinda were assigned and 'ound that it violated several labor standards laws. &he "7LG later sent IFL%? a !otice o' ?u##ary Investigation, directing it to pay the salary di''erential o' its e#ployees 'ro# )anuary to %ugust +,,, a#ounting to P-B/,,,/.+:. IFL%? subse3uently directed )uliet and 4lordelinda, by Me#orandu# o' !ove#ber +/, +,,,, to e2plain and$or investigate an alleged inventory discrepancy which entailed the a#ount o' P=:,-B*./,. %nd therea'ter suspended )uliet and 4lordelinda 'or seven days, by Me#orandu# o' !ove#ber +*, +,,,, starting "ece#ber -, +,,, 'or gross negligence o' duties and responsibilities. Both )uliet and 4lordelinda thus 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal suspension and withholding o' salaries be'ore the !ational Labor Relations o##ission (!LR ). 4inding 'or petitioners, Labor %rbiter Hioleta 7rti@-Bantug, ruled that there was no illegal dis#issal. 7n appeal, the !LR , li1ewise held that there was no illegal dis#issal. 7n herein respondentsL #otion 'or reconsideration, the !LR Jpartially reconsidered.J Petitioners and respondents both #oved 'or reconsideration o' the !LR ?epte#ber /, +,,= Resolution. By Resolution o' March -:, +,,>, the !LR denied respondentsL second #otion 'or reconsideration 'or being a prohibited pleading but granted petitionersL #otion 'or reconsideration. It accordingly reinstated its %pril -*, +,,= "ecision which, it bears recalling, held that there was no illegal dis#issal and set aside Jthe #onetary award 'or lac1 o' 9urisdiction.J Respondents, via certiorari, elevated the case to the ourt o' %ppeals which, by "ecision o' March +-, +,,B, reversed and set aside the !LR . 5ence this petition. I%%u$" 6hether or not the respondents were validly dis#issed. H$l(" !7. %rticle +:+ (b) and (c) o' the Labor ode provide that an e#ployer #ay ter#inate an e#ployee 'or Jgross and habitual neglect by the e#ployee o' his dutiesJ and 'or J'raud.J In both instances, substantial evidence is necessary

'or an e#ployer to e''ectuate any dis#issal. Fncorroborated assertions and accusations by the e#ployer do not su''ice, otherwise the constitutional guaranty o' security o' tenure o' the e#ployee would be 9eopardi@ed. %rticle +:+ (b) i#poses a stringent condition be'ore an e#ployer #ay ter#inate an e#ploy#ent due to gross and habitual neglect by the e#ployee o' his duties. &o sustain a ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent based on this provision o' law, the negligence #ust not only be gross but also habitual. Petitioners assert that respondents 'ailed to regularly underta1e a #onthly physical inventory o' the outletLs #erchandise. &he assertion 'ails to persuade. 4or the #ost part, inventory preparation and reporting did not 'all on respondentsL shoulders since they were to Jassist the ;stoc1< cler1J only. In cases o' ter#ination o' e#ployees based on 9ust causes, the law #andates the 'ollowing re3uisites. (i) % written notice served on the e#ployee speci'ying the ground or grounds 'or ter#ination, and giving said e#ployee reasonable opportunity within which to e2plain his side. (ii) % hearing or con'erence during which the e#ployee concerned, with the assistance o' counsel i' he so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against hi#. (iii) % written notice o' ter#ination served on the e#ployee, indicating that upon due consideration o' all the circu#stances, grounds have been established to 9usti'y his ter#ination. (e#phasis supplied) &hus a 'irst notice in'or#ing and bearing on the charge #ust be sent to the e#ployee. Ma3uiling v. Philippine &uberculosis ?ociety, Inc., e#phasi@es that the 'irst notice #ust in'or# outright the e#ployee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges speci'ied in such notice which, i' proven, will result in the e#ployeeLs dis#issal. &his notice will a''ord the e#ployee an opportunity to avail all de'enses and e2haust all re#edies to re'ute the allegations hurled against hi# 'or what is at sta1e is his very li'e and li#b his e#ploy#ent. 7therwise, the e#ployee #ay 9ust disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous conse3uence to be anticipated. %bsent such state#ent, the 'irst notice 'alls short o' the re3uire#ent o' due process...222 In the present case, the only ti#e petitioners apprised respondents o' gross neglect o' duties and dishonesty as grounds 'or the ter#ination o' the services was by Me#orandu# o' "ece#ber -/, +,,,. &he #e#orandu# did not in'or# outright respondents that an investigation would

be conducted on the charges particulari@ed therein which, i' proven, would result to their dis#issal. It li1ewise did not contain a plain state#ent o' the particular charges o' #al'easance or #is'easance. G.R. No%. 16>26> F 16>264 D$+$,2$# 8, 2010

EGUITABLE PCI BAN8 9No1 BANCO DE ORO UNIBAN8, INC.;, P$)-)-o'$#, 0%. CASTOR A. DOMPOR, R$%&o'($'). DEL CASTILLO, J." !ACTS" Respondent astor %. "o#por, branch #anager o' petitioner G3uitable P I Ban1(s (now Banco "e 7ro Fniban1, Inc.) Ma1ati ine#a Branch was dis#issed 'ro# e#ploy#ent by petitioner on the grounds o' serious policy violations, will'ul breach o' trust, and loss o' con'idence, with 'urther sanction o' 'or'eiture o' bene'its and contingent restitution o' the total a#ount o' P0,B-+,B>0.0- including costs. It was 'ound out in an audit report that 0B,B=: PL"& second-endorsed dividend chec1s, covered by //+ deposit slips, and with a total a#ount o' P0.B-/ #illion, were drawn on Ri@al o##ercial Ban1ing orporation-Ma1ati and #ade payable to di''erent payee corporations and pro#inent personalities. &hese chec1s were therea'ter 'raudulently negotiated in 'avor o' Lu@ 4uentes, a client-depositor o' P IB Ma1ati ine#a Branch who is allowed by respondent to open chec1ing account no. ,0B+-,==,:-, to deposit several second-endorsed PL"& dividend chec1s. %n investigating co##ittee dis#issed hi# due to the lac1 o' #erit o' his e2planation with regards to the 'ollowing serious policy violations.
-) 4ailure to co#ply with P IB %ccounting Procedure Manual (%PM) !o. +0B.>%.-b which states that chec1s payable to corporations, societies, 'ir#s, etc. 'or credit to a personal account and$or chec1s with unusual endorse#ent should not be acceptedC +) %llowing$approving the acceptance o' second-endorsed chec1s despite %yalaMa1ati %rea #anage#ent(s instruction to stop accepting this type o' deposits on )une +B, -**0C and /) 4ailure to co#ply with redit Policy ?upervision ( P?) !o. 0 which prohibits the purchase o' second-endorsed PL"& chec1s totalingP>0,=/>.+0 in the absence o' approved credit line on 7ctober +>, -**>.

&herea'ter, he 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal be'ore the Regional %rbitration Branch o' the !LR , averring that his dis#issal was without 9ust cause as the alleged loss o' trust and con'idence is not substantial. &he Labor %rbiter rendered a "ecision 'inding respondent(s dis#issal valid. &he !LR a''ir#ed the decision o' the Labor %rbiter. 5owever, the ourt o' %ppeals, on petition 'or certiorari, ruled in 'avor o' the respondent. 5ence, the petitioner 'iled this Motion or Reconsideration. ISSUE" 6hether or not respondent co##itted will'ul disobedience and will'ul breach o' trust su''icient as 9ust causes 'or his dis#issal.

HELD" 8es. &o 9usti'y will'ul breach o' trust, it re3uires that Dthe loss o' con'idence #ust not be si#ulatedC it should not be used as a subter'uge 'or causes which are illegal, i#proper or un9usti'iedC it #ay not be arbitrarily asserted in the 'ace o' overwhel#ing evidence to the contraryC it #ust be genuine, not a #ere a'terthought to 9usti'y earlier action ta1en in bad 'aithC and, the e#ployee involved holds a position o' trust and con'idence.E 6hile petitioner(s #anual o' procedures does not absolutely prohibit the negotiation or acceptance o' second-endorsed chec1s 'or deposits, it does e2pressly disallow the acceptance o' chec1s endorsed by corporations, societies, 'ir#s, etc. and chec1s with unusual endorse#ents. %s shown by the records, this e2plicit policy was transgressed by respondent intentionally and will'ully. Respondent, as ban1 #anager, has the duty to ensure that ban1 rules are strictly co#plied with not only to ensure e''icient ban1 operation which is i#bued with public interest but also to serve the best interest o' the ban1 as he holds a position o' trust and con'idence. %s e#phasi@ed by petitioner, respondent was in charge o' the overall ad#inistration o' the branch and is tas1ed to ensure that all policies and procedures are strictly 'ollowed. I'(u2-)*2ly, *'y '$7l-7$'+$ -' )3$ $D$#+-%$ o/ 3-% #$%&o'%-2-l-)-$% +*' 2$ %u//-+-$') 7#ou'( /o# lo%% o/ )#u%) *'( +o'/-($'+$ ($,*'($( 2y 3-% &o%-)-o'. %s held in Gtcuban, )r. v. ?ulpicio Lines, Inc., Dthe #ere e2istence o' a basis 'or believing that ;a #anagerial< e#ployee has breached the trust o' his e#ployer would su''ice 'or his dis#issal 2 2 2. ;P<roo' beyond reasonable doubt is not re3uired.E Respondent(s wanton violation o' ban1 policies e3uates to abuse o' authority and, there'ore, abuse o' the trust reposed in hi#. ?uch intention to violate the trust o' petitioner is enough 'or his dis#issal 'ro# service.
21. ; G.R. No. 1416>0 Au7u%) 8, 2010

CENTURA CANNING CORPORATION, RICARDO T. PO, JR. *'( AMANCIO C. RONGUILLO, Petitioners, vs. <ICENTE RANDA R. RAMIL, Respondent.

PERALTA, J."

!*+)%. Petitioner entury anning orporation, a co#pany engaged in canned 'ood #anu'acturing, e#ployed respondent Hicente Randy Ra#il in %ugust -**/ as technical specialist. Prior to his dis#issal on May +,, -***, his 9ob included, a#ong others, the preparation o' the purchase re3uisition (PR) 'or#s and capital e2penditure ( %PGQ) 'or#s.

7n March /, -***, respondent prepared a %PGQ 'or# 'or e2ternal 'a2 #ode#s and ter#inal server, per order o' &echnical 7perations Manager and endorsed it to the ?ecretary o' G2ecutive Hice-President Ricardo &. Po, 'or the latterLs signature. &he 'ollowing day, March =, -***, respondent trans#itted it to Purchasing 7''icer Lorena Pa@ in &aguig Main 7''ice. Pa@ processed the paper and 'ound that so#e details in the %PGQ 'or# were le't blan1. ?he also doubted the genuineness o' the signature o' Po, as appearing in the 'or#. Pa@ then trans#itted the %PGQ 'or# to Purchasing Manager Hirgie Aarcia and in'or#ed her o' the 3uestionable signature o' Po.

?uspecting hi# to have co##itted 'orgery, respondent was as1ed to e2plain in writing the events surrounding the incident. 5e vehe#ently denied any participation in the alleged 'orgery. Respondent was, therea'ter, suspended on %pril +-, -***. ?ubse3uently, he received a !otice o' &er#ination 'ro# %r#ando . Ron3uillo, on May +,, -***, 'or loss o' trust and con'idence. "ue to the 'oregoing, respondent, on May +=, -***, 'iled a o#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal, nonpay#ent o' overti#e pay, separation pay, #oral and e2e#plary da#ages and attorneyLs 'ees against petitioner and its o''icers.

L% rendered a "ecision dated "ece#ber 0, -*** dis#issing the co#plaint 'or lac1 o' #erit. &he !LR declared respondentLs dis#issal to be illegal and directed petitioner to reinstate respondent with 'ull bac1wages and seniority rights and privileges. Petitioner 'iled a #otion 'or reconsideration. &he !LR reversed itsel' and rendered a new "ecision upholding dis#issal o' his co#plaint. % rendered 9udg#ent in 'avor o' respondent and ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent, without loss o' seniority rights and privileges, and to pay respondent 'ull bac1wages 'ro# the ti#e his e#ploy#ent was ter#inated on May +,, -*** up to the ti#e o' the 'inality o' its decision.

I%%u$. 6hether or not respondentLs dis#issal due to loss o' trust and con'idence is illegal. H$l(. &he law #andates that the burden o' proving the validity o' the ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent rests with the e#ployer. 4ailure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily #ean that the dis#issal was not 9usti'ied and, there'ore, illegal. Fnsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions o' e#ployers do not provide 'or legal 9usti'ication 'or dis#issing e#ployees. In case o' doubt, such cases should be resolved in 'avor o' labor, pursuant to the social 9ustice policy o' labor laws and the onstitution. Petitioner based respondentLs dis#issal on its unsubstantiated suspicions and conclusion that since respondent was the custodian and the one who prepared the %PGQ 'or#s, he had the #otive to co##it the 'orgery. 5owever, as correctly 'ound by the !LR in its original "ecision, respondent would not be bene'ited by the purchase o' the sub9ect e3uip#ent.

G#ployers are allowed a wider latitude o' discretion in ter#inating the services o' e#ployees who per'or# 'unctions which by their nature re3uire the e#ployersL 'ull trust and con'idence and the #ere e2istence o' basis 'or believing that the e#ployee has breached the trust o' the e#ployer is su''icient, this does not #ean that the said basis #ay be arbitrary and un'ounded. &he right o' an e#ployer to dis#iss an e#ployee on the ground that it has lost its trust and con'idence in hi# #ust not be e2ercised arbitrarily and without 9ust cause. Loss o' trust and con'idence, to be a valid cause 'or dis#issal, #ust be based on a will'ul breach o' trust and 'ounded on clearly established 'acts. &he basis 'or the dis#issal #ust be clearly and convincingly established. It #ust rest on substantial grounds and not on the e#ployer(s arbitrariness, whi#, caprice or suspicionC otherwise, the e#ployee would eternally re#ain at the #ercy o' the e#ployer. In the case at bar, there is neither direct evidence nor substantial docu#entary evidence pointing to respondent as the one liable 'or the 'orgery o' the signature o' Po.

&he ourt 'inds that it would be best to award separation pay instead o' reinstate#ent, in view o' the strained relations between petitioner and respondent. Respondent was dis#issed due to loss o' trust and con'idence and it would be i#practical to reinstate an e#ployee who# the e#ployer does not trust, and whose tas1 is to handle and prepare delicate docu#ents.

&he "ecision and Resolution o' the ourt o' %ppeals are %44IRMG" with M7"I4I %&I7!. &he order o' reinstate#ent is deleted, and in lieu thereo', Petitioner is "IRG &G" to pay respondent separation pay. &he case is RGM%!"G" to the Labor %rbiter 'or the purpose o' co#puting respondentLs 'ull bac1wages, inclusive o' allowances and other bene'its co#puted 'ro# the date o' his dis#issal on May +,, -*** up to the 'inality o' the decision, and separation pay in lieu o' reinstate#ent e3uivalent to one #onth salary 'or every year o' service, co#puted 'ro# the ti#e o' his engage#ent by petitioner on %ugust -**/ up to the 'inality o' this decision. 22. A'7 0% PNB

A.R. !o. -B:B0+

)une -0, +,-,

LFRHIMI!"% %. %!A, Petitioner, vs. P5ILIPPI!G !%&I7!%L B%!I, Respondent.

4acts.

&his case is about the dis#issal o' an e#ployee 'or o''enses co##itted during her e#ploy#ent in a govern#ent-owned corporation but which o''enses were discovered a'ter the privati@ed corporation rehired her to wor1 'or it. Peitioner %ng clai#ed that respondent P!B, then a govern#ent-owned corporation, hired her as a probationary cler1. But she rose 'ro# the ran1s, eventually beco#ing an %ssistant "epart#ent Manager, a position she held when the P!B was privati@ed and when she, li1e her co-e#ployees, was dee#ed auto#atically retired. P!B ad#inistratively charged her with serious #isconduct and will'ul breach o' trust 'or ta1ing part in a sca#, called J1iting operation,J where a depositor used a conduit ban1 account 'or depositing several un'unded chec1s drawn against the sa#e depositor(s other current accounts and 'ro# which conduit ban1 account he later withdrew those chec1s. P!B heaped other charges against %ng o' serious #isconduct and gross violation o' the ban1(s rules and regulations wherein she issued si2 certi'icates o' deposit in a#ounts e2ceeding the true deposit balance o' various depositors, issued two ban1 co##it#ents 'or providing a credit line in 'avor o' a govern#ent contractor without authority, co##itted tardiness and Junder ti#e.E In the answer to the charge %ng clai#ed that it was not a J1iting operation,J but an acco##odation o' a very valued client and the issuance o' the certi'icates had been a #ar1eting strategy and prevent their valued clients to #ove to other ban1s. %ng also clai#ed that she was not covered by the circular governing o''ice hours because she was a ban1 o''icer. Managerial e#ployees, according to her, wor1ed beyond the usual eight hours and even wor1ed on ?aturdays and ?undays. ?he added that, since the ban1 had already #ade deductions 'or tardiness on her pay chec1, she cannot any#ore be ad#inistratively charged 'or it. %ng 'urther pointed out that the causes 'or her ter#ination too1 place when she was yet a govern#ent o''icial. &he P!B had since ceased to be govern#ent-owned. I' she were to be charged 'or those causes, the 9urisdiction over her case would lie with the ivil ?ervice o##ission. Gven then, since she already retired 'ro# the govern#ent service, the e#ploy#ent that could be ter#inated no longer e2isted. %ng 'iled co#plaint against illegal dis#issal, illegal deductions, non-pay#ent o' -/th #onth pay, allowances, separation pay, and retire#ent bene'its with prayer 'or pay#ent o' #oral and e2e#plary da#ages, attorney(s 'ees, and litigation e2penses. &he Labor %rbiter 'ound P!B(s dis#issal o' %ng illegal 'or 'ailure to show that the dis#issal was 'or a valid cause and a'ter notice and hearing. ?peci'ically, the P!B 'ailed to prove any basis 'or loss o' trust. &he !LR deleted the award o' da#ages because o' absence o' bad 'aith on the part o' the P!B o''icers but #aintained the L%(s 'inding that the P!B had not proved loss o' trust as a ground 'or dis#issal. &he ourt o' %ppeals 'ound a valid reason to uphold %ng(s dis#issal 'ro# the service 'or will'ul breach o' the trust reposed in her by the P!B.

Issue. 6hether or not there was will'ul breach o' trust and con'idence.

5eld.

A$%. %ng clai#s that her dis#issal by P!B, the private corporation, was illegal since she had co##itted no o''ense under its e#ploy. &he o''ense 'or which she was re#oved too1 place when the govern#ent still owned P!B and she was then a govern#ent e#ployee. But while P!B began as a govern#ent corporation, it did not #ean that its corporate being ceased and was subse3uently reestablished when it was privati@ed. It re#ained the sa#e corporate entity be'ore, during, and a'ter the change over with no brea1 in its li'e as a corporation.

onse3uently, the o''enses that %ng co##itted against the ban1 be'ore its privati@ation continued to be o''enses against the ban1 a'ter the privati@ation. But, since the P!B was already a private corporation when it loo1ed into %ng(s o''enses, the provisions o' the Labor ode governed its disciplinary action. &he P!B right'ully separated her 'ro# wor1 'or will'ul breach o' the trust that it reposed in her under the Labor ode. 5er de'ense that the P!B did not su''er any loss is o' no #o#ent. &he 'ocal point is that she betrayed the trust o' the ban1 in her 'idelity to its interest and rules.

ANABEL BENJAMIN a%& RENA!O ON$OLA ION *. AMELLAR ORPORA!ION G.R. No. 1-88-8 A9r:l 5, 2010 ARPIO MORALE$, J., (A !$, mellar ,orporation 4 mellar5 provides information technology services to local government units including computeri'ing their system and operations. mellar hired na$el Een3amin 4 na$el5 as the Pro3ect #ata ,ontroller of its ,ontent Euild <p 4,E<5 #epartment. (he ,E< #epartment collates and cleanses all the paper data gathered from the *G<-client which are then encoded and fed into the designed operating system. s the most senior mem$er of the department, na$el was its officer-in-charge. She administered the ,E< functions of mellar!s pro3ects in "mus, ,avite and 1a$ini, Eatangas. Renato ,onsolacion 4,onsolacion5, a supervising data controller in respondent!s "mus pro3ect, directly reported to na$el. Ey letter of 1arch 6?, 6??;, the municipal assessor of 1a$ini, Eatangas informed the manager of mellar that its real property ta8 administration data$ase was not :%??M complete.: (hus, 1elvin (andoc 4(andoc5, mellar!s (echnology 1anager, sent na$el a memorandum reading: . fter several months of working in "mus, ,avite, a confidential assistant informed me that the assigned S#,,Renato ,onsolacion, allegedly gave specific oral instructions to some of our #ata ,ontrollers and su$se)uently our #ata Ancoders on field not to encode several decks of inde8 cards of payments to N$eat! the deadline and pass on the 3o$ to our (raining and (echnical Support 4((S5 #epartment.0 na$el thereupon re)uired ,onsolacion to e8plain in writing the alleged incidents su$3ect of (andoc!s memorandum. ,omplying, ,onsolacion gave the following e8planation: ."f we are still going to accommodate the latest payments and posted from time to time posting of collection will never end. " have instructed the *and (a8 #ivision, (reasurer!s /ffice to separate those recently posted with new payments to update later in order to have a systematic flow of mass updating of payments. =urthermore, " have no instruction to our #,!s stating that we have to leave several decks of inde8es 3ust to :$eat: the deadline.0

(andoc later sent also na$el a memorandum of 1ay D, 6??; :apprising her of her acts or omissions tantamount to willful $reach of trust, among others, for which her dismissal was sought. /n 1ay %G, 6??;, (andoc issued ,onsolacion a memorandum informing him of his dismissal :for willful $reach of trust reposed in him. (he following day, (andoc issued na$el a +otice on #ecision to #ismiss. mellar underscores that na$el falsely reported the completion of work in the "mus pro3ect2 that she failed to follow ordinary procedures and instructions, to monitor and correct operational errors, and to comply with the lawful orders of her superiors. s for ,onsolacion, mellar asserts that he too misrepresented that the "mus pro3ect had $een completed2 that he failed to follow procedures and instructions, to provide written instructions for the separation of currently transacted records to the officials of "mus, to advise or $elatedly advise the data controllers of the separation of the records, and to send the template letter or follow the time frame for sending such letter. I$$)E, -9A(9AR PA("("/+ARS ,/11"((A# -"**=<* ERA ,9 /= (R<S( ,/+="#A+,A. #ELD, NO. (o terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence, two re)uisites must concur: 4%5 the e;9lo<ee co%cer%e& ;13t =e hol&:%2 a 9o3:t:o% o> tr13t a%& co%>:&e%ce and 465 there ;13t =e a% act that ?o1l& @13t:>< the lo33 o> tr13t a%& co%>:&e%ce . ,onsolacion occupied a position im$ued with trust and confidence, he $eing a supervising data controller. "t was his primary duty to monitor and report the performance of the data controllers in relation to the scope of work contracted out to respondent. mellar, however, failed to 3ustify its loss of trust and confidence on ,onsolacion. Avidently, the stated acts of noncompliance are too general and can encompass 3ust a$out any malfeasance. (here was no detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that would serve as $ases to terminate ,onsolacion, thus leaving to surmise what those procedures, standards and orders were. mellar was itself not sure of what to charge petitioner ,onsolacion. "n King of Kings Transport v !a"a#$ the ,ourt ruled that the notice to $e served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them. (he notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as $asis for the charge against the employees. general description of the charge will not suffice. *astly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated andFor which among the grounds under rt. 676 is $eing charged against the employees. Respecting na$el who was dismissed for willful $reach of trust, gross and ha$itual neglect of duties, and willful diso$edience to lawful orders, she, like ,onsolacion, occupied a position of trust and confidence, she $eing the officer-in-charge of the ,E< #epartment. mellar, however, failed to prove even a single act O $asis of its loss of trust and confidence in na$el. part from its self-serving assertions, respondent had not offered any piece of +#

documentary evidence to lend truth to its allegations. "t harps on supposed :numerous: complaints it received on their pro3ects, yet only one written complaint on the 1a$ini pro3ect was presented. .
3o0* A$#v#!2o, 0. !$. vs. P)o-.0) & G!"*$0 P4#$#55#&0s, I&-., 0. !$. G.R. No. 166566, M!)-4 7, 2616

,!-.s/ <etitioners +orked as "erchandisers o* <H%. The! all indi(iduall! si,ned e"plo!"ent contracts +ith either <ro""#%e" or SA<S *or periods o* "ore or less *i(e "onths at a ti"e.The! +ere assi,ned at di**erent outlets, super"arkets and stores +here the! handled all the products o* <H%. The! recei(ed their +a,es *ro" <ro""#%e" or SA<S. Su-se@uentl!, petitioners *iled a co"plainta,ainst <H% *or re,ulari ation, ser(ice incenti(e lea(e pa! and other -ene*its +ith da"a,es. The co"plaint +as later a"endedto include the "atter o* their su-se@uent dis"issal.

The La-or Ar-iter dis"issed the co"plaint *or lack o* "erit and ruled that there +as no e"plo!er#e"plo!ee relationship -et+een petitioners and <H%. $e *ound that the selection and en,a,e"ent o* the petitioners, the pa!"ent o* their +a,es, the po+er o* dis"issal and control +ith respect to the "eans and "ethods -! +hich their +ork +as acco"plished, +ere all done and e=ercised -! <ro""#%e"?SA<S. $e *urther *ound that <ro""#%e" and SA<S +ere le,iti"ate independent .o- contractors. Bn appeal to the &L/C, the &l/C a**ir"ed the decision o* the la-or ar-iter. <etitioners then *iled a petition *or certiorari +ith the CA, alle,in, ,ra(e a-use o* discretion a"ountin, to lack or e=cess o* .urisdiction on the part o* the La-or Ar-iter and the &L/C. $o+e(er, said petition +as also denied -! the CA.

Iss+0s/ 4.) Is <H% the e"plo!er o* petitionersI 9.) 8ere petitioners ille,all! dis"issedI

R+$#&8/ 8ith re,ard to the ter"ination letters ,i(en -! <ro""#%e" to its e"plo!ees uni*or"l! speci*ied the cause o* dis"issal as ,ra(e "isconduct and -reach o* trust. The court held that there +ere

no (alid causes *or the dis"issal o* petitioners#e"plo!ees o* <ro""#%e".

Misconduct to -e (alid .ust cause *or dis"issal, such "isconduct (a) "ust -e seriousF (-) "ust relate to the per*or"ance o* the e"plo!ees dutiesF and (c) "ust sho+ that the e"plo!ee has -eco"e un*it to continue +orkin, *or the e"plo!er. In the case, petitioners#e"plo!ees o* <ro""#%e" "a! ha(e co""itted an error o* .ud,"ent in clai"in, to -e e"plo!ees o* <H%, -ut it cannot -e said that the! +ere "oti(ated -! an! +ron,*ul intent in doin, so. As such, the! are ,uilt! o* onl! si"ple "isconduct *or assailin, the inte,rit! o* <ro""#%e" as a le,iti"ate and independent pro"otion *ir". A "isconduct +hich is not serious or ,ra(e, as that e=istin, in the instant case, cannot -e a (alid -asis *or dis"issin, an e"plo!ee. Mean+hile, loss o* trust and con*idence, as a ,round *or dis"issal, "ust -e -ased on the +ill*ul -reach o* the trust reposed in the e"plo!ee -! his e"plo!er. Brdinar! -reach +ill not su**ice. Loss o* trust and con*idence, as a cause *or ter"ination o* e"plo!"ent, is pre"ised on the *act that the e"plo!ee concerned holds a position o* responsi-ilit! or o* trust and con*idence. And, in order to constitute a .ust cause *or dis"issal, the act co"plained o* "ust -e +ork#related and "ust sho+ that the e"plo!ee is un*it to continue to +ork *or the e"plo!er. In the case at -ar, In the instant case, the petitioners#e"plo!ees o* <ro""#%e" ha(e not -een sho+n to -e occup!in, positions o* responsi-ilit! or o* trust and con*idence. &either is there an! e(idence to sho+ that the! are un*it to continue to +ork as "erchandisers *or <ro""#%e". $ence, no (alid cause *or dis"issal -! <ro""#%e" a,ainst petitioner#e"plo!ees. 8ith re,ard to the petitioners placed +ith <H% -! SA<S, the! +ere ,i(en no +ritten notice o* dis"issal. The records sho+ that upon receipt -! SA<S o* <H%s letter ter"inatin, their JMerchandisin, Ser(ices ContactJ, the! in turn (er-all! in*or"ed the concerned petitioners not to report *or +ork an!"ore. It "ust -e e"phasi ed that the onus probandi to pro(e the la+*ulness o* the dis"issal rests +ith the e"plo!er. In ter"ination cases, the -urden o* proo* rests upon the e"plo!er to sho+ that the dis"issal is *or .ust and (alid cause. In the instant case, <H% *ailed to dischar,e the -urden o* pro(in, the le,alit! and (alidit! o* the dis"issals o* those petitioners +ho are considered its e"plo!ees. $ence, the dis"issals necessaril! +ere not .usti*ied and are there*ore ille,al.
CBCA#CBLA (s. %ACADA& %/ &o. 4>5>33 FACTS # /espondent %aca!an +as the Senior Financial Accountant under the e"plo! o* petitioner Coca# Cola co"pan!. <art o* the co"pan!As polic! is to rei"-urse its e"plo!ees o* "eal and transportation e=penses incurred +hile renderin, o(erti"e +ork. The "a=i"u" allo+a-le a"ount *or rei"-urse"ent is <4:1. In lieu o* said polic! respondent su-"itted three receipts *or rei"-urse"entF one *ro" "cdonalds and t+o *ro" shake!s. The Assistant -ranch "ana,er o* Mcdonalds (eri*ied that the date in the Mcdonalds receipt +as altered. /espondent e=plained that the alterations "a! ha(e -een "ade -! the sta** o* Mcdonalds -ecause the! so"eti"es "ake "istakes in issuin, receipts. Bn the sa"e note, her sister so"eti"es -u!s *ood *or her

and she +as uncertain i* she ,a(e the correct receipt. In the second receipt, there +as a hand+ritten alteration. /espondent e=plained that she ordered a J-udd! pack +ith e=tra "o.osJ and that the sta** o* shake!s ,a(e her the +ron, receipt and that she si"pl! re@uested the sta** to alter the receipt to authenticate the sa"e. The Assistant Mana,er o* Shake!s (eri*ied that the receipt +as actuall! *or three orders o* J-unch o* lunchJ and denied that it +as their sta** +ho "ade the alterations. In the third receipt, petitioner called attention on the alle,ed alteration in the receipt containin, an annotation J+? CA) :1K onl! # <431.:1.J "eanin, that respondent +as onl! clai"in, hal* o* the a"ount indicated in the receipt as she +as sharin, +ith another e"plo!ee -ut said e"plo!ee ho+e(er denied sharin, *ood co(ered -! the receipt. Therea*ter petitioner sent a "e"orandu" to respondent in(itin, the latter to a hearin, and *or"al in(esti,ation +hich she appeared. Cpon continuation o* the hearin, on a di**erent date, respondent did not appear upon ad(ice o* her doctor as she +as su**erin, *ro" "i,ranes and headaches. /espondent *iled an application *or lea(e o* a-sences. Bn the resettin, o* the hearin,, respondent did not appear. <etitioner concluded the hearin, and ter"inated the respondent throu,h a letter. /espondent *iled an action *or ille,al dis"issal ar,uin, that dis"issal +as too harshF that assu"in, she altered the receipts, it +as her *irst o**ense in 5 4?9 !ears o* ser(ice, the o**ense i"puted +as "inor as the a"ounts in(ol(ed +ere (er! "ini"al, that the co"pan! did not su**er "aterial da"a,e, and that she acted +ithout "alice as she +as reall! renderin, o(erti"e +ork. <etitioner ho+e(er contends that the act o* respondent in ta"perin, the receipts re*lects her @uestiona-le inte,rit! and honest!. <etitioner added that in ter"inatin, the ser(ices o* an e"plo!ee *or -reach o* trust, it is enou,h that the "isconduct o* the e"plo!ee tends to pre.udice the e"plo!ers interest since it +ould -e unreasona-le to re@uire the e"plo!er to +ait until he is "ateriall! in.ured -e*ore re"o(in, the cause o* the i"pendin, e(il. Bn 6une 4;, 4550, the la-or ar-iter dis"issed the action o* the respondent *or lack o* "erit. Bn April 4>, 455E, the &L/C a**ir"ed the decision o* the ar-iter. Bn Ma! 31, 9114, the CA re(eresed the decision o* the La-or Ar-iter and the &L/C statin, that the penalt! o* dis"issal +as too harsh and directed petitioner to reinstate the respondent, ISSC' # 8B& the dis"issal o* respondent *or -etra!al o* trust and con*idence +as proper $'L2 # the ,uidelines *or the application o* the doctrine o* loss o* con*idence are: (a) (-) (c) (d) Loss o* con*idence should not -e si"ulatedF It should not -e used as a su-ter*u,e *or causes +hich are i"proper, ille,al or un.usti*iedF It "a! not -e ar-itraril! asserted in the *ace o* o(er+hel"in, e(idence to the contrar!F and It "ust -e ,enuine, not a "ere a*terthou,ht to .usti*! earlier action taken in -ad *aith.

In the ter"ination letter, there +as no e(ident "ention o* petitionerAs alle,ed loss o* con*idence in respondent. It -ears e"phasi in, that the ri,ht o* an e"plo!er to dis"iss its e"plo!ees on the ,round o* loss o* trust and con*idence "ust not -e e=ercised ar-itraril!. For loss o* trust and con*idence to -e a (alid ,round *or dis"issal, it "ust -e su-stantial and *ounded on clearl! esta-lished *acts. Loss o* con*idence "ust not -e used as a su-ter*u,e *or causes +hich are i"proper, ille,al or un.usti*iedF it "ust -e ,enuine, not a "ere a*terthou,ht, to .usti*! earlier action taken in -ad *aith. 7ecause o* its su-.ecti(e nature, this Court has -een (er! scrutini in, in cases o* dis"issal -ased on loss o* trust and con*idence -ecause the sa"e can easil! -e concocted -! an a-usi(e e"plo!er. In the instant case, it +as onl! in the /epl! to /espondents Co""ent dated Bcto-er 44, 9119, that

petitioner "ade "ention o* another ,round *or the dis"issal o* respondent, that o* serious "isconduct, +hen she su-"itted altered or ta"pered receipts to support her clai" *or rei"-urse"ent. Such alle,ation appears to -e a "ere a*terthou,ht, -ein, tardil! raised onl! in the /epl!. In this li,ht, the alle,ed in*ractions o* respondent could hardl! -e considered serious "isconduct. It is +ell to stress that in order to constitute serious "isconduct +hich +ill +arrant the dis"issal o* an e"plo!ee, it is not su**icient that the act or conduct co"plained o* has (iolated so"e esta-lished rules or policies. It is e@uall! i"portant and re@uired that the act or conduct "ust ha(e -een done +ith +ron,*ul intent. Such is, ho+e(er, lackin, in the instant case. '(en +hen an e"plo!ee is *ound to ha(e trans,ressed the e"plo!ers rules, in the actual i"position o* penalties upon the errin, e"plo!ee, due consideration "ust still -e ,i(en to his len,th o* ser(ice and the nu"-er o* (iolations co""itted durin, his e"plo!. /espondent had no pre(ious record in her 5L !ears o* ser(ice. /espondent also countered that she acted in ,ood *aith and +ith no +ron,*ul intent +hen she su-"itted the receipts in support o* her clai" *or rei"-urse"ent o* "eal allo+ance. Accordin, to respondent, onl! the dates or ite"s +ere altered on the receipts. She did not clai" "ore than +hat +as allo+ed as "eal e=pense *or the da!s that she rendered o(erti"e +ork. She -elie(ed that the su-"ission o* receipts +as si"pl! *or records#keepin,, since she actuall! rendered o(erti"e +ork on the dates that she clai"ed *or "eal allo+ance. All told, this Court holds that the penalt! o* dis"issal i"posed on respondent is undul! oppressi(e and disproportionate to the in*raction +hich she co""itted. A li,hter penalt! +ould ha(e -een "ore .ust.

P#ILIPPINE AIRLINE$, IN .,petitioner, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$ OMMI$$ION a%& AIDA M. 4)IJANO,respondents. G.R. +o.%6;6&G/cto$er 6?, 6?%? *A/+ R#/-#A , S(R/, %.: (A !$, ,omplainant Lui3anostarted as an accounting clerk in #ecem$er %&D> until she $ecame 1anager- gents Services ccounting #ivision 4 S #5 in %&7G. S #, the specific unit in P * charged with the processing, verification, reconciliation, and validation of all claims for commission filed $y agents worldwide, is under the direct supervision and control of the Cice President-,omptroller, and within the scope of the audit program of the Cice President-"nternal udit & ,ontrol. "n %&7&, an investigating committee 4(he Aspino ,ommittee5 formally charged Lui3ano as 1anager- S # in connection with the processing and payment of commission claims to Goldair Pty. *td. 4Goldair5 wherein P * overpaid commissions to the latter amounting to several million ustralian dollars during the period %&7G-%&7>. Specifically, Lui3ano was charged as 1anager- S # with the following:.=ailure on the 3o$ and gross negligence resulting in loss of trust and confidence in that you failed to:a. A8ercise the necessary monitoring, control and supervision over your Senior ccounts nalyst2 $. dopt and perform the necessary checks and verification procedures2 c. Re)uire or otherwise cause a final reconciliation of the remaining $alance due as commission claims to Goldair. (he Senior ccounts nalyst 4,urammeng5 was specifically assigned to handle and process commissions of agents in, among others, the ustralia Region, and Goldair was among

the travel agents whose production reports and commission claims were handled $y her. ,urammeng was accused of failing to verify the completeness of the documents supporting the claims2 to trace and match each ticket in the production report su$mitted $y Goldair with the " ( , ESP and ,(/ sales report2 and to perform a complete verification of the netFnet amounts claimed in the production reports against the approved marketing arrangements. 9owever, ,urammeng had already resigned and $ecame a resident of ,anada at the time of the investigation. (he Aspino ,ommittee placed Lui3ano under preventive suspension and at the same time re)uired her to su$mit her answer to the charges. s directed, Lui3ano su$mitted her answer. (he other mem$ers of the Aspino ,ommittee wrote a dissenting opinion impleading other senior officers. /n Buly 6, %&&?, another dministrative charge involving the same Goldair anomaly was filed, this time including the other officers, for .gross incompetence and inefficiency, negligence, imprudence, mismanagement, dereliction of duty, failure to o$serve andFor implement administrative and e8ecutive policies, and related acts or omissions.0 Pending the result of investigation $y another committee 4(he /campo ,ommittee5, the P * Eoard of #irectors suspended respondents.(he P * Eoard of #irectorsconsidered respondents resigned from the service effective immediately, for loss of confidence and for acts inimical to the interest of the company. (he *a$or r$iter dismissed private respondent!s complaint.Private respondent filed an appeal $efore the +*R, which set aside the decision of the * . Petitioner filed a 1otion for Reconsideration $ut this was denied $y the +*R,. 9ence, this petition for #ertiorari. I$$)E, -hether or not private respondent!s termination on the ground of loss of confidence is valid. #ELD,JAS. t the onset, it should $e noted that the parties do not dispute the validity of private respondent!s dismissal from employment for loss of confidence and acts inimical to the interest of the employer. (he assailed #ecision of the +*R, was emphatic in declaring that it was .not prepared to rule as illegal the preventive suspension and eventual dismissal from the service of Pprivate respondentQ and rightfully so $ecause the last position that private respondent held, 1anager- S # 4 gents Services ccounting #ivision5, undenia$ly )ualifies as a position of trust and confidence. *oss of confidence as a 3ust cause for termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. (his situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer!s property. Eut, in order to constitute a 3ust cause for dismissal, the act complained of must $e .work-related0 such as would show the employee concerned to $e unfit to continue working for the employer.

(he Resolution underscored private respondent!s acts of mismanagement and gross incompetence which made her fail to detect the irregularities in the Goldair account that resulted in huge financial losses for petitioner. G.R. No. 1519:7 O-.o*0) 26, 2616 A$-!&.!)! vs. P4#$#55#&0 Co""0)-#!$ !&2 I&.0)&!.#o&!$ B!&' LEONARDO;DE CASTRO, 3./ ,ACTS/ <etitioner Leandro M. Alcantara is a -ranch "ana,er o* /espondent <CI7(7ank) in /i al A(enue, Manila -ranch. <etitioner had not -een su-.ect to an! disciplinar! action prior to present contro(ers!. Bn 2ece"-er 49, 455;, the ! )05o). has -een "ade to the Custo"er Care o* the -ank -! a certain /o"! 'spiritu that petitioner is in(ol(ed in a -i, s!ndicate. T+o Certi*icates o* Ti"e 2eposit (CT2) issued -! <CI7 +ere alle,edl! -ein, used -! the s!ndicate in their ille,al acti(ities. The CT2s <0)0 s#8&02 *% .40 50.#.#o&0) !&2 G+#$$0)"! ,. A$-!&.!)!, .40 40!2 o S!$0s. 1o<0v0), .40 CTDs <0)0 +&*oo'02 !&2 .40 2+5$#-!.0 -o&.)o$ -o5% !&2 PCIA( I&5+. Do-+"0&. Co5% 2o &o. s.!.0 .40 2+0 2!.0s !&2 .0)" o .40 .<o =2> CTDs. P0.#.#o&0) <!s .40 o&0 <4o 5)05!)02 !&2 5)o-0ss02 .40 CTDs. P0.#.#o&0) <!s 2#s"#ss02 )o" 0"5$o%"0&. *0-!+s0 #. <!s !$$0802$% 20.0)"#&02 .4!. .40 50.#.#o&0) .oo' !2v!&.!80 o .40 .)+s. !&2 -o& #20&-0 )05os02 #& 4#s 5os#.#o& !s *)!&-4 "!&!80) !&2 ? !$s# #02 B!&' )0-o)2s #& o)20) .o !-#$#.!.0 ! .)!&s!-.#o& !"o+&.#&8 .o P59@,966,666.66 .4!. <!s 5)0A+2#-#!$ .o .40 <0$ !)0 !&2 #&.0)0s. o .40 B!&'?. <etitioner ad"itted that he +as the one +ho processed and prepared the CT2s. $e clai"s that the CT2s +ere not -ooked or recorded co"pletel! -ecause the sa"e +ere alread! cancelled. $e *urther alle,ed that no -ank polic! nor rules and re,ulations prohi-it a 7ranch Mana,er *ro" assistin, a depositor or depositors o* the -ank. &othin, +as done in secrec! and CT2s +ere alle,edl! pro"ptl! cancelled o+in, to the *ailure o* the clients to co"e up +ith the "one! +ithin the ti"e *ra"e ,i(en -! petitioner. Bn Au,ust 49, 455E, petitioner *iled +ith the /e,ional Ar-itration 7ranch o* the &L/C a co"plaint *or ille,al dis"issal and other pri(ele,es and -ene*its +ith da"a,es. The La-or Ar-iter dis"issed petitioners co"plaint *or ille,al dis"issal *or lack o* "erit. It held that there +as su-stantial e(idence that petitioner "anipulated the records o* respondent to *acilitate the ano"alous transactions o* the "e"-ers o* the alle,ed cri"inal s!ndicate. <etitioner appealed the La-or Ar-iters 2ecision. $o+e(er, the &L/C a**ir"ed the sa"e and dis"issed petitioners appeal *or lack o* "erit. Thus, petitioner *iled a petition *or certiorari under /ule 0: o* the /ules o* Court +ith the Court o* Appeals +hich +as dis"issed on account o* petitioners *ailure to attach the "aterial portions o* the records o* the &L/C case, and (arious rele(ant or pertinent docu"ents, in accordance +ith para,raph 3, Section 3, /ule >0 o* the 455; /e(ised /ules o* Ci(il <rocedure so it +as una-le to resol(e the issues presented to it and thus +as constrained to dis"iss the petition. $ence this petition. ISSUE/ 8hether petitioners ter"ination is substantially and procedurally (alid. RULING/

Loss o* con*idence as a .ust cause *or ter"ination o* e"plo!"ent is pre"ised *ro" the *act that an e"plo!ee concerned holds a position o* trust and con*idence. This situation holds +here a person is entrusted +ith con*idence on delicate "atters, such as the custod!, handlin,, or care and protection o* the e"plo!ers propert!. 7ut, in order to constitute a .ust cause *or dis"issal, the act co"plained o* "ust -e J+ork#relatedJ such as +ould sho+ the e"plo!ee concerned to -e un*it to continue +orkin, *or the e"plo!er. As 7ranch Mana,er o* the /i al A(enue 7ranch o* the respondent -ank, petitioner undou-tedl! held a position o* trust and con*idence. As a ,eneral rule, e"plo!ers are allo+ed a +ider latitude o* discretion in ter"inatin, the e"plo!"ent o* "ana,erial personnel or those +ho, +hile not o* si"ilar rank, per*or" *unctions +hich -! their nature re@uire the e"plo!ers *ull trust and con*idence. This "ust -e distin,uished *ro" the case o* ordinar! rank and *ile e"plo!ees, +hose ter"ination on the -asis o* these sa"e ,rounds re@uires a hi,her proo* o* in(ol(e"ent in the e(ents in @uestionF "ere uncorro-orated assertions and accusations -! the e"plo!er +ill not su**ice. 8ith respect to the </BC'2C/AL aspect o* petitioners dis"issal, it is settled that notice and hearin, constitute the essential ele"ents o* due process in the dis"issal o* e"plo!ees. The e"plo!er "ust *urnish the e"plo!ee +ith t+o +ritten notices -e*ore ter"ination o* e"plo!"ent can -e le,all! e**ected. The *irst apprises the e"plo!ee o* the particular acts or o"issions *or +hich his dis"issal is sou,ht. The second in*or"s the e"plo!ee o* the e"plo!ers decision to dis"iss hi". 8ith re,ard to the re@uire"ent o* a hearin,, the essence o* due process lies si"pl! in an opportunit! to -e heard, and not that an actual hearin, should al+a!s and indispensa-l! -e held. Facts sho+s that respondent "ore than acted in accordance +ith the due process re@uired in the ter"ination o* an e"plo!ee. It ,a(e petitioner considera-le lee+a! +ith re,ard to the su-"ission o* his +ritten e=planation -! allo+in, "ultiple e=tensions o* ti"e to su-"it the sa"e and -! *urnishin, hi" the docu"ents used in respondents in(esti,ation. Clti"atel!, e(en assu"in, that he +as not *ull! heard durin, the e"plo!ers in(esti,ation, it +as petitioners *ault -ecause o* his "is,uided insistence on ha(in, a trial#t!pe hearin, despite esta-lished .urisprudence statin, that the "ere opportunit! to -e heard +ould su**ice as due process in ad"inistrati(e proceedin,s. In an! e(ent, petitioner +as ,i(en *ull opportunit! to pro(e his clai" o* ille,al dis"issal -e*ore the La-or Ar-iter and the &L/C -ut he still *ailed to dischar,e his -urden o* proo*.
G.R. No. 16652>Ju'$ 16, 2010 LIMA LAND, INC., LEANDRO JA<IER, SAL<IA DUGUE, *'( PREMA ANN BELOA, P$)-)-o'$#%, 0. MARLAN CUE<AS, R$%&o'($') PERALTA, J." !ACTS" Li#a Land, Inc. (Li#a) is a co#pany engaged in the real estate business, and Marlyn uevas ( uevas) was its 4inance and %d#instration Manager. In 4ebruary +,,,, irregularities in the arriendo collections (based on contracts whereby Li#a trans'erred its right to harvest the 'ruits planted on the

lands it owned to di''erent persons in consideration o' #onetary e3uivalents), which were under the direct supervision o' )onas ?enia (?enia), 7peration and Gstate Manager at the Li#a Land Gstate in Batangas ity, were discovered. %'ter Li#a 'or#ed an investigating panel to conduct a thorough investigation on the status o' the collections, uevas issued a #e#orandu# directing ?enia to report any in'or#ation regarding the #issing collections. ?enia ad#itted in his report that he indeed 'ailed to re#it P-,-, +,,.,,, but the %ccounting "epart#ent deter#ined that the actual unre#itted a#ount was P-=+, -,,.,,. %'ter sending uevas the notice that she was under investigation and that she is re3uired to e2plain her side, Li#a dis#issed uevas on the ground that her une2plained o#ission and$or gross neglect to carry out her duties and to e2ercise the e2traordinary diligence re3uired o' her position gave the other e#ployees o' the co#pany, whose duties and activities should have been properly #onitored by her, the opportunity to co##it 'raud against the co#pany. It 'urther averred that the dis#issal was 9usti'ied on the ground that uevas had supervision over all #atters, including the arrien o collectionsC that it too1 her three years 'ro# the last re#ittance o' the said collection be'ore she #ade an in3uiry as to the status o' the collections, thus, #a1ing her re#iss in her duties. uevas then 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal against Li#a, arguing that this supposed 'unction o' hers N #onitoring duties and activities o' other e#ployees N is not subsu#ed in what Li#a clai# as her duties which are (a) to #anage, direct and control record-1eeping and 'inancial reportorial re3uire#entsC (b) to ensure the accuracy and integrity o' all 'inancial reportsC (c) to be responsible 'or the 'unds #anage#ent and 'inancial planning activities o' the co#panyC and (d) to #anage the disburse#ent o' 'unds. &he Labor %rbiter dis#issed the co#plaintC the !LR reversed the decision o' the Labor %rbiterC and the ourt o' %ppeals a''ir#ed the decision o' the !LR . ISSUE" 67! uevas can be dis#issed on the ground o' loss o' trust and con'idence. HELD" !o, she cannot be. It #ust be noted that in ter#ination cases, the burden o' proo' rests upon the e#ployer to show that the dis#issal o' the e#ployee is 'or 9ust cause and 'ailure to do so would #ean that the dis#issal is not 9usti'ied.% dis#issed e#ployee is not re3uired to prove his innocence o' the charges leveled against hi# by his e#ployer. %s 'ir#ly entrenched in our 9urisprudence, loss o' trust and con'idence, as a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent, is pre#ised on the 'act that an e#ployee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by #anage#ent and 'ro# who# greater 'idelity to duty is correspondingly e2pected.&his includes #anagerial personnel entrusted with con'idence on delicate #atters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection o' the e#ployer(s property. &he betrayal o' this trust is the essence o' the o''ense 'or which an e#ployee is penali@ed. It #ust be noted, however, that in a plethora o' cases, the ourt has distinguished the treat#ent o' #anagerial e#ployees 'ro# that o' ran1-and-'ile personnel, inso'ar as the application o' the doctrine o' loss o' trust and con'idence is concerned. &hus, with respect to ran1-and-'ile personnel, loss o' trust and con'idence, as ground 'or valid dis#issal, re3uires proo' o' involve#ent in the alleged events in 3uestion, and that #ere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the e#ployer will not be su''icient.But as regards a #anagerial e#ployee, the #ere e2istence o' a basis 'or believing that such e#ployee has breached the trust o' his e#ployer would su''ice 'or his dis#issal. 5ence, in the case o' #anagerial e#ployees, proo' beyond reasonable doubt is not re3uired, it being su''icient that there is so#e basis 'or such loss o' con'idence, such as when the e#ployer has reasonable ground to believe that the e#ployee concerned is responsible 'or the purported #isconduct, and the nature o' his participation therein renders hi# unworthy o' the trust and con'idence de#anded o' his position. !evertheless, the loss o' trust and con'idence #ust be based not on ordinary breach by the e#ployee o' the trust reposed in hi# by the e#ployer, but, in the language o' %rticle +:+ (c) o' the Labor ode, on will'ul breach. % breach is will'ul i' it is done intentionally, 1nowingly and purposely, without 9usti'iable e2cuse, as distinguished 'ro# an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or

inadvertently.It #ust rest on substantial grounds and not on the e#ployer(s arbitrariness, whi#s, caprices or suspicionC otherwise, the e#ployee would eternally re#ain at the #ercy o' the e#ployer. &here #ust, there'ore, be an actual breach o' duty co##itted by the e#ployee which #ust be established by substantial evidence. In the present case, logic dictates that the #onitoring o' the duties and activities o' the e#ployees who are reporting at the Batangas site would 'all on the person N in this case, ?enia N appointed to oversee the operations o' the co#pany in that area. Li#a did not re'ute this clai# #ade by uevas. 5ence, it is ?enia who should have been called to answer 'or any 'raud co##itted at the Batangas site. uevas( duty inso'ar as the arrien o collections are concerned, is to see to it that these are ti#ely re#itted to the head o''ice. In the present case, the ourt agrees with Li#a that uevas was re#iss in this particular duty. uevas( negligence or carelessness in handling the arrien o collections, however, are not 9usti'iable grounds 'or Li#a(s loss o' trust and con'idence in her, especially in the absence o' any #alicious intent or 'raud on uevas( part. Loss o' trust and con'idence ste#s 'ro# a breach o' trust 'ounded on a dishonest, deceit'ul or 'raudulent act.In the case at bar, respondent did not co##it any act which was dishonest or deceit'ul. ?he did not use her authority as the 4inance and %d#inistration Manager to #isappropriate co#pany property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by Li#a with respect to her responsibility to i#ple#ent co#pany rules. &he #ost that can be attributed to respondent is that she was re#iss in the per'or#ance o' her duties. &his, though, does not constitute dishonest or deceit'ul conduct which would 9usti'y the conclusion o' loss o' trust and con'idence. &here was no de#onstration o' #oral perverseness that would 9usti'y the clai#ed loss o' trust and con'idence attendant to respondentLs 9ob. %s such, she does not deserve the penalty o' dis#issal 'ro# e#ploy#ent, especially in the absence o' any showing that she has co##itted prior in'ractions in her si2 years o' service to Li#a be'ore her dis#issal. It also bears to point out that uevas( dis#issal inspires suspicion o' ill #otive on the part o' Li#a considering that?eniawas cleared o' any accountability and allowed to resign when he should be the 'irst to be #ade liable, considering that he was the one who had direct and i##ediate control and supervision over the arrien o transactions and collections. onversely, i' there was indeed no basis to hold ?enia liable, then the ourt agrees with uevas that with #ore reason should she be e2onerated o' the charges o'loss o' trust and con'idence arising 'ro# the alleged non-re#ittance o' the arrien o collections. &here is also no showing that Li#a too1 steps to hold accountable the other e#ployees who, ad#ittedly, were guilty o' 'ailing to re#it their arrien o collections.

G.R. No. 1-0120 (e=r1ar< 16, 2010 P#ILIPPINE JO)RNALI$!$, IN . 6PJI7, Petitioner, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!ION$ OMMI$$ION, LABOR ARBI!ER (EDRIEL $. PANGANIBAN a%& ED)ARDO $. RIVERA, Respondents. (A !$, PB" is a corporation engaged in the pu$lication of -omenRs Bournal. Private respondent Aduardo S. Rivera is the purchasing manager. 9is primary duty involved the canvassing and purchase of paper and other materials for PB"Rs day-to-day operations. "n +ovem$er 6??6, -omenRs Bournal implemented a calendar insertion pro3ect re)uiring paper-coated materials. Rivera canvassed and purchased D7,@?? sheets of paper, from the +ation Paper Products ,orporation 4NAPPCO5 at PD.@? a sheet for the total amount of PGG@,6@?.??. /n Banuary 7, 6??;, PB"Rs ,orporate Secretary and ,hief *egal ,ounsel, tty. Ru$y Rui'-Eruno issued a memorandum re)uiring Rivera to e8plain in writing why he : s&ou'd not be ter"inated fro" e"p'o("ent for defrauding or atte"pting to defraud t&e Co"pan( ) )) : in the

canvassing and purchase of -omen!s Bournal!s paper re)uirements. (he memo alluded to a :re'iab'e *uotation fro" NAPPCO for +,$--- s&eets of t&is .ind of paper /it& e)a#t'( t&e sa"e spe#ifi#ations$ s&o/s a pri#e of on'( P0 1-2s&eet : Rivera su$mitted his written e8planation, denying that he defrauded or attempted to defraud PB". "n support of his position, he attached a letter from + PP,/Rs Cice-President Kenneth ,hong e8plaining the details of the purchase transaction with + PP,/. s a result of this letter-e8planation, Rui'-Eruno issued a memorandum on the same day to ssistant Purchasing 1anager Bean lvarado, re)uiring her to e8plain the difference in the )uotation of PD.@? from + PP,/ and PG.6DFpiece 46;86>5 and PG.D7Fpiece 46@86>5 from * 1,/, another supplier. /n the same day, lvarado su$mitted her e8planation, stating that she signed the canvass sheet as instructed $y Rivera, $ut she was not aware that Rivera included * 1,/. She claimed that the canvass sheet itself showed that the figures were written $y Rivera himself. "n a memorandum dated =e$ruary >, 6??;,Rui'-Eruno notified Rivera of the termination of his service effective =e$ruary 7, 6??;, : on t&e ground of 'oss of #onfiden#e : after finding RiveraRs :a#ts and o"issions are indi#ative of fraud and a #'ear "anifestation of (our inabi'it( as a !anager to prote#t t&e Co"pan(3s interests.: /n /cto$er %G, 6??;, Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PB", #ela ,ru', A8ecutive Cice-President rnold Eanares and Rui'-Eruno. (he *a$or r$iter foundthat RiveraRs dismissal was for cause on the ground that he :#o""itted a#ts of dis&onest($ or &as #o""itted fraud : $ecause as purchasing manager H a position of trust and confidence H Rivera had the duty to canvass and purchase PB"!s needed materials in a manner most $eneficial to the company. Rivera failed in this regard. /n appeal, the +*R, reversed the la$or ar$iterRs decision, ruling that RiveraRs dismissal was illegal. "t opined that: lvarado!s statements cannot pre3udice Rivera as the : rig&ts of a part( #annot be pre4udi#ed b( an a#t$ de#'aration$ or o"ission of anot&er. (he , denied the petition for lack of merit. "t declared that :after a t&oroug& eva'uation of t&e eviden#e sub"itted b( t&e parties$ fro" t&e fa#ts borne b( t&e re#ords in t&is #ase$ /e are #onstrained to ru'e t&at t&e dis"issa' of Rivera based on 'oss of #onfiden#e is not #'ear'( estab'is&ed and supported b( substantia' eviden#e.: I$$)E: -hether or not Rivera was illegally dismissed $y PB" #ELD, ,ontrary to the , !s pronouncement, we find su$stantial evidence in the records to 3ustify RiveraRs dismissal. s the companyRs purchasing manager, Rivera held a position of trust and confidence2 his role in the procurement of the companyRs operational re)uirements is critical. 9ad the matter involved only the PD.@? pricing compared to the alleged :re'iab'e *uotation: of P;.G?, there is no )uestion that Rivera could not $e found lia$le as + PP,/ denied having $een made any )uotation at P;.G?. s the investigation of the transaction unraveled, however, the company uncovered reasons to seriously dou$t RiveraRs integrity and his relia$ility as a purchasing manager. (he canvass of prices of production supplies is routine work for any purchasing department. "t was Rivera!s duty as purchasing manager, and that of his department, to look for prices that would $e most advantageous to the company. Rivera failed to perform this duty. 9e allowed the purchase of materials at a price considera$ly higher than the )uotations of other suppliers in the market. =or his own reasons, he settled on one supplier on the prete8t that the

purchase was certified as a :rus& 4ob: $y the companyRs advertising department, and that the material was a special kind of paper readily availa$le from + PP,/, the supplier of his choice. Rivera did not only fail to canvass the market for the companyRs paper re)uirement. -orse than this, he made it appear that he conducted a canvass, undou$tedly to reflect on paper that a canvass had $een made, to ena$le him to comply with a $asic purchase re)uirement and tie the company, for his own reasons, to a higher purchase cost from his favored supplier. -e find it significant that Rivera did not deny lvaradoRs statement that she prepared the canvass sheet pursuant to RiveraRs instructions, and that she did not $other to check the )uotations from + PP,/ $ecause Rivera told her he already talked with + PP,/!s employee, (orrevillas. lvarado was not aware that Rivera included * 1,/ in the canvass sheet and that the num$ers for * 1,/ 4PD.@? and PGG@,???.??5 were written $y Rivera himself. (o re$ut lvaradoRs statement, Rivera later claimed that she did not see him insert the * 1,/ entries2 even if the insertion was true, it did not prove that the entries referring to * 1,/ were fictitious or that he did not canvass * 1,/. (he circumstances surrounding the purchase of the coated paper material for the companyRs calendar insertion pro3ect, e8amined in their totality, convince us that PB" had sufficient reason to terminate RiveraRs employment for loss of trust and confidence. /ur reading of the attendant facts shows that he arranged a purchase transaction markedly disadvantageous to the company mainly due to: 4%5 his failure to conduct an honest-to-goodness canvass of prices for the re)uired paper material and 465 his dishonesty, or at least his misrepresentations, in making it appear that he canvassed two suppliers when he really dealt only with one of them. Anough $asis e8ists, as detailed a$ove, to support the PB"!s position that Rivera was responsi$le for acts and omissions that made him unworthy of the trust and confidence PB" reposed on him. (o place this conclusion in Rivera!s own terms, contrary to what he claimed, his dismissal was not on the $asis of : "ere spe#u'ation and #on4e#ture$ : $ut on the $asis of relevant evidence that a reasona$le mind might accept to support a conclusion. "n legal terms, this is the )uantum of proof re)uired in administrative proceedings. (he fact that he had $een with the company for 6@ years cannot erase the conclusion that he had $ecome a lia$ility to the company whose interests he misera$ly failed to protect.
G.R. +o. %76?>?, =e$ruary %D, 6?%%

E.G " I. ON$!R) !ION ORPORA!ION a%& ED$EL GALEO$,*.ANANIA$ P. $A!O, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LA IDA, JR., a%& #EIR$ O( ANE I!O $. PARAN!AR, $R., Nachura, J.:

FACTS: Respondent nanias P. Sato 4Sato5 was hired in /cto$er %&&? $y petitioner A.G. & ". ,onstruction ,orporation as a grader operator, which is considered as technical la$or. 9e held the position for more than thirteen 4%;5 years. "n pril 6??G, Sato discovered that petitioner corporation had not $een remitting his premium contri$utions to the Social Security System 4SSS5. -hen Sato kept on telling petitioners to update his premium contri$utions, he was removed as a grader operator and made to

perform manual la$or, such as tilling the land in a private cemetery andFor digging earthworks in petitioner corporation!s construction pro3ects."n Buly 6??G, an inspection team from the SSS went to petitioner corporation!s office to check its compliance with the SSS law. /n Buly 66, 6??G, petitioners told Sato that they could no longer afford to pay his wages, and he was advised to look for employment in other construction companies. Sato, however, found difficulty in finding a 3o$ $ecause he had $een $lacklisted in other construction companies and was prevented from entering the pro3ect sites of petitioners.

Respondent +iloEerdin 4Eerdin5 was hired $y petitioners in 1arch %&&% as a steelmanFla$orer2 respondent necito S. Parantar, Sr. 4Parantar5 was hired in =e$ruary %&&> as a steelman2 and respondent Romeo 1. *acida, Br. 4*acida5 was hired in 1arch 6??% as a la$orer. t the start of their employment, they were re)uired $y petitioners to sign several documents purporting to $e employment contracts. (hey immediately signed the documents without verifying their contents for fear of forfeiting their employment./n Buly 6G, 6??G, the pro3ect engineer of respondents Eerdin, Parantar, and *acida instructed them to affi8 their signatures on various documents. (hey refused to sign the documents $ecause they were written in Anglish, a language that they did not understand. "rked $y their diso$edience, the pro3ect engineer terminated their employment. /n the same date, they were given their weekly wages. 9owever, the wages that were paid to them were short of three 4;5 days worth of wages, as penalty for their refusal to sign the documents. (he following day, they were not allowed to enter the work premises.

/n Buly 6D, 6??G, respondents filed their respective complaints with the Regional r$itration Eranch of ,e$u ,ity for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages 4wage differentials5, holiday pay, thirteenth 4%; th5 month pay, and service incentive leave pay.

Petitioners, on the other hand, admitted that respondents were employed $y them and were assigned in their various construction pro3ects. 9owever, they denied that they illegally terminated respondents! employment. ccording to petitioners, respondents a$andoned their work when they failed to report for work starting on Buly 66, 6??G. Petitioner corporation sent letters advising respondents to report for work, $ut they refused. Petitioner corporation maintained that respondents are still welcome, if they desire to work.

*a$or r$iter rendered a decisionfinding that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment./n appeal, the +ational *a$or Relations ,ommission 4+*R,5 reversed the ruling of the *a$or r$iter . In a petition for certiorari, the , ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed. written notice of dismissal is not a pre-re)uisite for a finding of illegal dismissal. Respondents did not a$andon their work. (hey were refused entry into the company!s pro3ect sites.

ISSUE: 5&et&er or not CA erred in reinstating t&e de#ision of t&e Labor Arbiter$ de#'aring t&at respondents /ere i''ega''( ter"inated fro" e"p'o("ent b( petitioner #orporation$ and t&at respondents are entit'ed to t&eir "onetar( #'ai"s

RULING: -e sustain the ruling of the , . Petitioner corporation failed to prove that respondents were dismissed for 3ust or authori'ed cause. "n an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.

=or a$andonment to e8ist, it is essential 4a5 that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have $een a$sent without valid or 3ustifia$le reason2 and 4$5 that there must have $een a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested $y some overt acts. (he employer has the $urden of proof to show the employeeRs deli$erate and un3ustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. 1ere a$sence is not sufficient. (here must $e an une)uivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment.

+otwithstanding these assertions of petitioner corporation, we sustain the ruling of the , . (he reason why respondents failed to report for work was $ecause petitioner corporation $arred them from entering its construction sites. "t is a settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has $een served does not necessarily constitute a$andonment. (he intent to discontinue the employment must $e shown $y clear proof that it was deli$erate and un3ustified. Petitioner corporation failed to show overt acts committed $y respondents from which it may $e deduced that they had no more intention to work. Respondents! filing of the case for illegal dismissal $arely four 4G5 days from their alleged a$andonment is totally inconsistent with our known concept of what constitutes a$andonment. G.R. No. 166=11 Au7u%) >, 2010

ELPIDIO CALIPAA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRIANGLE ACE CORPORATION *'( JOSE LEE, Respondents. PERALTA, J." !ACTS" In -***, a labor co#plaint was 'iled by herein petitioner Glpidio alipay, together with %l'redo Mission and Grnesto "i#alanta against herein private respondents &riangle %ce orporation and )ose Lee. &hey alleged that in May -**:, Lee con'ronted alipay and Mission regarding their alleged participation and assistance in "i#alanta(s clai# 'or disability bene'its with the ???. "espite their denials, Lee scolded alipay and Mission. %ccording to the#, this incident later led to their dis#issal in the sa#e #onth. Private respondents vehe#ently denied the clai#s o' the petitioner. Private respondents countered that the ter#ination o' alipay and the other co#plainants was valid. Petitioner was on absence without leave (%67L) 'or -> days.&hus,their ter#ination was proper on the ground o' abandon#ent o' wor1.

ISSUE" -. "id petitioner abandon his wor1 which is a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination o' his servicesO +. Is the issue o' abandon#ent reconcilable with the 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal with a prayer 'or reinstate#entO HELD" -. 8G?. Petitioner alipay had 'ailed to report 'or wor1 'or un1nown reasons. 5is continued absences without the private respondents( approval constituted gross and habitual neglect which is a 9ust cause 'or ter#ination under %rticle +:+ o' the Labor ode. +. !7. %bandon#ent is totally inconsistent with the i##ediate 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal, #ore so i' the sa#e is acco#panied by a prayer 'or reinstate#ent. In this case, the petitioner did not want to be reinstated. Petitioner 'iled his co#plaint #ore than one year a'ter his alleged ter#ination 'ro# e#ploy#ent. Moreover, in the co#plaint 'or# which he personally 'illed up and 'iled with the !LR , he only as1ed 'or pay#ent o' separation pay and other #onetary clai#s. 5e did not as1 'or reinstate#ent. It is only in his Position Paper later prepared by their counsel that he as1ed 'or reinstate#ent. &his is an indication that petitioner never had the intention or desire to return to their 9obs. &he petition is "G!IG".
P1ILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MO(EMENT =PRRM>, (s. (IRGILIO E. PULGAR Facts: <ul,ar +as the "ana,er o* <//Ms -ranch o**ice M the Ta!a-as 7a! Field B**ice ( TBFO) M in Que on <ro(ince. 8hen <ul,ar +as reassi,ned to <//Ms central o**ice, <//M, throu,h %o!ena Solis (Solis), conducted an in(esti,ation into alle,ed *inancial ano"alies co""itted at the T7FB.In her in(esti,ation report, Solis stated that part o* the *unds allotted to the T7FB +as "issin, or not properl! accounted *or. The report also stated that so"e o* the receipts that the T7FB su-"itted to li@uidate the or,ani ations *inancial transactions +ere *ictitious and "anu*actured. <//M "aintains that +hile the in(esti,ation +as on,oin,, <ul,ar +ent on lea(e on March 3#41, March 91#9:, and April 4#4:, 455;. A*ter the lapse o* his last lea(e on April 4:, 455;, <ul,ar no lon,er reported to +ork, leadin, <//M to -elie(e that <ul,ar had a-andoned his +ork to e(ade an! lia-ilit! arisin, *ro" the in(esti,ation. <//M +as there*ore surprised to learn that <ul,ar had *iled an ille,al dis"issal case on April 3, 455;. <ul,ar tells another tale. Accordin, to hi", on March 4;, 455;, he su-"itted a letter to <//M to co"plain that he +as not ,i(en the ri,ht to con*ront and @uestion Solis, -ut his letter +ent unans+ered. Therea*ter, on March 34, 455;, he +as not allo+ed to enter the pre"ises o* the or,ani ation. <ul,ar also alle,es that <//Ms representati(es re"o(ed his personal properties and records *ro" his o**ice, placed the" in -o=es and kept the" in stora,e. Bn March 34, 4555, the La-or Ar-iter *ound in his decision that <ul,ar had -een ille,all! dis"issed and ordered <//M to pa! <ul,ar <345,3E;.:1 as *ull -ack+a,es.Bn appeal, the &L/C re(ersed the La-or Ar-iter in its 6anuar! 9E, 9111 decision and dis"issed <ul,ars co"plaint, ,i(in, "ore +ei,ht to <//Ms alle,ation that <ul,ar a-andoned his +ork. ISSC': 8hether or not there is Ille,al 2is"issal

$'L2: &B, the court ruled that <ul,ar clai"s he +as constructi(el! dis"issed +hen he +as -arred *ro" the pre"ises on March 34, 455;, he still *iled his application *or lea(e *or April 4#4:, 455;. The *act alone that <ul,ar +as a-le to return to the o**ice to *ile his application *or lea(e *or April 4#4:, 455; raises dou-t as to his purported -an *ro" the pre"ises. More i"portantl!, i* <ul,ar trul! -elie(ed that he had alread! -een constructi(el! dis"issed on March 34, 455;, reason dictates that he +ould no lon,er -other to appl! *or a lea(e o* a-sence *ro" <//M *or April 4#4:, 455;. The *act that he did -elies his contention that he -elie(ed he had alread! -een constructi(el! dis"issed on March 34, 455;. Also +orth "entionin, is the *act that <ul,ar continued to recei(e his salar! *ro" <//M e(en a*ter March 34, 455;, or the date o* his alle,ed constructi(e dis"issal. In *act, <ul,ar recei(ed his salar! up until April 4:, 455;, +hen his (acation and sick lea(es had -een consu"ed. These circu"stances, taken to,ether, lead us to conclude that <//M did not ter"inate <ul,ars e"plo!"ent. Bn the contrar!, +hat appears *ro" the e(idence is that it +as <ul,ar hi"sel* +ho ter"inated his e"plo!"ent +ith <//M +hen he *iled an ille,al dis"issal co"plaint a,ainst the or,ani ation +hile he +as on lea(e.

GR. NO. 146414 MARCH 14, 2010 COBARRUBIAS, &$)-)-o'$# <S. SAINT LOUIS UNI<ERSITA, #$%&o'($') CARPIO MORALES, J."

!ACTS" -*:+ - obarrubias was hired as a 'aculty #e#ber o' ?LF May +/, +,,/ - President Pari9s in'or#ed obarrubias that she had 'ailed to #eet the re3uired #ini#u# evaluation rating 'or 'aculty #e#bers during the > year period beginning ?8 -**: to +,,/ to thus place her on 'orced leave 'or 'irst se#. %ll bene'its will be suspended obarrubias was advised that be'ore the lapse o' /, days prior to the end o' the -st se# she should in'or# in writing here readiness and availability to teach during the +nd se#. Be'ore the -st se# o' ?8 ,/-,= began, obarrubias atte#pted to report 'or wor1, but as she was placed on 'orced leave, she was not given any teaching load. )une >, ,/ - obarrubias 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal 7ct. -/, ,/ - ?LF advised obarrubias that a += unit load had been prepared 'or her 'or the +nd se#. ?he was re3uire to signi'y in writing her intention to resu#e teaching duties, 'ailing which her teaching load will be assigned to other 3uali'ied and available 'aculty. !o response 'ro# obarrubias !ov. :, -+, +:- letters 'ro# ?LF ?till no response. "ec. 0, ,/ - she was dis#issed 'or abandon#ent L%. obarrubias 'ailure to report 'or wor1 did not constitute abandon#ent

%. reversed L%Ls decision. obarrubias abandoned her 9ob having 'ailed to report bac1 'or wor1 despite several notices. ISSUE" 67! there is abandon#ent.

HELD" Petition 'ails 4or > ti#es, she was noti'ied in writing by respondent to resu#e teaching 'or the +nd se# 'ollowing the service o' suspension during the -st se#. Petitioner never ever replied to those notices &hat her acceptance o' the o''er could be constituted as a waiver o' her clai#s is not indeed a valid e2cuse. "el Monte vs. !LR . the 'iling o' an illegal dis#issal case contradicts the allegations the she abandoned her 9ob is not applicable. &he co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal sprang not 'ro# her dis#issal due to abandon#ent but 'ro# her suspension. "7 &RI!G. &he 'iling o' a co#plaint with a prayer 'or reinstate#ent negates an intention to sever the e#ployer-e#ployee relationshipC the sa#e conte#plates an action #ade subse3uent to the dis#issal. Petition denied.

%bandon#ent

CRC AGRICULTURAL TRADING *'( ROLANDO B. CATINDIG, &$)-)-o'$#% 0%. NLRC *'( ROBERTO OBIAS, #$%&o'($')% G.R. No. 14466=. D$+$,2$# 2>, 2006. B#-o', J.

!ACTS" Petitioners ( R %gricultural &rading and Rolando atindig) engaged the services o' the respondent (Roberto 7bias) in -**> as a driver. &hey, in 'act, re3uested the respondent to live inside their co#pound so he (respondent) could be readily available when the petitioners needed his services.

7n #ere suspicion that respondent sub#itted to the# 'alsi'ied receipts 'or the repair o' the alternator o' their vehicle, petitioners stopped tal1ing to respondent and li1ewise ceased 'ro# giving respondent wor1 assign#ents.

%s a result, respondent and his 'a#ily #oved out o' petitionerLs co#pound and #oved to a nearby place. &herea'ter, he 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal be'ore the Labor %rbiter. 5e said he was not given a notice o' ter#ination.

Petitioners #aintained that they lost trust and con'idence in the respondent a'ter their discovery o' the 'raud that respondent allegedly co##itted so that they no longer engaged his services. &hey also argue that respondent abandoned his wor1.

&hey argued that an e#ployee who had abandoned his wor1, li1e the respondent, is no di''erent 'ro# one who voluntarily resignedC both are not entitled to separation pay and to salary di''erentials.

LA!"R AR!#TER 7bias was a regular e#ployee whose services could only be ter#inated a'ter the observance o' due processC disregarded the petitioners( charge o' abandon#ent against the respondentC awarded respondent the 'ollowing. ?eparation Pay, Bac1wages, ?IL, -/th #onth pay, ?alary "i''erential and %ttorneyLs 4ees. NLRC respondent was not illegally dis#issed because Jit was respondent who decided to #ove his 'a#ily out o' petitionersL lotJC deleted the labor arbiter(s award o' bac1wages and attorney(s 'ees but awarded separation pay and salary di''erentials. CA reversed and set aside the !LR resolution dated %ugust ->, +,,0, and reinstated the labor arbiter(s decision. disregarded the petitioners( charge o' abandon#ent against the respondent 'or. petitionersL 'ailure to show that there was deliberate and un9usti'ied re'usal on the part o' the respondent to resu#e his e#ploy#entC respondent(s 'iling o' a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal #ani'ested his desire to return to his 9ob, thus negating the petitioners( charge o' abandon#ent.

ISSUE"

"id respondentLs act o' #oving out o' his e#ployerLs pre#ises constitute abandon#ent o' his wor1O

HELD"

&he respondent did not abandon his 9ob, he was constructively dis#issed.

%bandon#ent o' wor1, or the deliberate and un9usti'ied re'usal o' an e#ployee to resu#e his e#ploy#ent, is a 9ust cause 'or the ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent under paragraph (b) o' %rticle +:+ o' the Labor ode, since it constitutes neglect o' duty.

&he 9urisprudential rule is that abandon#ent is a #atter o' intention that cannot be lightly presu#ed 'ro# e3uivocal acts.

&o constitute abandon#ent, two ele#ents #ust concur.

(1) the 'ailure to report 'or wor1 or absence without valid or 9usti'iable reason, and (2) a clear intent, #ani'ested through overt acts, to sever the e#ployer-e#ployee
relationship. &he e#ployer bears the burden o' showing a deliberate and un9usti'ied re'usal by the e#ployee to resu#e his e#ploy#ent without any intention o' returning. In the present case, the petitioners did not adduce any proo' to show that the respondent clearly and une3uivocally intended to abandon his 9ob or to sever the e#ployer-e#ployee relationship.

Moreover, the respondent(s 'iling o' the co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal on )une ++, +,,= strongly spea1s against the petitioners( charge o' abandon#entC it is illogical 'or an e#ployee to abandon his e#ploy#ent and, therea'ter, 'ile a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal.

ase law de'ines constructive dis#issal as a cessation o' wor1 because continued e#ploy#ent has been rendered i#possible, unreasonable, or unli1ely, as when there is a de#otion in ran1 or di#inution in pay or both or when a clear discri#ination, insensibility, or disdain by an e#ployer beco#es unbearable to the e#ployee.

In the present case, the petitioners ceased verbally co##unicating with the respondent and giving hi# wor1 assign#ent a'ter suspecting that he had 'orged purchase receipts. Fnder this situation, the respondent was 'orced to leave the petitioners( co#pound with his 'a#ily and to trans'er to a nearby place. &hus, the respondent(s act o' leaving the petitioners( pre#ises was in reality not his choice but a situation the petitioners created.

G.R. No. 10-890

Octo=er 20, 2010

PEAA(RAN IA !O)R$ AND !RAVEL !RAN$POR!, IN ., Petitioner, vs.JO$ELI!O P. $ARMIEN!O a%& RI ARDO $. A!IMBANG, Respondents. NA #)RA, J.: (A !$, <ntil their alleged termination on /cto$er ;?, 6??6, respondentsBoselito Sarmiento 4Sarmiento5 and Ricardo ,atim$ang 4,atim$ang5 worked as $us inspectors of petitioner PeSafrancia (ours and (ravel (ransport, "nc. 4petitioner5, earning a daily wage of P%&7.??. Sometime in the first week of /cto$er 6??6,respondents received notices of termination on the ground of petitioner!s alleged irreversi$le $usiness losses. "n the middle of /cto$er 6??6, a meeting was called $y petitioner!s President and General 1anager, Eonifacio ,u, wherein respondents were introduced to lfredo Pere', the owner of *PS (ransportation, as the new owner of petitioner, having allegedly $ought the same. /n /cto$er ;?, 6??6, respondents received their last pay with a letter informing them that their application with the company had $een held in a$eyance.Respondents, however, learned that, several days after their termination, Eonifacio ,u continued to operate petitioner $us company. (raversing the complaint, petitioner admitted that respondents were among its $us inspectors. "t asseverated, however, that due to severe $usiness losses, petitioner made the painful decision to stop its operation and sell the $usiness enterprise to the Pere' family of *PS (ransportation. "t alleged that due notice was given to the #epartment of *a$or and Amployment, @ and that all its employees were duly notifiedD and were paid their corresponding separation pay, as well as their %;th month pay. (he new owners maintained the $usiness name of petitioner, and the management of petitioner was entrusted to the new owners in /cto$er 6??6, with Adil$erto Pere'> as Cice-President for =inance and /perations. -hile respondents! case for illegal dismissal was pending $efore the *a$or r$iter 4* 5, a notice7 was issued $y Adil$erto Pere' to all employees of petitioner, stating that, effective =e$ruary %%, 6??;, the management of the company shall revert to its former President, Eonifacio ,u. /n =e$ruary 67, 6??;, Eonifacio ,u wrote lfredo Pere' relative to the latter!s

failure to comply with their agreement and the decision to rescind the sale involving petitioner. & (hereafter, sometime in 1arch 6??;, Eonifacio ,u entered into a transaction, denominated as a :#eed of Sale with ssignment of =ranchise 4Ey -ay of #ation in Payment5,: with Southern ,omfort Eus ,o., "nc. 4S,E,5, represented $y its President and General 1anager, -illy #eterala.%? /n Buly ;%, 6??;, the * dismissed the action for illegal dismissal. ggrieved, respondents sought recourse from the +ational *a$or Relations ,ommission 4+*R,5. /n ugust ;%, 6??@, the +*R, rendered a decision %6 in favor of respondents, finding that no sale of the $usiness actually took place. <ndaunted, petitioner assailed the +*R,!s ruling $efore the , on certiorari. /n ugust ;%, 6??D, the , ruled in favor of respondents. "t held that petitioner failed to esta$lish its allegation that it was suffering from $usiness reverses. *ikewise, the , affirmed the +*R,!s findings that petitioner did not actually sell its $usiness to the Pere' family and to S,E,. I$$)E, -hether or not respondents were legally terminated from employment $y reason of the sale of the $usiness enterprise and the conse)uent change or transfer of ownershipFmanagement.%D #ELD, +o. ,losure of $usiness is the reversal of fortune of the employer where$y there is a complete cessation of $usiness operations andFor an actual locking-up of the doors of the esta$lishment, usually due to financial losses. ,losure of $usiness, as an authori'ed cause for termination of employment, aims to prevent further financial drain upon an employer who can no longer pay his employees since $usiness has already stopped.%& ,losure or cessation of operation of the esta$lishment is an authori'ed cause for terminating an employee, as provided in rticle 67; of the *a$or ,ode, to wit: rt. 67;. ,losure of esta$lishment and reduction of personnel. T (he employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of la$or-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the esta$lishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this (itle, $y serving a written notice on the workers and the #epartment of *a$or

and Amployment at least one 4%5 month $efore the intended date thereof. 888. "n case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of esta$lishment or undertaking not due to serious $usiness losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall $e e)uivalent to one 4%5 month pay or to at least one-half 4%F65 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. fraction of at least si8 4D5 months shall $e considered one 4%5 whole year. /n this ground, petitioner terminated the employment of respondents. 9owever, what petitioner apparently made was a transfer of ownership. "t is true that, as invoked $y petitioner, in 1anlimos, et al. v. +*R,, et al.,6? we held that a change of ownership in a $usiness concern is not proscri$ed $y law. *est petitioner forget, however, we also held therein thatthe sale or disposition must $e motivated $y good faith as a condition for e8emption from lia$ility. 6% (hus, where the charge of ownership is done in $ad faith, or is used to defeat the rights of la$or, the successor-employer is deemed to have a$sor$ed the employees and is held lia$le for the transgressions of his or her predecessor.66 Eut, in this case, there is no successor-employer $ecause there was no actual change of ownership. -e sustain the uniform factual finding of $oth the +*R, and the , that no actual sale transpired and, as such, there is no closure or cessation of $usiness that can serve as an authori'ed cause for the dismissal of respondents. +ota$le in this regard are the following o$servations of the , : Petitioner P(((" sent notices of termination to private respondents Sarmiento and ,atim$ang on the alleged ground that it would cease operations effective ;? /cto$er 6??6 due to $usiness reverses and it would eventually sell the same to another company. 4"d. at p. >>5 9owever, the records e8plicitly show that it 4P((("5 failed to esta$lish its allegation that it was suffering from $usiness reverses. +either was there proof that indeed a sale was made and e8ecuted on ?% /cto$er 6??6 involving the company!s assets in favor of *PS (ransportation owned $y the Pere' family. "t did not present any documentary evidence to support its claim that it sold the same to *PS (ransportation. /n the contrary, it 4P((("5 continuously operates under the same name, franchises and routes and under the same circumstances as $efore the alleged sale. "t 4P((("5 tried to convince us that it is under a new management, $y presenting series of memoranda where the signatory thereon is Adel$erto A. Pere', CP-=inanceF/perations 4"d. at pp. >7-7;5. (o us, the series of memoranda do not conclusively show that there had $een a sale in favor of *PS (ransportation. nd considering that there was no sale which transpired, we also find no $asis for the rescission thereof. (he letter dated %& 1arch 6??; addressed to its employees, informing the latter that it had rescinded its sale to *PS (ransportation and thus, there is a change of management, ownership and operation of the company and it 4P((("5 is intending to sell the company to Southern ,omfort Eus ,o., "nc. headed $y 1r. -illy #. #eterala 4"d. at p. 7&5 could not convince us that there was actually a rescission of sale. "f indeed there was sale and a conse)uent rescission thereof which transpired, why is it that the *PS

(ransportation did not give much a fight when the contract of sale was unilaterally rescinded $y Eonifacio ,u who signed as PresidentFGeneral 1anager of petitioner P(((" in a letter dated 67 =e$ruary 6??;. "t is )uite unconceiva$le for a company like *PS (ransportation which had already parted a considera$le sum not to )uestion the rescission undertaken $y petitioner P(((". (his only confirms the pu$lic respondent +*R,!s finding, that the sale was indeed a sham, designed to circumvent the law on the rights of the workers. (here is thus, no $asis for us to $elieve that there was a conse)uent rescission of the alleged sale made $y petitioner P(((" in favor of *PS (ransportation. ,orollarily, we opine that the alleged second sale made $y petitioner P(((", this time in favor of Southern ,omfort Eus ,o., "nc. represented $y one -illy #. #eterPaQla is also simulated considering that the ten million pesos consideration is un$elieva$ly too small for thirty five 4;@5 aircon $uses including its franchise and facilities thereon. "t is )uite an illogical move for the company to have allegedly rescinded the previous sale involving a higher consideration of si8ty million pesos 4PD?,???,???.??5 made in favor of *PS (ransportation and to resell the same, this time 3ust for a measly amount of ten million pesos 4P%?,???,???.??5. dditionally, the o$servation of private respondents Sarmiento and ,atim$ang is )uite impressive when they claimed that the Southern ,omfort Eus ,o., "nc., presided $y one -illy #. #eterala is a dummy corporation since it has not operated any single $us under its name, even prior to the sale and up to the present. "n fact, its principal $usiness office at +o. G ,athedral St., teneo venue GG?? +aga ,ity is not even known. Suffice it to stress, these private respondents! allegationsFo$servations have not at all $een refuted nor controverted $y petitioner P(((".6; -9ARA=/RA, the instant petition is #A+"A#, and the ,ourt of ppeals #ecision dated ugust ;%, 6??D is here$y =="R1A#. ,osts against petitioner.

G.R. +o. %D@&@%.

1arch ;?, 6?%?

S/*"#E +K ,/RP/R ("/+, Petitioner, - versus + ("/+ * * E/R RA* ("/+S ,/11"SS"/+2 R/#/*=/ +. E/1E"( , # +"*/ B. 1A#R +/, #/+ *# =. 1 G*A/, R/+ *# 1. P S"1"/, B/SA R. P ,9A,/, *=RA#/ ( +, B<S(",A U. #A1ARRA, S/=" G. J P, +",9/* S #A* R/S R"/, R 1/+ R. E S( , *<"S S. 1 S(R"**, RAJ+ *#/ A. ** #/, # +"*/ +ARJ, GR ," +/ 1. #A* R/S R"/, GA *#"+/ 1. P R 1, *<,"+ #. #A , S(R/, G*/R" 1 R J G, R/* +#/ . R"V/, EA#A** =. =ARR +,<*/, 1 . EA** . PAR *( , #"/+"*/ 1. 1 R="*, (ARAS"( A. +GA*AS, UA+ "# L. , VA(A, ,9ARRJ KR"S("+ ,. E <("S( , ,A,"*" S. EA** , 1 R"A E"G "* (/+GS/+, 1 #A1"/SA((A PR"+S"PA, R", R#/ P/*"+ R, EA+B 1"+ /. , S( VA# , BR., *<"S #A* 1/R *, BR., B/SA G. R", =/R(A, BR., P (R"," *AA, A+R"L<A (.

, S(A**C", RA+ (/ P. 1 ** R", AS(RA** */PAU, 1/"SAS +GA*AS, R/* +#/ ,<+# +G +, ,/+R #/ G * +G, ,* R/ ". +AP/1<,A+/, =*/RAS"( G/,A, *EAR(/ , E **AR/, *A/+ R#/ S +G , -"+"=RA#/ 1 R("+AU, 1 . C",(/R" * E/R(A, R/EAR(/ =. 1 #R"#, ACA*J+ S. SARC"A(/, 1"* GR/S 1<BAR, G"* , E V S, *"*" ,< +, +/R1 C. G/, "R1 1. 1 + /"S, -"*=RA#/ E. RAJAS, (ASS"A 1 (A/, RAS<RA,,"/+ S +(/S, E"A+CA+"#/ 1. S"* +G"*, G/#/=RA#/ =. #A *A/+, +/R1 + R. RAJAS, *=/+S/ S. 1/R *AS, BR., 1AR,A#"( ". 1 GS<1E/*, R/S R"/ G. <1 *", C",A+( */PAU, PR"S,"** =. ,R<U, 1 . , R1A+ . J U/+, 1 R"A A1"**A ,. #A* ,R<U, #/R/(A J P, R<," (. P/, R/1A/ ,. R/S R"/, R<EA+ . =A*AER",/, R<EJ R/S 1. , RU , R/EAR(/ S. #A G<U1 +, *A/+/R (. ,/1" , R 1/+ *. J<, AR*"+# (. , *<1 G, B +A ,< , ="*"+/ G. 1 RL<AU, B "1A ,. ,9 1, =A*/1"+/ C. *AG R# , B< +"(/ E. R,A/, 1 +<A* E. 1 +U +/, R/EAR(/ (. (< *A, S 1<A* U. R,"** , ,*A1A+(A +. G, 1 R +, EA+B 1"+ #. 1/+, # , "*#A=A+S/ =. ( G J/+, , R1A*/ "+ 1 ,, 1 R",A* #. S *"RA, R", R#/ 1. E/+#/,, R/* +#/ 1. 9 **"G, R/1A/ ,. E/+#/,, 9A+RJ =. *AA *A/+G, =R +,"S, S. U E * , RA+A G. *E + , A#< R#/ (. B< +, 1AR*"+ *. C"** S"S, A#-"+ /. , ,9/, +",/* S S. #" U, A#< R#/ 1. *"1E G , BAS<S P. (RAJAS, 1 W"1/ S. 1<V/U, BR., 1 J+ R#/ E. #J(<,/, "# B. P * =/W, AC +GA*"+A S. J +U/+, # R"/ C. E/G , 1/#AS(/ C. E *( U R, R/EAR(/ *. 1 P , "S <R/ . RA** +/, 1 W"1/ #. S<+AR, +/1AR . C"# *, A#< R#/ C. "* G +, R/1A/ #. 1A+#/U , =*/R/ . E<S(/, =RA##"A *. <J ,/, B/A 1. *", J<, J/#A* ,. 1/R *AS, *AW +#AR C. , E **AR/, 9AR1"+ . #/*/R"(/, A#- R# ,. J/<+G, 1 . (ARAS R. *AG SP", A*1AR =. ,"ARC , R/1A/ 1AR, #/, 9<1EAR(/ S. R +,/, ,/+,AP,"/+ S. J # /, , R*/ ,. #A* R" R(A, A#-"+ R. AR1"( , R J1<+# +"A(AS, BA++"=AR (. EAS 1"S, R+<*=/ *C RAS, *<"S"(/ B. AS(AE +, ,/+,9"("+ ,. 1AS"+ , P"+G ,9 + ,. J /, * R"U C. ** +AS, *A/+ R#/ S. CA*"+/, BR., B "1A (. AS1AR *# , A#< R#/ S. E<A+CA+(<R , B/SA="+ 1. +"ACAS, AR1A+"*# P. "G+ ,"/, 1 . C",(/R" G. , P<*/+G, (ARAS ,. +#RAS, ACA*J+ ,. #A* R/S R"/, and ,/+S/* ,"/+ <RA 1. S <R , Respondents. B. ,orona =acts: Petitioner decided to cease its commercial $anking operation and surrendered to the ESP its e8panded license. Petitioner sent individual letters to its employees, including respondents, advising them to its decision to cease operations and informing them that their employment would $e terminated. Petitioner sent to the #/*A informing said office of the termination of its employees. Respondents filed with the *a$or r$iter complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of separation pay plus damages and attorneys fees.

* ruled that respondents were validly terminated from employment as a result of petitionerRs decision to cease its $anking operations. +*R, affirmed the finding of the * . , reversed the decision of +*R,. (he , shared the view of the * that respondents should $e awarded % month salary as financial assistance and not two monthRs salary as previously decreed $y +*R,. "SS<A: -9A(9AR /R +/( (9ARA "S +/ *AG * E S"S =/R (9A ,/<R( /= PPA *S! - R# /= ="+ +," * SS"S( +,A AL<"C *A+( (/ /+A-1/+(9!S S * RJ (/ (9A RASP/+#A+(S =(AR "(S ="+#"+G (9 ( S/*"#E +K 9 S 1/RA (9 + ,/1P*"A# -"(9 (9A 1 +# (A /= (9A * - /+ P J1A+( /= SAP R ("/+ P J. 9A*#: (he petition is meritorious. rticle 67; of the *a$or ,ode provides: R(",*A 67;. ,losure of esta$lishment and reduction of personnel. - (he employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of la$or-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the esta$lishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this (itle, $y serving a written notice on the workers and the 1inistry of *a$or and Amployment at least one 4%5 month $efore the intended date thereof. "n case of termination due to the installation of la$or-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected there$y shall $e entitled to a separation pay e)uivalent to at least his one 4%5 month pay or to at least one 4%5 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. "n case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of esta$lishment or undertaking not due to serious $usiness losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall $e e)uivalent to one 4%5 month pay or at least one-half 4%F65 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. fraction of at least si8 4D5 months shall $e considered one 4%5 whole year. P6;Q Eased on rticle 67;, in case of cessation of operations, the employer is only re)uired to pay his employees a separation pay of one month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. (hat is all that the law re)uires. "n the case at $ar, petitioner paid respondents the following: 4a5 separation pay computed at %@?M of their gross monthly pay per year of service2 and 4$5 cash e)uivalent of earned and accrued vacation and sick leaves. ,learly, petitioner had gone over and a$ove the re)uirements of the law. #espite this, however, petitioner has $een ordered to pay respondents an additional amount, e)uivalent to one month!s salary, as a form of financial assistance.

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila FIRST DIVISION

NELSON A. CULILI, Petitioner,

- versus -

EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., SALVADOR HIZON (President and Chief Executive Officer), EMILIANO JURADO (Chairman of the Board), VIRGILIO GARCIA (Vice President) and STELLA GARCIA (Assistant Vice President), Respondents. G.R. No. 165381

Petitioner Nelson A. Culili (Culili) was employed by ETPI as a Technician in its Field Operations Department on January 27, 1981. On December 12, 1996, Culili was promoted to Senior Technician in the Customer Premises Equipment Management Unit of the Service Quality Department and his basic salary was increased.[8] In 1998, due to business troubles and losses, ETPI was compelled to implement a Right-Sizing Program which consisted of two phases: the first phase involved the reduction of ETPIs workforce to only those employees that were necessary and which ETPI could sustain; the second phase entailed a company-wide reorganization which would result in the transfer, merger, absorption or abolition of certain departments of ETPI.[11] As part of the first phase, ETPI, on December 10, 1998, offered to its employees who had rendered at least fifteen years of service, the Special Retirement Program, which consisted of the option to voluntarily retire at an earlier age and a retirement package equivalent to two and a half (2) months salary for every year of service.[12] This offer was initially rejected by the Eastern Telecommunications Employees Union (ETEU), ETPIs duly recognized bargaining agent, which threatened to stage a strike. ETPI explained to ETEU the exact details of the Right-Sizing Program and the Special Retirement Program and after consultations with ETEUs members, ETEU agreed to the implementation of both programs.[13] Thus, on February 8, 1999, ETPI re-offered the Special Retirement Program and the corresponding retirement package to the one

hundred two (102) employees who qualified for the program.[14] Of all the employees who qualified to avail of the program, only Culili rejected the offer.[15] After the successful implementation of the first phase of the Right-Sizing Program, ETPI, on March 1, 1999 proceeded with the second phase which necessitated the abolition, transfer and merger of a number of ETPIs departments.[16] Among the departments abolished was the Service Quality Department. The functions of the Customer Premises Equipment Management Unit, Culilis unit, were absorbed by the Business and Consumer Accounts Department. The abolition of the Service Quality Department rendered the specialized functions of a Senior Technician unnecessary. As a result, Culilis position was abolished due to redundancy and his functions were absorbed by Andre Andrada, another employee already with the Business and Consumer Accounts Department.[17] On March 5, 1999, Culili discovered that his name was omitted in ETPIs New Table of Organization. Culili, along with three of his co-employees who were similarly situated, wrote their union president to protest such omission.[18] Culili alleged that neither he nor the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) were formally notified of his termination. Culili claimed that he only found out about it sometime in March 1999 when Vice President Virgilio Garcia handed him a copy of the March 8, 1999 letter, after he was barred from entering ETPIs premises by its armed security personnel when he tried to report for work.[21] Culili believed that ETPI had already decided to dismiss him even prior to the March 8, 1999 letter as evidenced by the December 7, 1998 version of that letter. Moreover, Culili asserted that ETPI had contracted out the services he used to perform to a labor-only contractor which not only proved that his functions had not become unnecessary, but which also violated their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the Labor Code. Aside from these, Culili also alleged that he was discriminated against when ETPI offered some of his coemployees an additional benefit in the form of motorcycles to induce them to avail of the Special Retirement Program, while he was not.[22] Main Issue: Legality of Dismissal Culili asserted that he was illegally dismissed because there was no valid cause to terminate his employment. He claimed that ETPI failed to prove that his position had become redundant and that ETPI was indeed incurring losses. Culili further alleged that his functions as a Senior Technician could not be considered a superfluity because his tasks were crucial and critical to ETPIs business. Under our laws, an employee may be terminated for reasons involving measures taken by the employer due to business necessities.

There is redundancy when the service capability of the workforce is greater than what is reasonably required to meet the demands of the business enterprise. A position becomes redundant when it is rendered superfluous by any number of factors such as over-hiring of workers, decrease in volume of business, or dropping a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[36] This Court has been consistent in holding that the determination of whether or not an employees services are still needed or sustainable properly belongs to the employer. Provided there is no violation of law or a showing that the employer was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act, the soundness or wisdom of this exercise of business judgment is not subject to the discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. [37] However, an employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without producing adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.[38] Among the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant,[39] such as but not limited to: preferred status, efficiency, and seniority.[40] This Court also held that the following evidence may be proffered to substantiate redundancy: the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/ proposal on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.[41] In the case at bar, ETPI was upfront with its employees about its plan to implement a Right-Sizing Program. Even in the face of initial opposition from and rejection of the said program by ETEU, ETPI patiently negotiated with ETEUs officers to make them understand ETPIs business dilemma and its need to reduce its workforce and streamline its organization. This evidently rules out bad faith on the part of ETPI. In deciding which positions to retain and which to abolish, ETPI chose on the basis of efficiency, economy, versatility and flexibility. It needed to reduce its workforce to a sustainable level while maintaining functions necessary to keep it operating. The records show that ETPI had sufficiently established not only its need to reduce its workforce and streamline its organization, but also the existence of redundancy in the position of a Senior Technician. ETPI explained how it failed to meet its business targets and the factors that caused this, and how this necessitated it to reduce its workforce and streamline its organization. ETPI also submitted its old and new tables of organization and sufficiently described how limited the functions of the abolished position of a Senior Technician were and how it decided on whom to absorb these functions.

Observance of Procedural Due Process

Although the Court finds Culilis dismissal was for a lawful cause and not an act of unfair labor practice, ETPI, however, was remiss in its duty to observe procedural due process in effecting the termination of Culili. We have previously held that there are two aspects which characterize the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one is substantive whether the termination of employment was based on the provision of the Labor Code or in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence; the other is procedural the manner in which the dismissal was effected.[49] Section 2(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides: (d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: xxxx For termination of employment as defined in Article 283 of the Labor Code, the requirement of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service of a written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment at least thirty days before effectivity of the termination, specifying the ground or grounds for termination.

ETPI does not deny its failure to provide DOLE with a written notice regarding Culilis termination. It, however, insists that it has complied with the requirement to serve a written notice to Culili as evidenced by his admission of having received it and forwarding it to his union president. .this Court believes that ETPI failed to properly notify Culili about his termination. Aside from the manner the written notice was served, a reading of that notice shows that ETPI failed to properly inform Culili of the grounds for his termination. The Court of Appeals, in finding that Culili was not afforded procedural due process, held that Culilis dismissal was ineffectual, and required ETPI to pay Culili full backwages in accordance with our decision in Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission.[55] Over the years, this Court has had the opportunity to reexamine the sanctions imposed upon employers who fail to comply with the procedural due process requirements in terminating its employees. In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[56] this Court reverted back to the doctrine in Wenphil Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[57] and held that where the dismissal is due to a just or authorized cause, but without observance of the due process requirements, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer must pay an indemnity to the employee. The

sanctions to be imposed however, must be stiffer than those imposed in Wenphil to achieve a result fair to both the employers and the employees.[58]

COCA:COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., - vers$s ANGEL U. DEL <ILLAR, 4% &?. Petitioner hired respondent %ngel F. del Hillar ("el Hillar) on May -, -**, as Physical "istribution 4leet Manager. In -**+, as part o' the reorgani@ation o' the o#pany, "el Hillar beca#e the &ransportation ?ervices Manager, under the Business Logistic "irectorate. 6hile serving as &ransportation ?ervices Manager, "el Hillar sub#itted a Report to the o#pany President, detailing an alleged 'raudulent sche#e underta1en by certain o#pany o''icials. In the sa#e Report, "el Hillar i#plicated ?an )uan and )ose L. Pineda, )r. (Pineda), a#ong other o#pany o''icials, as part o' the conspiracy. Pineda then served as the G2ecutive %ssistant in the Business Logistic "irectorate in charge o' the Re'rigeration ?ervices o' the o#pany. In -**0, the o#pany e#bar1ed on a reorgani@ation o' the Business Logistic "irectorate. Gvangelista, the Physical "istribution ?uperintendent o' the Ra#boanga Plant, was appointed the orporate &ransportation and Re'rigeration ?ervices Manager, replacing both "el Hillar and Pineda, who were in charge o' the &ransportation ?ervices and Re'rigeration ?ervices o' the o#pany, respectively. Pineda was then appointed as the orporate Purchasing and Materials ontrol Manager, while "el Hillar as Pineda(s ?ta'' %ssistant. ?even #onths a'ter the sub#ission o' his Report on the 'raudulent sche#e o' several co#pany o''icials, "el Hillar received a Me#orandu# 'ro# ?an )uan. &hrough said Me#orandu#, ?an )uan in'or#ed "el Hillar that he was designated as ?ta'' %ssistant to the orporate Purchasing and Materials ontrol Manager, and "el Hillar was to turn over the vehicle assigned to hi# as &ransportation ?ervices Manager to Pineda by )uly -,, -**0. "el Hillar continued to receive the sa#e salary as &ransportation ?ervices Manager, but his car and other privileges were withdrawn and he spent his ti#e at his new post sitting Dat a des1 with no #eaning'ul wor1 whatsoever.E;0< "el Hillar 'iled a co#plaint against the o#pany 'or illegal de#otion and 'or'eiture o' co#pany privileges. 7n March /, -**:, the Labor %rbiter rendered a "ecision in "el Hillar(s 'avor. &he o#pany appealed to the !LR . 6hile the case was still pending appeal, "el Hillar received a letter dated %pril +:, -**:, 'ro# the co#pany stating that his position has been deter#ined as no longer necessary due to the reorgani@ation o' the Business Logistics "irectorate. &hus, he is now considered separated 'ro# ;the o#pany< e''ective May /-, -**:.

Issue. 6$! "el HillarLs dis#issal is valid on the ground o' redundancy.

Ruling. !o. Gventually, however, the o#pany actually ter#inated "el Hillar(s services e''ective May /-, -**:, as his position was no longer necessary or was considered redundant due to the reorgani@ation o' the Business Logistic "irectorate. Redundancy is one o' the authori@ed causes 'or the dis#issal o' an e#ployee. It is governed by %rticle +:/ o' the Labor ode. Redundancy, 'or purposes o' the Labor ode, e2ists where the services o' an e#ployee are in e2cess o' what is reasonably de#anded by the actual re3uire#ents o' the enterprise. ?uccinctly put, a position is redundant where it is super'luous, and super'luity o' a position or positions #ay be the outco#e o' a nu#ber o' 'actors, such as overhiring o' wor1ers, decreased volu#e o' business, or dropping o' a particular product line or service activity previously #anu'actured or underta1en by the enterprise.;//< &he deter#ination that the e#ployeeLs services are no longer necessary or sustainable and, there'ore, properly ter#inable 'or being redundant is an e2ercise o' business 9udg#ent o' the e#ployer. &he wisdo# or soundness o' this 9udg#ent is not sub9ect to discretionary review o' the Labor %rbiter and the !LR , provided there is no violation o' law and no showing that it was pro#pted by an arbitrary or #alicious act. In other words, it is not enough 'or a co#pany to #erely declare that it has beco#e over#anned. It #ust produce ade3uate proo' o' such redundancy to 9usti'y the dis#issal o' the a''ected e#ployees.;/=< In this case, other than its own bare and sel'-serving allegation that "el Hillar(s position as ?ta'' %ssistant o' orporate Purchasing and Materials ontrol Manager had already beco#e redundant, no other evidence was presented by the o#pany. !either did the o#pany present proo' that it had co#plied with the procedural re3uire#ent in %rticle +:/ o' prior notice to the "epart#ent o' Labor and G#ploy#ent ("7LG) o' the ter#ination o' "el Hillar(s e#ploy#ent due to redundancy one #onth prior to May /-, -**:. "el Hillar(s poor e#ployee per'or#ance is irrelevant as regards the issue on redundancy. Redundancy arises because there is no #ore need 'or the e#ployee(s position in relation to the whole business organi@ation, and not because the e#ployee unsatis'actorily per'or#ed the duties and responsibilities re3uired by his position.;/*< &here being no authori@ed cause 'or the ter#ination o' "el Hillar(s e#ploy#ent, then he was illegally dis#issed.

A.R. !o. -B,=0=, )uly -+, +,-, LAMBERT PAWNBRO8ERS *'( JEWELRA CORPORATION *'( LAMBERT LIM, Petitioners, vs. HELEN BINAMIRA, Respondent. "GL !*+)%. %?&ILL7, J.:

La#bert Li# (Li#) is a Malaysian national operating various businesses in ebu and Bohol one o' which is La#bert Pawnbro1ers and )ewelry orporation. Li# is #arried to Rhodora Bina#ira, daughter o' %tty. Boler Bina#ira, ?r., (%tty. Bina#ira), who is also the counsel and 'ather-in-law o' respondent 5elen Bina#ira (5elen). La#bert Pawnbro1ers and )ewelry orporation N &agbilaran Branch hired 5elen as an appraiser in )uly -**> and designated her as Hault ustodian in -**0. 7n ?epte#ber -=, -**:, 5elen received a letter 'ro# Li# ter#inating her e#ploy#ent e''ective that sa#e day. Li# cited business losses necessitating retrench#ent as the reason 'or the ter#ination. 5elen 'iled a case 'or illegal dis#issal against petitioners. In her Position Paper, 5elen alleged that she was dis#issed without cause and the bene'it o' due process. ?he clai#ed that she was a #ere casualty o' the war o' attrition between Li# and the Bina#ira 'a#ily. Moreover, she clai#ed that there was no proo' that the co#pany was su''ering 'ro# business losses. 7n !ove#ber +0, -***, the Labor %rbiter rendered a "ecision which held that 5elen was not illegally dis#issed but was validly retrenched. 7n appeal, the !LR reversed and set aside the "ecision o' the Labor %rbiter. It observed that 'or retrench#ent to be valid, a written notice shall be given to the e#ployee and to the "epart#ent o' Labor and G#ploy#ent ("7LG) at least one #onth prior to the intended date thereo'. ?ince none was given in this case, then the retrench#ent o' 5elen was not valid. Petitioners 'iled a Motion 'or Reconsideration. 7n )uly /,, +,,/, the !LR set aside its "ecision dated ?epte#ber +B, +,,+ and entered a new one. &he !LR opined that what was actually i#ple#ented by the petitioners was not retrench#ent due to serious business losses but ter#ination due to redundancy. &he !LR observed that the &agbilaran operations was oversta''ed thus necessitating the ter#ination o' so#e e#ployees. Moreover, the redundancy progra# was not properly i#ple#ented because no written notices were 'urnished the e#ployee and the "7LG one #onth be'ore the intended date o' ter#ination. 7n petition 'or certiorari, the % ruled that there was no redundancy because the position o' vault custodian is a re3uisite, necessary and desirable position in the pawnshop business. &here was li1ewise no retrench#ent because none o' the conditions 'or retrench#ent is present in this case. I%%u$. 6hether or not there was valid dis#issal based on redundancy. H$l(. Redundancy e2ists when the service capability o' the wor1'orce is in e2cess o' what is reasonably needed to #eet the de#ands o' the enterprise. % redundant position is one rendered super'luous by any nu#ber o' 'actors, such as over hiring o' wor1ers, decreased

volu#e o' business, dropping o' a particular product line previously #anu'actured by the co#pany, or phasing out o' a service activity previously underta1en by the business. Fnder these conditions, the e#ployer has no legal obligation to 1eep in its payroll #ore e#ployees than are necessary 'or the operation o' its business. 4or the i#ple#entation o' a redundancy progra# to be valid, the e#ployer #ust co#ply with the 'ollowing re3uisites. (-) written notice served on both the e#ployees and the "7LG at least one #onth prior to the intended date o' ter#ination o' e#ploy#entC (+) pay#ent o' separation pay e3uivalent to at least one #onth pay 'or every year o' serviceC (/) good 'aith in abolishing the redundant positionsC and (=) 'air and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished In this case, there is no proo' that the essential re3uisites 'or a valid redundancy progra# as a ground 'or the ter#ination o' the e#ploy#ent o' respondent are present. &here was no showing that the 'unction o' respondent is super'luous or that the business was su''ering 'ro# a serious downturn that would warrant redundancy considering that such serious business downturn was the ground cited by petitioners in the ter#ination letter sent to respondent. In 'ine, 5elen(s dis#issal is illegal 'or lac1 o' 9ust or authori@ed cause and 'ailure to observe due process o' law.

>>. $'//'/A )S. &ATIB&AL <B8'/ CB/<B/ATIB& %./. &B. 400:;1F 2'C'M7'/ 4E, 9115 FACTS: /A &o. 5430 +as enacted on to pro(ide a *ra"e+ork *or the restructurin, o* the electric po+er industr!, includin, the pri(ati ation o* &<Cs assets and lia-ilities. Bne necessar! conse@uence o* the reor,ani ation +as the displace"ent o* e"plo!ees *ro" the 2epart"ent o* 'ner,!, the 'ner,! /e,ulator! 7oard, the &ational 'lectri*ication Ad"inistration and the &<C. To so*ten the -lo+ *ro" the se(erance o* e"plo!"ent, Con,ress pro(ided in Section 03 o* the '<I/A, *or a separation packa,e superior than those pro(ided under e=istin, la+s. It pro(ides that the! Ns4!$$ *0 0&.#.$02 .o 0#.40) ! s05!)!.#o& 5!% !&2 o.40) *0&0 #.s #& !--o)2!&-0 <#.4 0B#s.#&8 $!<s, )+$0s o) )08+$!.#o&s o) *0 0&.#.$02 .o !v!#$ o .40 5)#v#$080s 5)ov#202 +&20) ! s05!)!.#o& 5$!& <4#-4 s4!$$ *0 o&0 !&2 o&0;4!$ "o&.4 s!$!)% o) 0v0)% %0!) o s0)v#-0 #& .40 8ov0)&"0&..C Further"ore, NT40 s05!)!.#o& *0&0 #. s4!$$ -o&s#s. o 0#.40) ! s05!)!.#o& 5!% !&2 o.40) *0&0 #.s 8)!&.02 #& !--o)2!&-0 <#.4 0B#s.#&8 $!<s, )+$0s !&2 )08+$!.#o&s o) ! s05!)!.#o& 5$!& 0D+#v!$0&. .o o&0 !&2 o&0 4!$ =1;1E2> "o&.4s s!$!)% o) 0v0)% %0!) o s0)v#-0 #& .40 8ov0)&"0&., <4#-40v0) #s 4#840).C It also de*ined NseparationO or Ndisplace"entO as N .40 s0v0)!&-0 o 0"5$o%"0&. o !&% o #-#!$ o) 0"5$o%00, <4o #s &0#.40) D+!$# #02 +&20) 0B#s.#&8 $!<s, )+$0s !&2 )08+$!.#o&s &o) 4!s o5.02 .o )0.#)0 +&20) 0B#s.#&8 $!<s.C All &<C e"plo!ees, includin, the petitioners, +ere separated *ro" the ser(ice. As a result, all the e"plo!ees +ho held per"anent positions at the &<C opted *or and +ere paid the correspondin, separation pa! e@ui(alent to one and a hal* "onths salar! per !ear o*

ser(ice. &onetheless, in addition to the separation packa,e "andated -! the '<I/A, a nu"-er o* &<C e"plo!ees also clai"ed retire"ent -ene*its under CA &o. 4E0 and /A &o. 4040. Cnder these la+s, ,o(ern"ent e"plo!ees +ho ha(e rendered at least 91 !ears o* ser(ice are entitled to a ,ratuit! e@ui(alent to one "onths salar! *or e(er! !ear o* ser(ice *or the *irst 91 !ears, one and a hal* "onths salar! *or e(er! !ear o* ser(ice o(er 91 -ut -elo+ 31 !ears, and t+o "onths salar! *or e(er! !ear o* ser(ice in e=cess o* 31 !ears. ISSC': 8hether petitioners, *or"er e"plo!ees o* the &ational <o+er Corporation (&<C) +ho +ere separated *ro" ser(ice due to the ,o(ern"ents initiati(e o* restructurin, the electric po+er industr!, are entitled to their retire"ent -ene*its in addition to the separation pa! ,ranted -! la+. /CLI&%: &B. &othin, in the '<I/A .usti*ies the ,rant o* -oth the separation packa,e and retire"ent -ene*its. A care*ul readin, o* the '<I/A a**ir"s that said la+ did not authori e the ,rant o* -oth separation pa! and retire"ent -ene*its. Indeed, the option ,ranted +as either to Na separation pa! and other -ene*its in accordance +ith e=istin, la+s, rules and re,ulationsO or to Na separation plan +hich shall -e one and one#hal* "onths salar! *or e(er! !ear o* ser(ice in the ,o(ern"entO. The options +ere alternati(e, not cu"ulati(e. $a(in, chosen the separation plan, the! cannot no+ clai" additional retire"ent -ene*its under CA &o. 4E0. A separated or displaced e"plo!ee, as de*ined -! the i"ple"entin, rules, does not include one +ho is @uali*ied or has opted to retire under e=istin, la+s. Conse@uentl!, a separated e"plo!ee "ust choose -et+een retire"ent under applica-le la+s or separation pa! under the '<I/A. <etitioners clai" that ha(in, reli,iousl! paid their pre"iu"s, the! ha(e (ested ri,hts to their retire"ent ,ratuities +hich "a! not -e re(oked or i"paired. $o+e(er, petitioners *ail to consider that under the retire"ent la+s that the! the"sel(es in(oke, separation *ro" the ser(ice, +hether (oluntar! or in(oluntar!, is a distinct co"pensa-le e(ent *ro" retire"ent. &othin, in said la+s per"its an e"plo!ee to clai" -oth separation pa! and retire"ent -ene*its in the e(ent o* separation *ro" the ser(ice due to reor,ani ation. Thus, a-sent an e=press pro(ision o* la+ to the contrar!, separation due to reor,ani ation ,i(es rise to t+o possi-le scenarios: *irst, +hen the separated e"plo!ee is not !et entitled to retire"ent -ene*its, second, +hen the e"plo!ee is @uali*ied to retire. In the *irst case, the e"plo!ees separation pa! shall -e co"puted -ased on the period o* ser(ice rendered in the ,o(ern"ent prior to the reor,ani ation. In the second case, +here an e"plo!ee is @uali*ied to retire, he or she "a! opt to clai" separation or retire"ent -ene*its.

G.R. No. 1-8890

(e=r1ar< 16, 2011

PLA$!IMER IND)$!RIAL ORPORA!ION a%& !EO 5EE BIN, Petitioners, vs. NA!ALIA . GOPO, 5LEENIA R. VELEB, (ILEDEL(A !. AMPARADO, MIGNON #. JO$EP#, AMELIA L. ANDA, MARI$$A D. LAB)NO$, MELANIE !. A+AB+AB, MA. ORABON DELA R)B, a%& L)BVIMINDA ABA$A,Respondents. ARPIO, J.: (A !$, Plastimer issued a 1emorandum informing all its employees of the decision of the Eoard of #irectors to downsi'e and reorgani'e its $usiness operations due to withdrawal of investments and shares of stocks which resulted in the change of its corporate structure. (heir employees, including respondents were served written notices of their termination effective %; Bune 6??G. (hen, Plastimer and Plastimer "ndustrial ,orporation ,hristian Erotherhood 4P",,E5, the incum$ent sole and e8clusive collective $argaining representative of all rank and file employees, entered into a 1emorandum of greement 41/ 5 relative to the terms and conditions that would govern the retrenchment of the affected employees. Plastimer su$mitted to the #epartment of *a$or and Amployment 4#/*A5 an Asta$lishment (ermination Report containing the list of the employees affected $y the reorgani'ation and downsi'ing. (he affected employees, including respondents, signed individual :Release -aiver and Luitclaim.: (hereafter, respondents filed a complaint against petitioners $efore the *a$or r$iter for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and full $ackwages, underpayment of separation pay, moral and e8emplary damages and attorney!s fees. Respondents alleged, among others, that Plastimer failed to esta$lish the causesFvalid reasons for the retrenchment and to comply with the one-month notice to the #/*A as well as the standard prescri$ed under the ,ollective Eargaining greement $etween Plastimer and the employees. Petitioners countered that the retrenchment was a management prerogative and that respondents got their retrenchment or separation pay even $efore the effective date of their separation from service. (he *a$or r$iter ruled that petitioners were a$le to prove that there was a su$stantial withdrawal of stocks that led to the downsi'ing of the workforce. +*R, affirmed the *a$or r$iter!s decision. /n appeal, the ,ourt of ppeals reversed the +*R, decision. "t ruled that there was no valid cause for retrenchment. (he ,ourt of ppeals noted that the change of management and ma3ority stock ownership was $rought a$out $y e8ecution of deeds of assignment $y several stockholders in favor of other stockholders. =urther, the ,ourt of ppeals noted that while Plastimer claimed financial losses from 6??% to 6??G, records showed an improvement of its finances in 6??;. I$$)E, -/+ respondents were illegally retrenched $y petitioners. #ELD, Jes. pplying rticle 67; of the *a$or ,ode, in this case, Plastimer su$mitted the notice of termination of employment to the #/*A on 6D 1ay 6??G. 9owever, notice to the affected employees were given to them on %G 1ay 6??G or ;? days $efore the effectivity of their termination from employment on %; Bune 6??G. -hile notice to the #/*A was short of the onemonth notice re)uirement, the affected employees were sufficiently informed of their retrenchment ;? days $efore its effectivity. Petitioners! failure to comply with the one-month notice to the #/*A is only a procedural infirmity and does not render the retrenchment illegal.

"n Agabon v NLRC, we ruled that when the dismissal is for a 3ust cause, the a$sence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. "nstead, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. 9ere, the failure to fully comply with the one-month notice of termination of employment did not render the retrenchment illegal $ut it entitles respondents to nominal damages. =urthermore, the ,ourt of ppeals acknowledged that an independent auditor confirmed petitioners! losses for the years 6??% and 6??6. (he fact that there was a net income in 6??; does not 3ustify the ,ourt of ppeals! ruling that there was no valid reason for the retrenchment. Records showed that the net income of PD,%7@,>?>.?@ for 6??; was not even enough for petitioners to recover from the P@6,&?G,6&>.77 loss in 6??6. rticle 67; of the *a$or ,ode recogni'es retrenchment to prevent losses as a right of the management to meet clear and continuing economic threats or during periods of economic recession to prevent losses. (here is no need for the employer to wait for su$stantial losses to materiali'e $efore e8ercising ultimate and drastic option to prevent such losses.
S4#"#F+ P4#$#55#&0s Co&.)!-.o)s, I&-. vs. (#)8#$#o P. C!$$!&.!, %./. &o. 40:593, Septe"-er 95, 9141. Facts: <etitioner, a corporation en,a,ed in the construction -usiness, e"plo!ed respondent on Au,ust 93, 455> as Sa*et! B**icer assi,ned at petitioners Dutaka#%iken <ro.ect and e(entuall! as <ro.ect Ad"inistrator o* petitioners Structural Steel 2i(ision (SS2) in 455:. In a Me"orandu" dated 6une ;, 455;, respondent +as in*or"ed that his ser(ices +ill -e ter"inated e**ecti(e 6ul! 5, 455; due to the lack o* an! (acanc! in other pro.ects and the need to re#ali,n the co"pan!s personnel re@uire"ents -rou,ht a-out -! the i"perati(es o* "a=i"u" *inancial co""it"ents. /espondent then *iled an ille,al dis"issal co"plaint a,ainst petitioner assailin, his dis"issal as +ithout an! (alid cause. <etitioner ad(anced that respondents ser(ices +as ter"inated in accordance +ith a (alid retrench"ent pro,ra" -ein, i"ple"ented -! the co"pan! since 4550 due to *inancial crisis that pla,ue the construction industr!. To pro(e its *inancial de*icit, petitioner presented *inancial state"ents *or the !ears 455: to 455; as +ell as the Securities and '=chan,e Co""issions appro(al o* petitioners application *or a ne+ paid#in capital a"ountin, to <331,111,111. <etitioner alle,ed that in order not to .eopardi e the co"pletion o* its pro.ects, the a-olition o* se(eral depart"ents and the conco"itant ter"ination o* so"e e"plo!ees +ere i"ple"ented as each pro.ect is co"pleted. /espondent clai"ed that petitioner *ailed to co"pl! +ith the re@uire"ents called *or -! la+ -e*ore i"ple"entin, a retrench"ent pro,ra" there-! renderin, it le,all! in*ir"ed. First, it did not co"pl! +ith the pro(ision o* the La-or Code "andatin, the ser(ice o* notice o* retrench"ent. $e pointed out that the notice sent to hi" ne(er "entioned retrench"ent -ut onl! pro.ect co"pletion as the cause o* ter"ination. Also, the notice sent to the 2epart"ent o*

La-or and '"plo!"ent (2BL') did not con*or" to the 31#da! prior notice re@uire"ent. Second, petitioner *ailed to use *air and reasona-le criteria in deter"inin, +hich e"plo!ees shall -e retrenched or retained. As sho+n in the ter"ination report su-"itted to 2BL', he +as the onl! one dis"issed out o* 333 e"plo!ees. 8orse, .unior and ine=perienced e"plo!ees +ere appointed?assi,ned in his stead to ne+ pro.ects thus also i,norin, seniorit! in hirin, and *irin, e"plo!ees. Bn April 4>, 9111, the La-or Ar-iter rendered a 2ecision holdin, that respondent +as (alidl! retrenched. Cpon appeal, the &L/C upheld the rulin, that there +as (alid ,round *or respondents ter"ination -ut "odi*ied the La-or Ar-iters 2ecision -! holdin, that petitioner *ailed to co"pl! +ith the 31#da! prior notice to the 2BL' and that there is no proo* that petitioner used *air and reasona-le criteria in the selection o* e"plo!ees to -e retrenched. Bn 6une 41, 911>, the CA re(ersed and set aside the &L/Cs rulin,. The CA opined that petitioner *ailed to pro(e that there +ere e"plo!ees other than respondent +ho +ere si"ilarl! dis"issed due to retrench"ent and that respondents alle,ed replace"ents held "uch hi,her ranks and +ere "ore deser(in, e"plo!ees. Moreo(er, there +ere no proo*s to sustain that petitioner used *air and reasona-le criteria in deter"inin, +hich e"plo!ees to retrench. Conse@uentl!, the CA in(alidated the retrench"ent, held respondent to ha(e -een ille,all! dis"issed, and ordered respondents reinstate"ent and pa!"ent o* -ack+a,es. The CA denied petitioners Motion *or /econsideration and reiterated that petitioner o**ered no proo* o* an! standard or pro,ra" intended to i"ple"ent the retrench"ent pro,ra".

Iss+0 #1/ 8B& There +as su-stantial co"pliance *or a (alid retrench"ent. 10$2/ Des. <etitioner used *air and reasona-le criteria in e**ectin, retrench"ent. 8e *ind that petitioner i"ple"ented its retrench"ent pro,ra" in ,ood *aith -ecause it undertook se(eral "easures in cuttin, do+n its costs, to +it, +ithdra+in, certain pri(ile,es o* petitioners e=ecuti(es and e=patriatesF li"itin, the ,rant o* additional "onetar! -ene*its to "ana,erial e"plo!ees and cuttin, do+n e=pensesF sellin, o* co"pan! (ehiclesF and in*usin, *resh capital into the co"pan!. In *ine, +e hold that petitioner +as a-le to pro(e that it incurred su-stantial -usiness losses, that it o**ered to pa! respondent his separation pa!, that the retrench"ent sche"e +as arri(ed at in ,ood *aith, and lastl!, that the criteria or standard used in selectin, the e"plo!ees to -e retrenched +as +ork e**icienc! +hich passed the test o* *airness and reasona-leness.

Iss+0 #2/ 8B& the ter"ination notice sent to 2BL' co"pl! +ith the 31#da! notice re@uire"ent. 10$2/ The petitioner did not co"pl! +ith the 31#da! notice re@uire"ent. <etitioner ad"itted that the reports +ere su-"itted 94 da!s, in the case o* the *irst notice, and 40 da!s, in the case o* the second notice, -e*ore the intended date o* respondents dis"issal. The purpose o* the one "onth prior notice rule is to ,i(e 2BL' an opportunit! to ascertain the (eracit! o* the cause o* ter"ination. &on#co"pliance +ith this rule clearl! (iolates the e"plo!ees ri,ht to statutor! due process. Conse@uentl!, +e a**ir" the &L/Cs a+ard o* inde"nit! to respondent *or +ant o* su**icient due notice. 7ut to -e consistent +ith our rulin, in Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot , the inde"nit! in the *or" o* no"inal da"a,es should -e *i=ed in the a"ount o* <:1,111.11.

G.R. No. 165456

Ju'$ 5, 2006

HOTEL ENTERPRISES O! THE PHILIPPINES, INC. 9HEPI;, o1'$# o/ Hy*)) R$7$'+y M*'-l*, P$)-)-o'$#, 0%. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HAATT:NATIONAL UNION O! WOR8ERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES 9SAMASAH: NUWHRAIN;, R$%&o'($'). NACHURA, J.: !ACTS" Petitioner 5otel Gnterprises o' the Philippines, Inc.(s (5GPI) hotel business su''ered a slu#p due to the local and international econo#ic slowdown, aggravated by the events o' ?epte#ber --, +,,- in the Fnited ?tates. %n audited 'inancial report indicated that the hotel su''ered a gross operating loss a#ounting toP-0,-/B,+-B.,, in +,,-, a staggering decline co#pared to its P=:,0,:,0-+.,, gross operating pro'it in year +,,,. %s a result, it decided to i#ple#ent a downsi@ing sche#e a'ter studying the operating costs o' its di''erent divisions to deter#ine the areas where it could obtain signi'icant savings. It 'ound that the hotel could save on costs i' certain 9obs, such as engineering services, #essengerial$courier services, 9anitorial and laundry services, and operation o' the e#ployees( ca'eteria, which by their nature were contractable pursuant to e2isting laws and 9urisprudence, were abolished and contracted out to independent 9ob contractors. &his was opposed by respondent ?a#ahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa 5yatt-!ational Fnion o' 6or1ers in the 5otel and Restaurant and %llied Industries

(?%M%?%5-!F65R%I!), a certi'ied collective bargaining agent o' the ran1-and-'ile e#ployees o' 5yatt Regency Manila, a hotel owned by petitioner. "espite its opposition, a list o' the positions declared redundant and to be contracted out was given by the #anage#ent to the Fnion on March ++, +,,+. &herea'ter, the Fnion 'iled a notice o' stri1e based on un'air labor practice (FLP) against 5GPI. ?ubse3uently, 5GPI 'iled a #otion to dis#iss notice o' stri1e which was opposed by the Fnion. &he conciliation proceedings were to no avail. Respondent Fnion, then, went on stri1e. % petition to declare the stri1e illegal was 'iled by petitioner. &he Labor %rbiter declared the stri1e legal. &his decision was reversed by the !LR . 7n petition 'or certiorari, the ourt o' %ppeals a''ir#ed the decision o' the Labor %rbiter. 5ence, this petition. ISSUE" 6hether or not petitioner(s downsi@ing sche#e is valid. HELD" 8es. Retrench#ent is the reduction o' wor1 personnel usually due to poor 'inancial returns, ai#ed to cut down costs 'or operation particularly on salaries and wages. Redundancy, on the other hand, e2ists where the nu#ber o' e#ployees is in e2cess o' what is reasonably de#anded by the actual re3uire#ents o' the enterprise. Both are 'or#s o' downsi@ing and are o'ten resorted to by the e#ployer during periods o' business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal 'luctuations, and during lulls in production occasioned by lac1 o' orders, shortage o' #aterials, conversion o' the plant 'or a new production progra#, or introduction o' new #ethods or #ore e''icient #achinery or auto#ation. Retrench#ent and redundancy are valid #anage#ent prerogatives, provided they are done in good 'aith and the e#ployer 'aith'ully co#plies with the substantive and procedural re3uire#ents laid down by law and 9urisprudence. 4or a valid retrench#ent, the 'ollowing re3uisites #ust be co#plied with. (-) the retrench#ent is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are provenC (+) written notice to the e#ployees and to the "7LG at least one #onth prior to the intended date o' retrench#entC and (/) pay#ent o' separation pay e3uivalent to one-#onth pay or at least one-hal' #onth pay 'or every year o' service, whichever is higher. In case o' redundancy, the e#ployer #ust prove that. (-) a written notice was served on both the e#ployees and the "7LG at least one #onth prior to the intended date o' retrench#entC (+) separation pay e3uivalent to at least one #onth pay or at least one #onth pay 'or every year o' service, whichever is higher, has been paidC (/) good 'aith in abolishing the redundant positionsC and (=) adoption o' 'air and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. It is the e#ployer who bears the onus o' proving co#pliance with these re3uire#ents, retrench#ent and redundancy being in the nature o' a''ir#ative de'enses. 7therwise, the dis#issal is not 9usti'ied. In the case at bar, petitioner 9usti'ies the downsi@ing sche#e on the ground o' serious business losses it su''ered in +,,-. ?o#e positions had to be declared redundant to cut losses. In this conte2t, what #ay technically be considered as redundancy #ay verily be considered as a retrench#ent #easure. &o substantiate its clai#, petitioner presented a 'inancial report covering the years +,,, and +,,sub#itted by the ?AH P o., an independent e2ternal auditing 'ir#. 4ro# an i#pressive

gross operating pro'it o' P=:,0,:,0-+.,, in +,,,, it nose-dived to negative P-0,-/B,+-B.,, the 'ollowing year. &his was the sa#e 'inancial report sub#itted to the ?G and later on e2a#ined by respondent Fnion(s auditor. &he only di''erence is that, in respondent(s analysis, 5yatt Regency Manila was still earning because its net inco#e 'ro# hotel operations in +,,- was P-+,+/,,+=:.,,. 5owever, i' provisions 'or hotel rehabilitation as well as replace#ent o' and additions to the hotel(s 'urnishings and e3uip#ents are included, which respondent Fnion 'ailed to consider, the result is indeed a staggering de'icit o' #ore than P-0 #illion. &he hotel was already operating not only on a slu#p in inco#e, but on a huge de'icit as well. In short, while the hotel did earn, its earnings were not enough to cover its e2penses and other liabilitiesC hence, the de'icit. 6ith the local and international econo#ic conditions e3ually unstable, belt-tightening #easures logically had to be i#ple#ented to 'orestall eventual cessation o' business. &his ourt will not hesitate to stri1e down a co#pany(s redundancy progra# structured to downsi@e its personnel, solely 'or the purpose o' wea1ening the union leadership. 7ur labor laws only allow retrench#ent or downsi@ing as a valid e2ercise o' #anage#ent prerogative i' all other else 'ail. But in this case, petitioner did i#ple#ent various cost-saving #easures and even trans'erred so#e o' its e#ployees to other viable positions 9ust to avoid the pre#ature ter#ination o' e#ploy#ent o' its a''ected wor1ers. It was when the sa#e proved insu''icient and the a#ount o' loss beca#e certain that petitioner had to resort to drastic #easures to stave o'' P*,*:-,+0B.,, in losses, and be able to survive. I' we see reason in allowing an e#ployer not to 1eep all its e#ployees until a'ter its losses shall have 'ully #ateriali@ed, with #ore reason should we allow an e#ployer to let go o' so#e o' its e#ployees to prevent 'urther 'inancial slide.
51.; G.R. No. 182086 No0$,2$# 2=, 2010

BEBINA G. SAL<ALO A, #$&#$%$')-'7 3$# l*)$ 3u%2*'(, GREGORIO SAL<ALO A, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GUL! PACI!IC SECURITA AGENCA, INC., *'( ANGEL GUI ON, Respondents.

NACHURA, J."

!*+)%" Aregorio ?alvalo@a alleged that, in %ugust -**0, he was e#ployed by Aul' Paci'ic as a security guard. 5e stated that he was assigned to several establish#ents, wor1ing continuously 'or al#ost 'ive (>) years until his alleged ter#ination in %ugust +,,-. %ccording to hi#, he

reported daily to Aul' Paci'ic, waiting 'or his new assign#ent, but he was not given any because there was no position available 'or hi#. 5is last visit to Aul' Paci'ic(s o''ice was in 4ebruary +,,+, but still no assign#ent was given to hi#.

&hey clai#ed that, in )anuary +,,+, Aregorio wanted to be posted, but was told by Aul' Paci'ic to 'irst renew and update his license as a security guard. &hey 'urther #aintained that Aregorio was not illegally dis#issed, but was only placed on 'loating status due to his 'ailure to co#ply with the Me#orandu# dated %ugust +, +,,-, re3uiring hi# to co#plete the re3uire#ents 'or his +,- 'ile. &hey pointed out that Aregorio even sub#itted a spurious security guard license, as rebutted by the erti'ication dated )une -/, +,,+, issued by Philippine !ational Police (P!P), to the e''ect that Aregorio was not included in the #aster list o' registered private security guards.

&he Labor %rbiter (L%) rendered a decision 'inding respondents guilty o' illegal dis#issal. &he !LR ?econd "ivision pro#ulgated its decision dis#issing Aregorio(s co#plaint 'or lac1 o' #erit. !LR denied the Motion 'or onsideration 'iled by respondent. 7n ?epte#ber +:, +,,B, the % rendered its "ecision dis#issing Aregorio(s petition. % #otion 'or reconsideration o' the % "ecision was then 'iled. "uring the pendency o' the #otion 'or reconsideration, Aregorio(s counsel 'iled on "ece#ber +:, +,,B a #otion 'or substitution. &he #otion prayed that Aregorio be substituted by his wi'e Bebina.

I%%u$" 6hether or not Aregorio was constructively dis#issed by Aul' Paci'ic ?ecurity %gency.

H$l(" &he ? rule in the a''ir#ative. Aregorio was thrice put on J'loating statusJ by Aul' Paci'ic. (-) 'ro# 7ctober ++, -**0 to %pril -/, -**B, or si2 (0) days less than si2 (0) #onthsC (+) 'ro# )uly -=, -*** to May +, +,,-, or a total o' al#ost ++ #onthsC and (/) inde'initely, starting 'ro# %ugust /,, +,,-. 7' the three instances when Aregorio was te#porarily Jo''-detailed,J the last two already ripened into constructive dis#issal. 6hile Aregorio(s service record shows that his per'or#ance as a security guard was below par, Aul' Paci'ic never issued any #e#o citing hi# 'or the alleged repeated errors, ine''iciency, and poor per'or#ance while on duty, and instead continued to assign hi# to various posts. I', indeed, Aregorio was undesirable as an e#ployee, Aul' Paci'ic could 9ust have dis#issed hi# 'or cause. &he unreasonable length o' ti#e that Aregorio was not posted inevitably resulted in his being constructively dis#issed 'ro# e#ploy#ent. &he Me#orandu# indicated that, i' on %ugust +,, +,,-, Aregorio had not yet co#pleted his re3uire#ents, he would be relieved 'ro# his then assigned post at %n'ran Realty. Per his service record, he was relieved 'ro# the said post on %ugust +*, +,,-, and he started to be on J'loating statusJ on %ugust /,, +,,-.

&e#porary Jo''-detailJ or J'loating statusJ is the period o' ti#e when security guards are in between assign#ents or when they are #ade to wait a'ter being relieved 'ro# a previous post until they are trans'erred to a new one. It ta1es place when the security agency(s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its e2isting contracts are less than the nu#ber o' guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts 'or security services stipulate that the client #ay re3uest the agency 'or the replace#ent o' the guards assigned to it even 'or want o' cause, such that the replaced security guard #ay be placed on te#porary Jo''-detailJ i' there are no available posts under the agency(s e2isting contracts. "uring such ti#e, the security guard does not receive any salary or any 'inancial assistance provided by law. It does not constitute a dis#issal, as the assign#ents pri#arily depend on the contracts entered into by the security agencies with third parties, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable ti#e. 6hen such a J'loating statusJ lasts 'or #ore than si2 (0) #onths, the e#ployee #ay be considered to have been constructively dis#issed.

&here is constructive dis#issal i' an act o' clear discri#ination, insensibility, or disdain by an e#ployer beco#es so unbearable on the part o' the e#ployee that it would 'oreclose any choice e2cept to 'orego continued e#ploy#ent. It e2ists when there is cessation o' wor1 because continued e#ploy#ent is rendered i#possible, unreasonable, or unli1ely, as an o''er involving a de#otion in ran1 and a di#inution in pay.

&he decision o' the Labor %rbiter dated )une /,, +,,= is RGI!?&%&G" with the M7"I4I %&I7! that the deceased Aregorio ?alvalo@a, as represented by his wi'e Bebina A. ?alvalo@a, be awarded separation pay in lieu o' reinstate#ent, and that case be re#anded to L% 'or co#putation o' his bac1wages and other #onetary bene'its only up to )une -/, +,,+.

E$!RELLA VELA$ O *. !RAN$I! A)!OMO!IVE $)PPL+, IN . a%& AN!ONIO DE DIO$ G.R. No. 101820 J1%e 1-, 2010 ARPIO, J., (A !$, Astrella Celasco was an employee of (ransit utomotive Supply, "nc. from %&>6 to %&&;. She was originally hired as accounting clerk and later $ecame the head of the ccounting #epartment while concurrently the Secretary to the President and General 1anager, and ,omptroller. She alleged that in Banuary %&&;, she was asked to resign as ,omptroller and to concentrate on the preparation of respondent corporation!s "ncome Statement. -hen she refused, her office ta$le, things and personal $elongings were allegedly transferred without her consent. She took a leave of a$sence for the whole month of =e$ruary %&&;. "n a letter dated @ 1arch %&&;, respondent corporation called petitioner!s attention that she had $een a$sent without official leave since % 1arch %&&;. Respondent corporation re)uired petitioner to e8plain

her a$sence within three days from receipt of the letter2 otherwise, her a$sence would $e considered an a$andonment of her duties and responsi$ilities. "n her answer dated ;% 1arch %&&;, petitioner through her counsel alleged that she had nothing to e8plain $ecause in =e$ruary %&&;, she was ver$ally informed $y respondent corporation!s President and General 1anager, ntonio #e #ios 4#e #ios5, to resign from her employment as ,omptroller. She then filed an action for constructive dismissal against respondent corporation and #e #ios. I$$)E, -9A(9AR A1P*/J1A+(. #ELD, NO. Petitioner was not constructively dismissed from employment. o%3tr1ct:*e &:3;:33al is defined as a )uitting $ecause continued employment is rendered impossi$le, unreasona$le or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. "t e8ists when an act of clear discrimination, insensi$ility or disdain $y an employer has $ecome so un$eara$le to the employee leaving him with no option $ut to forego with his continued employment. "n this case, it is undisputed that petitioner was holding three positions: 9ead of the ccounting #epartment, Secretary to the President and General 1anager, and ,omptroller. She was asked to relin)uish her duties as ,omptroller. 9ere, there was no diminution of petitioner!s salary and other $enefits. (here was no evidence that she was harassed or discriminated upon, or that respondents made it difficult for her to continue with her other duties. $sent any evidence of $ad faith, it is within the e8ercise of respondents! management prerogative to transfer some of petitioner!s duties if in their 3udgment, it would $e more $eneficial to the corporation. Gu*l2$#)o A7u*'H* 0. A%-*' T$#,-'*l, I'+., 8$-)3 J*,$%, R-+3*#( B*#+l*y, *'( A))y. Ro(ol/o Co#0-)$ G.R. No. 16>505, Au7u%) 1=, 2006 CARPIO, J.
"7 &RI!G. &he trans'er o' an e#ployee #ay constitute constructive dis#issal Jwhen continued e#ploy#ent is rendered i#possible, unreasonable or unli1elyC when there is a de#otion in ran1 and$or a di#inution in payC or when a clear discri#ination, insensibility or disdain by an e#ployer beco#es unbearable to the e#ployee.E !ACTS" Petitioner Aualberto %guan@a was e#ployed with respondent co#pany %sian &er#inal, Inc. 'ro# %pril ->, -*:* to 7ctober -**B. 5e was initially e#ployed as "eric1#an or rane 7perator and was assigned as such aboard Bis#ar1 IH, a 'loating crane barge owned by respondent co#pany, based at the port o' Manila.

PA("("/+AR

- S

,/+S(R<,("CA*J

#"S1"SSA#

=R/1

7n ?epte#ber -**B. &he said 'loating crane barge, together with its crew, was te#porarily assigned at a port in Mariveles, Bataan. 7n 7ctober +,, -**B. Respondent Ieith issued a #e#o to the crew o' Bis#ar1 IH stating that the barge had been per#anently trans'erred to the Mariveles ter#inal beginning 7ctober -, -**B, thus, its crew would no longer be entitled to out o' port bene'its o' -0 hours overti#e and P+,, a day allowance. Petitioner, together with 'our other #e#bers o' the crew, stated that they did not ob9ect to the trans'er o', but they ob9ected to the reduction o' their bene'its. 6hen they ob9ected to the reduction o' their bene'its, they were told by )a#es Ieith to report to the Manila o''ice only to be told to report bac1 to Bataan. 7n both occasions, petitioner was not given any wor1 assign#ent. %'ter being shuttled between Manila and Bataan, petitioner was constrained to write respondent %tty. orvite 'or clari'ication o' his status, at the sa#e ti#e in'or#ing the latter o' his willingness to wor1 either in Manila or Bataan. 6hile he did not agree with private respondents( ter#s and conditions, he was nonetheless willing to continue wor1ing without pre9udice to ta1ing appropriate action to protect his rights. %ll #e#bers o' the crew e2cept petitioner accepted the new assign#ent and its ter#s and conditions. Because o' private respondents( re'usal to give hi# any wor1 assign#ent and pay his salary, petitioner 'iled a co#plaint 'or illegal dis#issal against respondents. L%. Respondents illegally dis#issed %guan@a. !LR . Reversed L%(s decision. %. %''ir#ed !LR (s decision. ISSUE" 67! &5G &R%!?4GR 74 %AF%!R% 4R7M M%!IL% &7 B%&%%! %? % %?G 74 7!?&RF &IHG "I?MI??%L. %! BG 7!?I"GRG"

HELD" !o. %&I(s trans'er o' Bis#ar1 IH(s base 'ro# Manila to Bataan was, contrary to %guan@a(s assertions, a valid e2ercise o' #anage#ent prerogative. &he trans'er o' e#ployees has been traditionally a#ong the acts identi'ied as a #anage#ent prerogative sub9ect only to li#itations 'ound in law, collective bargaining agree#ent, and general principles o' 'air play and 9ustice. Gven as the law is solicitous o' the wel'are o' e#ployees, it #ust also protect the right o' an e#ployer to e2ercise what are clearly #anage#ent prerogatives. &he 'ree will o' #anage#ent to conduct its own business a''airs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. %guan@a(s continued e#ploy#ent was not i#possible, unreasonable or unli1elyC neither was there a clear discri#ination against hi#. %#ong the e#ployees assigned to Bis#ar1 IH, it was only %guan@a who did not report 'or wor1 in Bataan. %guan@a(s assertion that he was not allowed to Jti#e inJ in Manila should be ta1en on its 'ace. %guan@a reported 'or wor1 in Manila, where he wanted to wor1, and not in Bataan, where he was supposed to wor1. &here was no de#otion in ran1, as %guan@a would continue his wor1 as rane 7perator. 4urther#ore, despite %guan@a(s assertions, there was no di#inution in pay. %guan@a did not contest his trans'er, but the reduction in his ta1e-ho#e pay. %guan@a even asserted, contrary to his acts, that he bound hi#sel' to wor1 in such place where %&I #ight assign or trans'er hi#. %&I did not dis#iss %guan@aC rather, %guan@a re'used to report to his proper wor1place. !7&G? 7! &5G %LLGAG" "IMI!F&I7! 74 BG!G4I&?. &he circu#stances o' the case #ade no #ention o' the salary structure in case Bis#ar1 IH being assigned wor1 outside o' BataanC

however, we sur#ise that it would not be any di''erent 'ro# the salary structure applied 'or wor1 done out-o'-port. 6e, thus, agree with the !LR and the appellate court when they stated that the 'i2ed overti#e o' -0 hours, out-o'-port allowance and #eal allowance previously granted to %guan@a were #erely supple#ents or e#ploy#ent bene'its given on condition that %guan@a(s assign#ent was out-o'-port. &he 'i2ed overti#e and allowances were not part o' %guan@a(s basic salary.
<'&AFLB/ (s. BCT2BB/ CLBT$I&% MA&CFACTC/I&% %/. &o. 4;;44> FACTS # <eGa*lor +as hired on Septe"-er 9, 4555 as pro-ationar! $u"an /esource2epart"ent ($/2) Mana,er o* respondent Butdoor Clothin, Manu*acturin,Corporation (Butdoor Clothin, or the co"pan!). <eGa*lor clai"ed that his relationship +ith Butdoor Clothin, +ent +ell durin, the *irst *e+ "onths o* his e"plo!"ent. $is +oes -e,an +hen the co"pan!s )ice <resident *or Bperations, 'd,ar Lee, le*t theco"pan! a*ter a -i, *i,ht -et+een Lee and Chie* Corporate B**icer &athaniel S!*u (S!*u). 7ecause o* his close association +ith Lee, <eGa*lor clai"ed that he +as a"on, those +ho -ore S!*us ire. 8hen Butdoor Clothin, -e,an undertakin, its alle,ed do+nsi in, pro,ra" due to ne,ati(e -usiness returns, <eGa*lor alle,ed that his depart"ent had -een sin,led out. Bn the prete=t o* retrench"ent, <eGa*lors t+o sta** "e"-ers +ere dis"issed, lea(in, hi" as the onl! "e"-er o* Butdoor Clothin,s $/2. $e +orked as a one#"an depart"ent, carr!in, out all clerical, ad"inistrati(e and liaison +ork. 8hen an Butdoor Clothin, e"plo!ee, L!nn <adilla (<adilla), su**ered in.uries in a -o"-in, incident, the co"pan! re@uired <eGa*lor to attend to her hospitali ation needs. As he +as actin, on the co"pan!s orders, <eGa*lor considered hi"sel* to -e on o**icial -usiness, -ut +as surprised +hen the co"pan! deducted si= da!s salar! correspondin, to the ti"e he assisted <adilla. Accordin, to Finance Mana,er Med!lene 2e"o,ena (2e"o,ena), he *ailed to su-"it his trip ticket, -ut <eGa*lor -elied this clai" as a trip ticket +as re@uired onl! +hen a co"pan! (ehicle +as used and he did not use an! co"pan! (ehicle +hen he attended to his o**#pre"ises +ork. A*ter <eGa*lor returned *ro" his *ield +ork on March 43, 9111, his o**ice"ates in*or"ed hi" that +hile he +as a+a!, S!*u had appointed &athaniel 7uenao-ra (7uenao-ra) as the ne+ $/2 Mana,er. This in*or"ation +as con*ir"ed -! S!*us "e"orandu" o* March 41, 9111 to the entire o**ice statin, that 7uenao-ra +as the concurrent $/2 and Accountin, Mana,er. <eGa*lor +as surprised -! the ne+s. $e tried to talk to S!*u to clari*! the "atter, -ut +as una-le to do so. <eGa*lor clai"ed that under these circu"stances, he had no option -ut to resi,n. $e su-"itted a letter to S!*u declarin, his irre(oca-le resi,nation *ro" his e"plo!"ent +ith Butdoor Clothin, e**ecti(e at the close o* o**ice hours on March 4:, 9111. <eGa*lor then *iled a co"plaint *or ille,al dis"issal. In his Au,ust 4:, 9114 decision, the la-or ar-iter *ound that <eGa*lor had -een ille,all! dis"issed. Butdoor Clothin, appealed the la-or ar-iters decision +ith the &L/C. It insisted that <eGa*lor had not -een constructi(el! dis"issed, clai"in, that <eGa*lor tendered his resi,nation on March 4, 9111. The &L/C o(erturned the la-or ar-iters decision. It characteri ed <eGa*lors resi,nationas a response, not to the alle,edl! de,radin, and hostile treat"ent that he +as su-.ected to -! S!*u, -ut to Butdoor Clothin,s do+n+ard *inancial spiral. The CA a**ir"ed the decision o* the &L/C. ISSC' # 8hether petitionerAs resi,nation +as (oluntar! or *orced, the latter -ein, an ille,al dis"issal. $'L2 # 8e ha(e here an issue +here a resi,nation letter +as undated. As clai"ed -! petitioner, he su-"itted his resi,nation on March 4:, 9111 -ut respondent co"pan! clai"ed that it +as su-"itted on March 4, 9111. 8hich date pre(ailsI It is "ore consistent +ith hu"an e=perience that <ena*lor indeed learned o* the appoint"ent on March 43, 9111 and reacted to this de(elop"ent throu,h his resi,nation letter su-"itted on March 4:, 9111 a*ter reali in, that he +ould onl! *ace hostilit! and *rustration in his +orkin, en(iron"ent. Three (er! -asic la-or la+ principles support this conclusion and "ilitate a,ainst respondentAs case.

The *irst is that the e"plo!er -ears the -urden o* pro(in, that the e"plo!ees dis"issal +as *or a .ust and (alid cause. That <ena*lor *iled a letter o* resi,nation does not help the co"pan!s case as other than the *act o* resi,nation, the co"pan! "ust still pro(e that he (oluntaril! resi,ned. There can -e no (alid resi,nation +here it +as "ade under co"pulsion or under circu"stances appro=i"atin, co"pulsion as +hen the e"plo!ees act o* handin, his resi,nation +as in reaction to circu"stances lea(in, hi" no alternati(e -ut to resi,n. In this case the e(idence does not support the (oluntariness o* <ena*lors resi,nation. Another -asic principle is that dou-ts a-out the e(idence presented -! the e"plo!er and the e"plo!ee "ust -e resol(ed in *a(or o* the e"plo!ee. Thus in this case ,i(en the hostile and discri"inator! +orkin, en(iron"ent in +hich <ena*lor *ound hi"sel* particularl! the escalatin, acts o* un*airness a,ainst hi" that cul"inated in the appoint"ent o* another $/2 "ana,er, he "ust ha(e -een indeed constructi(el! dis"issed. 8here no less than the chie* corporate o**icer +as a,ainst hi" he had no alternati(e -ut to resi,n. Last -ut not least, the e"plo!ees reaction to the ter"ination o* his e"plo!"ent is also si,ni*icant. In this case, <ena*lor sou,ht al"ost i""ediate o**icial recourse to contest his separation *ro" the ser(ice throu,h a co"plaint *or ille,al dis"issal. This is not the act o* one +ho (oluntaril! resi,nedF his i""ediate co"plaint sho+s that he deepl! *elt he had -een +ron,ed. 8hen it co"es to e"plo!ee ter"ination cases, the e"plo!er -ears the -urden o* pro(in, that the dis"issal is *or a .ust and (alid causeF and in case o* dou-ts in the e(idence presented -! the e"plo!er and the e"plo!ee, the dou-ts are resol(ed in *a(or o* the e"plo!ee. The i""ediate su-se@uent action o* the e"plo!ee a*ter he stopped +orkin, also deter"ines +hether he a-andoned the post, (oluntaril! resi,ned or +as dis"issed.

BAL!ABAR L. PA+NO,petitioner, vs. ORIBON !RADING ORP./ORA!A !RADING a%& (LORDELIBA LEGA$PI,respondents G.R. +o. %>@;G@ ugust %&, 6??& + ,9<R , %.: (A !$, "n %&&;, petitioner was employed as electrician $y /rata (rading, a single proprietorship engaged in sign$oard and $ill$oard advertising. 9e was later promoted to senior installer."n pril 6???, petitioner was informed that /rata (rading would cease its $usiness operations and that /ri'on (rading ,orporation was taking over. Petitioner asked a$out the status of his employment and if he would $e receiving separation pay. 9e was told that no separation pay was forthcoming, since /ri'on (rading ,orporation was merely a$sor$ing /rata (rading. 9e was, however, informed that he would have to sign a new employment contract with /ri'on (rading ,orporation. Petitionerfiled a complaint against /ri'on (rading for payment of separation pay due to the closure of /rata (rading. Petitioner, nonetheless, continued to work with /ri'on (rading ,orporation. month later, petitioner was called to the office, and was told not to report for work anymore if he did not sign the employment contract. (he general manager, =lordeli'a*egaspi, offered him P>,???.?? as separation pay. Petitioner refused since it was insufficient and not commensurate to the more than > years he had worked with /rata (rading. 9e demanded that he should $e paid separation pay in accordance with the *a$or ,ode.Petitioner filed an mended ,omplaint to include .illegal dismissal0 as another cause of action against respondents.

Respondents admitted that petitioner worked with /rata (rading since %&&; and with /ri'on (rading ,orporation when the latter took over the $usiness. Respondents$ &o/ever$ a''eged t&at petitioner a'read( t&oug&t of resigning fro" &is 4ob /&en &e 'earned t&at separation pa( #ou'd not be e)pe#ted as a resu't of t&e ta.eover of Orata Trading b( Ori6on Trading Corporation T&is intention /as eventua''( effe#ted /&en petitioner refused to #ontinue to /or. Sin#e &e vo'untari'( resigned$ &e /as not entit'ed to separation pa(7 nonetheless, the amount of P>,???.?? was offered to him $y way of financial assistance. (he *a$or r$iter rendered 3udgmentin favor of petitioner. (he * was not convinced that petitioner resigned. Petitioner!s tenure of more than >years with /rata (rading and the immediate filing of the case ran counter to the claim that he resigned. Respondents were found guilty of having constructively dismissed petitioner when the latter was prevented from entering the workplace. /n appeal, the +*R, affirmed with modification the decision of the * . "mputing grave a$use of discretion to the +*R,, respondents filed a petition for #ertiorari with the , . (he , ruled that the complaint for illegalFconstructive dismissal had no $asis. T&e CA found to be "ore #redib'e and #onsistent /it& &u"an be&avior respondents8 version t&at petitioner resigned and 'eft &is e"p'o("ent /&en &is de"and for a bigger separation pa( /as not &eeded (hus, no payment of separation pay was proper. ggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition assailing the aforesaid decision of the , . I$$)E, -hether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed. #ELD,Jes."n termination cases, it is incum$ent upon the employer to prove either the none8istence or the validity of dismissal. "nasmuch as respondents alleged petitioner!s resignation as the cause of his separation from work, respondents had the $urden to prove the same. (he case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee!s defense. Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one $elieves that personal reasons cannot $e sacrificed in favor of the e8igency of the service, and one who has no other choice $ut to dissociate oneself from employment. "t is a formal pronouncement or relin)uishment of an office, with the intention of relin)uishing the office accompanied $y the act of relin)uishment. s the intent to relin)uish must concur with the overt act of relin)uishment, the acts of the employee $efore and after the alleged resignation must $e considered in determining whether, in fact, he intended to sever his employment. "n this case, we find no overt act on the part of petitioner that he was ready to sever his employment ties. (he alleged resignation was actually premised $y respondents only on the filing of the complaint for separation pay, $ut this alone is not sufficient proof that petitioner intended to resign from the company. -hat strongly negates the claim of resignation is the fact that petitioner filed the amended complaint for illegal dismissal immediately after he was not allowed to report for work on Bune ;, 6???. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal. "t would have $een illogical for petitioner to resign and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal later on. "f petitioner was determined to resign, as respondents

posited, he would not have commenced the action for illegal dismissal. <ndenia$ly, petitioner was unceremoniously dismissed in this case.