Duty Free Philippines v. Rossano Mojica, GR No.

166365, 30 September 2005, First Division, YnaresSantiago1

Facts

Mojica was an employee of Duty Free Philippines who was charged with neglect resulting to
considerable damage to or loss of materials, assets and properties of DFP;
Hence, the discipline committee of Duty Free considered her resigned with forfeiture of all benefits
except salary and accrued leave credits;
As a result a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer of full back wages and reinstatement was filed
by Mojica before the NLRC;
The Labor Arbiter awarded the back wages including an order for reinstatement; this was, however,
reversed by NLRC;
A motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed by NLRC;
A petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed by Mojica before the CA, which court granted the
reliefs prayed for; Duty Free petitioned before the SC;

Issue
1.
2.
3.

Whether the filing by Mojica of the complaint before the NLRC was proper
What is the nature of DFP?
What is the tribunal clothed with jurisdiction to try civil service cases?

Held
1.

No, DFP being a government agency attached with DOT, complaints against it are not cognizable by
NLRC. 2
DFP was created under Executive Order (EO) No. 46 on September 4, 1986 primarily to augment the
service facilities for tourists and to generate foreign exchange and revenue for the government. In order
for the government to exercise direct and effective control and regulation over the tax and duty free
shops, their establishment and operation was vested in the Ministry, now Department of Tourism
(DOT), through its implementing arm, the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). All the net profits from
the merchandising operations of the shops accrued to the DOT.

2.

EO No. 292 or The Administrative Code of 1987 empowered the Civil Service Commission to hear and
decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it.

Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare

Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011.

Petitioner Yap was employed on respondents vessel under a 12-month contract.

Upon finding that he was illegally terminated, the Court of Appeals (CA) awarded
petitioner salaries for three months as provided under Section 10 of Republic Act No.
8042 (RA 8042). While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Section 10 of RA
8042 was declared unconstitutional. In deciding to award petitioner his salaries for

1
2
1

the entire unexpired portion of his contract, the Supreme Court rejected the
application of the operative fact doctrine. As an exception to the general rule, the
doctrine applies only as a matter of equity and fair play. It recognizes that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative
fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The doctrine is
applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law. This case should not be included in the
aforementioned exception. After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his
job due to an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. To rule otherwise
would be iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong
signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an
OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit
from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law.