Republic of the Philippines

SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY

Sogod, Southern Leyte
Philippines

LABOR AND MANAGEMENT DISPUTES AT ROBINSONS

SUPERMARKET CORPORATION: ITS RESOLUTIONS AND
THE IMPLICATION IN THE BUSINESS OPERATION
A Final Paper presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate Studies
Southern Leyte State University
In partial fulfilment of the course
MM 505 : Management and the Law
Summer 2015

CHRISTIAN FULCRIS VALLES

Master in Management Student

1 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENT
Cover Page

Page

Table of Content

Page

I.

Introduction
A. Objectives
B. Company Profile, Mission & Vision

Page

Page

II.

Antecedent facts of the case

Page

III.

Resolutions, Findings and Decision of the Labor Management Problem

Page

IV.

Recommendation and Observation

Page

V.

Appendices

Page

Whole Case citation

Page

References

Page 17

2 | Page

I. NAME OF COMPANY AND ITS PROFILE

A. Introduction
All over the world, people care about their well-being but unfortunately, it is the
exact opposite of what is going on. According to the most recently available World Health
Organization statistics, worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. More than 40
million children under the age of 5 were overweight in 2010 . Obesity is a serious, complex
1

problem. Addressing obesity is key to building strong, healthy and sustainable communities.

Good to know, that supermarkets such as Robinsons supermarket cares too. If people
want to stay healthy, then the company is more than willing to help the people. Healthy"
means a whole lot more. It goes beyond good for you, to also encompass the greater
good.

Through their products, policies and program, it helps people to be active, make
nutritional choices, and practice healthy living. To deliver that promise, it provide consumers
with information they need and promoting better lifestyle and coaching healthy living
programs.

B. Name of the corporation, Its Vision and Mission and its current
profile
Robinsons Supermarket is a supermarket chain in the Philippines, a division
of Robinsons Retail Group, a subsidiary of J.G. Summit Holdings. It is a competitor of
several supermarket chains iyn the Philippines including SM(SM Supermarket, SaveMore
Market), Rustan's

Supermarket, Wellcome

Supermarket, Ever, Puregold and

others.

Robinsons is believed that there is a half snake and half human being that is hiding on the
underground of the mall.
Established in 1985, Robinsons Supermarket is the 2nd largest supermarket chains in
the country with over 90 stores and expanding to more than 100 stores in 2014. The first
major retailer to promote health and wellness, Robinsons Supermarket commits to bring
together healthy selections and affordable prices in a refreshingly clean and organized
shopping destination, a bold lifelong commitment to educate and empower its customers to
make healthy choices. Taking this commitment to heart, Robinsons Supermarket guides its
customers to food and grocery choices by using the 4-color tag system, with the green shelf
tagged products having been evaluated and certified as healthy and nutritious by the Food
Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI). A rich variety of nutritious food fills the health and
wellness section and an exclusive line of healthy products, Healthy You, all celebrate the

3 | Page

goodness and value of healthy living, a true testament to Robinsons Supermarkets I Love
Wellness campaign, that truly there is wealth, in good health.
With their mission, To educate and empower our customers on their choice of food
and products that promote healthy living, the company has become more dedicated to bring
the best for their valued customer. It aims as it is established in their vision to be the
supermarket of choice known for fresh and healthy food, clean hygienic stores, competitive
prices and excellent customer service.
Robinsons Supermarket seeks to educate and empower its customers on their choice
of foods and products to promote healthy living and proper nutrition. Its slogan, "Eat Well
Spend Less", captures this philosophy. Under the Eat Well Spend Less campaign is the Apple
Tag Specials, a promotion that offers discounts and premiums on selected healthy products.
Its Whole Health section, a destination area, groups foods and products according to their
health benefits. To complement this are activation programs such as nutrition counseling,
bone scanning and blood sugar testing that are free of charge. It also offers a wide selection
of meats, seafoods, fruits and vegetables and organic produce in its fresh section.
This unique philosophy is complemented by well-designed stores that offer
convenience and good service. Robinsons Supermarket features a wide variety of
merchandise that allows shoppers to complete their grocery shopping under one roof.

II.

ANTECEDENT FACTS OF THE CASE

The case is petitioners petition before the Court is a petition for review

on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision [1] dated August 29,
2006 and the Resolution[2] dated May 16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 91631
Irene R. Sanchez (respondent) was a cashier and probationary employee of petitioner
Supermarket for a period of five (5) months, or from October 15, 1997 until March 14, 1998.
She underwent six (6) weeks of training as a cashier before she was hired as such on October
15, 1997.
Two weeks after she was hired, she reported loss of Twenty Thousand Two Hundred
Ninety-Nine Pesos (P20,299.00) to the management. Management reported the matter to
police wherein she was jailed for two weeks and charged for qualified theft. She filed acase
for illegal dismissal. Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered reinstatement. NLRC

4 | Page

rules that there was a constructive dismissal and ordered reinstatement and backwages. Court
of affairs affirmed but ruled that separation pay would be paid in lieu of reinstatement.

III. RESOLUTIONS, FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE LABOR MANANGEMENT PROBLEM

The issue on this matter is whether there was illegal dismissal how much backwages
should be paid.
The NLRC and the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Supermarket failed to accord
respondent Cashier substantive and procedural due process. The haphazard manner in the
investigation of the missing cash, which was left to the determination of the police authorities
and the Prosecutors Office, left respondent Cashier with no choice but to cry foul.
Administrative investigation was not conducted by petitioner Supermarket. On the same day
that the missing money was reported by respondent Cashier to her immediate superior, the
company already pre-judged her guilt without proper investigation, and instantly reported her
to the police as the suspected thief, which resulted in her languishing in jail for two weeks.
The due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be
supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is
considered independent of the administrative aspect. Thus, employers should not rely solely
on the findings of the Prosecutors Office. They are mandated to conduct their own separate
investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore,
respondent Cashier was not represented by counsel when she was strip-searched inside the
company premises or during the police investigation, and in the preliminary investigation
before the Prosecutors Office.
Respondent Cashier was constructively dismissed by petitioner Supermarket. It was
unreasonable for petitioner Supermarket to charge her with abandonment for not reporting for
work upon her release in jail. It would be the height of callousness to expect her to return to
work after suffering in jail for two weeks. Work had been rendered unreasonable, unlikely,
and definitely impossible, considering the treatment that was accorded respondent Cashier by
petitioner Supermarket.

IV.

RECOMMENDATION AND OBSERVATION

Sanchez was not afforded due process. As probationery employee, she could be

dismissed for just cause, authorize cause of for failure to meet the standards set. If it was due
5 | Page

to just cause she should have been give the opportunity to preset her side. Police investigatin
cannot be substitute. Backwages shall be computed from the date she was illegally dismissed
to the date her probationary employment ends.

V.

APPENDICES
A. The Whole Case Citation

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

6 | Page

ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ROBINSONS
SUPERMARKET CORPORATION and/or JESS
MANUEL,

G.R. No. 177937

Present:

Petitioners,
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
NACHURA,
- versus -

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

IRENE R. RANCHEZ,

Promulgated:

Respondent.

January 19, 2011

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated August 29, 2006 and the Resolution[2] dated May 16,
2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91631.

The Facts

The facts of the case are as follows.

7 | Page

Respondent was a probationary employee of petitioner Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons

Supermarket Corporation (petitioner Supermarket) for a period of five (5) months, or from
October 15, 1997 until March 14, 1998.[3]She underwent six (6) weeks of training as a cashier
before she was hired as such on October 15, 1997.[4]

Two weeks after she was hired, or on October 30, 1997, respondent reported to her
supervisor the loss of cash amounting to Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos
(P20,299.00) which she had placed inside the company locker. Petitioner Jess Manuel
(petitioner Manuel), the Operations Manager of petitioner Supermarket, ordered that
respondent be strip-searched by the company guards. However, the search on her and her
personal belongings yielded nothing.[5]

Respondent acknowledged her responsibility and requested that she be allowed to settle
and pay the lost amount. However, petitioner Manuel did not heed her request and instead
reported the matter to the police. Petitioner Manuel likewise requested the Quezon City
Prosecutors Office for an inquest.[6]

On November 5, 1997, an information for Qualified Theft was filed with the Quezon
City Regional Trial Court. Respondent was constrained to spend two weeks in jail for failure
to immediately post bail in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).[7]

On November 25, 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
damages.[8]

On March 12, 1998, petitioners sent to respondent by mail a notice of termination

and/or notice of expiration of probationary employment dated March 9, 1998.[9]

On August 10, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision,[10] the fallo of which reads:

CONFORMABLY WITH THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby

rendered dismissing the claim of illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

8 | Page

Respondents are ordered to accept complainant to her former or

equivalent work without prejudice to any action they may take in the premises
in connection with the missing money of P20,299.00.

SO ORDERED.[11]

In dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that at
the time respondent filed the complaint for illegal dismissal, she was not yet dismissed by
petitioners. When she was strip- searched by the security personnel of petitioner
Supermarket, the guards were merely conducting an investigation. The subsequent referral of
the loss to the police authorities might be considered routine. Respondents non-reporting for
work after her release from detention could be taken against her in the investigation that
petitioner supermarket would conduct.[12]

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter in a decision[13] dated October 20, 2003. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE. The

respondents are hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her
former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and privileges
and to pay her full backwages computed from the time she was constructively
dismissed on October 30, 1997 up to the time she is actually reinstated.
SO ORDERED.[14]
In reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC ruled that respondent was
denied due process by petitioners. Strip-searching respondent and sending her to jail for two
weeks certainly amounted to constructive dismissal because continued employment had been
rendered impossible, unreasonable, and unlikely. The wedge that had been driven between the
parties was impossible to ignore.[15] Although respondent was only a probationary employee,
the subsequent lapse of her probationary contract of employment did not have the effect of
validly terminating her employment because constructive dismissal had already been effected
earlier by petitioners.[16]

9 | Page

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC in a
resolution[17] dated July 21, 2005.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
CA. On August 29, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged Decision of the

National
Labor
Relations
Commission
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that should reinstatement be no
longer possible in view of the strained relation between the parties, Petitioners
are ordered to pay Respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay
in addition to backwages from the date of dismissal until the finality of the
assailed decision.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the CA denied the same in a
Resolution dated May 16, 2007.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioners assail the reinstatement of respondent, highlighting the fact that she was a
probationary employee and that her probationary contract of employment lapsed on March
14, 1998. Thus, her reinstatement was rendered moot and academic. Furthermore, even if her
probationary contract had not yet expired, the offense that she committed would nonetheless
militate against her regularization.[19]
On the other hand, respondent insists that she was constructively dismissed by
petitioner Supermarket when she was strip-searched, divested of her dignity, and summarily
thrown in jail. She could not have been expected to go back to work after being allowed to
post bail because her continued employment had been rendered impossible, unreasonable,
and unlikely. She stresses that, at the time the money was discovered missing, it was not with
her but locked in the company locker. The company failed to provide its cashiers with strong
locks and proper security in the work place. Respondent argues that she was not caught in the
10 | P a g e

act and even reported that the money was missing. She claims that she was denied due
process.[20]

The Issue

The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent was illegally terminated from
employment by petitioners.

The Ruling of the Court

We rule in the affirmative.

There is probationary employment when the employee upon his engagement is made to
undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular
employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement.[21]

A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure.

However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of
termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the
probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the
time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on
probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized
cause; and (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards prescribed by the employer.[23]
[22]

Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that subject to the constitutional right of
workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal, except for just
and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of
the same Code, the employer shall furnish the worker, whose employment is sought to be
terminated, a written notice containing a statement of the causes of termination, and shall
11 | P a g e

afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a
representative if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations pursuant to
the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment.

In the instant case, based on the facts on record, petitioners failed to accord respondent
substantive and procedural due process. The haphazard manner in the investigation of the
missing cash, which was left to the determination of the police authorities and the
Prosecutors Office, left respondent with no choice but to cry foul. Administrative
investigation was not conducted by petitioner Supermarket. On the same day that the missing
money was reported by respondent to her immediate superior, the company already prejudged her guilt without proper investigation, and instantly reported her to the police as the
suspected thief, which resulted in her languishing in jail for two weeks.

As correctly pointed out by the NLRC, the due process requirements under the Labor
Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings.
The criminal aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative aspect. Thus,
employers should not rely solely on the findings of the Prosecutors Office. They are
mandated to conduct their own separate investigation, and to accord the employee every
opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, respondent was not represented by counsel
when she was strip-searched inside the company premises or during the police investigation,
and in the preliminary investigation before the Prosecutors Office.

Respondent was constructively dismissed by petitioner Supermarket effective October

30, 1997. It was unreasonable for petitioners to charge her with abandonment for not
reporting for work upon her release in jail. It would be the height of callousness to expect her
to return to work after suffering in jail for two weeks. Work had been rendered unreasonable,
unlikely, and definitely impossible, considering the treatment that was accorded respondent
by petitioners.

As to respondents monetary claims, Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges, to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to
other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, due to the strained
relations of the parties, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable
12 | P a g e

alternative to reinstatement, when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the
one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work
environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable
obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[24]

Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, respondent is entitled to:

(1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and
(2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate and distinct from each other and are awarded
conjunctively.[25]

In this case, since respondent was a probationary employee at the time she was
constructively dismissed by petitioners, she is entitled to separation pay and backwages.
Reinstatement of respondent is no longer viable considering the circumstances.

However, the backwages that should be awarded to respondent shall be reckoned from
the time of her constructive dismissal until the date of the termination of her
employment, i.e., from October 30, 1997 to March 14, 1998. The computation should not
cover the entire period from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her
actual reinstatement. This is because respondent was a probationary employee, and the lapse
of her probationary employment without her appointment as a regular employee of petitioner
Supermarket effectively severed the employer-employee relationship between the parties.
In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary basis, the employer shall
make known to its employees the standards under which they will qualify as regular
employees at the time of their engagement. Where no standards are made known to an
employee at the time, he shall be deemed a regular employee, [26] unless the job is selfdescriptive, like maid, cook, driver, or messenger. However, the constitutional policy of
providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy management.
[27]
Naturally, petitioner Supermarket cannot be expected to retain respondent as a regular
employee considering that she lost P20,299.00 while acting as a cashier during the
probationary period. The rules on probationary employment should not be used to exculpate a
probationary employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common
sense, in regard to which, there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met.[28]

13 | P a g e

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91631 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that petitioners are hereby ordered to pay respondent Irene R.
Ranchez separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay and backwages from October 30,
1997 to March 14, 1998.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice

Associate Justice
14 | P a g e

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

AT T E S T AT I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
15 | P a g e

Chief Justice

In lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated July 6, 2009.
Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, with Associate Justices
Bienvenido Reyes and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring; rollo, pp. 67-75.
[2]
Id. at 77-78.
[1]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Labor Arbiters decision; CA rollo, p. 50.

Id. at 47.
Id. at 48.
Labor Arbiters decision, id.; NLRC decision, id. at 67; CA Decision, rollo, p. 68.

[7]

Labor Arbiters decision, CA rollo, p. 48; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 70; CA

Decision, rollo, p. 68.
[8]
CA Decision; rollo, p. 69.
[9]
CA Decision, id. at 68; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.
[10]
Penned by Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. del Rosario; CA rollo, pp. 47-53.
[11]
Id. at 52-53.
[12]

Labor Arbiters decision; id. at 51-52.

Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Presiding Commissioner Roy
V. Seeres and Commissioner Romeo L. Go, concurring; id. at 65-72.
[14]
Id. at 71.
[15]
Id. at 69.
[16]
Id. at 70.
[17]
Penned by Commissioner Proculo T. Sarmen, with the concurrence of OIC, Office
of the Chairman Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Romeo L. Go; id. at 86-88.
[18]
Rollo, p. 74.
[19]
CA Decision, id. at 68-69; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.
[20]
CA Decision, rollo, p. 68; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.
[21]
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6.
[22]
Id.
[13]

[23]

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6(c).

[24]

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. Daniel, 499 Phil. 491, 511 (2005).

[25]

Siemens v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150488, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 86, 100.

[26]

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6(d).
Capili v. National Labor Relations Commission, 337 Phil. 210, 216 (1997).
Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., 495 Phil. 706, 716-717

[27]
[28]

B. References:
16 | P a g e

http://www.robinsons-supermarket.com.ph/about-us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinsons_Supermarket
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/177937.htm
http://www.nlrc.dole.gov.ph/?q=node/33
https://www.facebook.com/RobinsonsSupermarketOfficial/info?tab=page_info

17 | P a g e