AMADA RANCE, ET AL. v.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

POLYBAG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L68147
SECOND DIVISION
June 30, 1988 January, 30, 2016
PARAS, J.:
ALTHEA SAMANTHA A. CALVAN

FACTS:

Petitioners herein were among the members of the respondent union who were
expelled by the latter for disloyalty in that they allegedly joined the NAFLU a
large federation. Because of the expulsion, petitioners were dismissed by
respondent Corporation. Petitioners sued for reinstatement and backwages
stating their dismissal was without due process. Losing both in the decisions of
the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), they
elevated their cause to the Supreme Court.

Respondent Polybag Workers Union as already stated expelled 125 members on

the ground of disloyalty and acts inimical to the interests of the Union.

Among the disputed portions of the NLRC decision is its finding that it has been
substantially proven that the petitioners committed acts of disloyalty to their
union as a consequence of the filing by NAFLU for and in their behalf of the
complaint in question.

Petitioners' contention that they did not authorize NAFLU to file NLRCAB Case No.
6427582. For them is borne out by the records which show that they did not sign
the complaint, neither did they sign any document of membership application
with NAFLU.

Significantly, none of private respondents was able to present any evidence to

the contrary except for one employee who admitted having authorized NAFLU to
file the complaint but only for the purpose of questioning the funds of the Union.

Placed in proper perspective, the mere act of seeking help from the NAFLU
cannot constitute disloyalty as contemplated in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.

ISSUE:
IS THE UNION GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE?

LAW APPLICABLE:

SEC. 3, ARTICLE XIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION.

The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.

CASE HISTORY:

Respondent Polybag Workers Union as already stated expelled 125 members on

the ground of disloyalty and acts inimical to the interests of the Union based on
the findings and recommendations of the panel of investigators.

Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found the Collective Bargaining Agreement
and the "Union Security Clause" valid and considered the termination of the
petitioners justified thereunder, for having committed an act of disloyalty to the
Polybag Workers Union by having affiliated with and having joined the NAFLU,
another labor union claiming jurisdiction similar to the former, while still
members of respondent union.

RULING:

YES.

In any event, even if petitioners who were complainants in NLRCAB Case No.
6427582 appeared in the supposed investigation proceedings to answer the
charge of disloyalty against them, it could not have altered the fact that the
proceedings were violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play.

The Board of Directors of respondent union would have acted as prosecutor,

investigator and judge at the same time. The proceeding would have been a
farce under the circumstances.

The filing of the charge of disloyalty against petitioners was instigated by the
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Acting Union President, Ponciano
Fernandez, in the special meeting of the members of the Board of Directors as
convened by the Union President on August 16, 1982.The Panel of Investigators
created under the Board's Resolution No. 83, s. 1982 was composed of the
Chairman of the Board, Ponciano Fernandez, and two (2) members of the Board,
Samson Yap and Carmen Garcia (Rollo, p. 214). It is the same Board that expelled
its 125 members in its Resolution.

All told, it is obvious, that in the absence of any full blown investigation of the
expelled members of the Union by an impartial body, there is no basis for
respondent Union's accusations.

It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure"
(Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9, Article II of the 1973
Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice.

When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or
means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary
deprivation of his job. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of
tenure as meaning that "the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by" the code.

Dismissal is not justified for being arbitrary where the workers were denied due
process and a clear denial of due process, or constitutional right must be
safeguarded against at all times. This is especially true in the case at bar where
there were 125 workers mostly heads or sole breadwinners of their respective
families. Time and again, this Court has reminded employers that while the
power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer, the same is not
without limitations.

The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his

employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union
pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as in the instant case.
Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be observed
in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his
means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights
of their employees, which include the right to labor. They, the private
respondents, are guilty of unfair labor practice.

OPINION:

Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs. MARIA RUBY M. RIVERA

MENDOZA, J.:
ALTHEA SAMANTHA A. CALVAN

FACTS:
Unilever is a company engaged in the production, manufacture, sale, and
distribution of various food, home and personal care products, while Rivera was
employed as its Area Activation Executive in the cities of Cotabato and Davao.
She was primarily tasked with managing the sales, distribution and promotional
activities in her area and supervising Ventureslink International, Inc.
(Ventureslink), a third party service provider for the companys activation
projects.

Unilever enforces a strict policy that every trade activity must be accompanied
by a Trade Development Program (TDP) and that the allocated budget for a
specific activity must be used for such activity only. 4

Sometime in 2007, Unilevers internal auditor conducted a random audit and

found out that there
were fictitious billings and fabricated receipts supposedly from Ventureslink. It
was also discovered that some funds were diverted from the original intended
projects.

Upon further verification, Ventureslink reported that the fund deviations were
upon the instruction of Rivera.

Unilever issued a show cause notice to Rivera asking her to explain the following
charges, to wit: a) Conversion and Misappropriation of Resources b) Breach of
Fiduciary Trust c) Policy Breaches and d) Integrity Issues.

Responding through an email, Rivera admitted the fund diversions, but explained
that such actions were mere resourceful utilization of budget because of the
difficulty of procuring funds from the head office. She insisted that the diverted
funds were all utilized in the companys promotional ventures in her area of
coverage.

Unilever found Rivera guilty of serious breach of the companys Code of Business
Principles compelling it to sever their professional relations.

Rivera asked for reconsideration and requested Unilever to allow her to receive
retirement benefits having served the company for fourteen (14) years already.
Unilever denied her request, reasoning that the forfeiture of retirement benefits
was a legal consequence of her dismissal from work.

On appeal, the NLRC partially granted Riveras prayer. NLRC held that although
she was legally dismissed from the service for a just cause, Unilever was guilty of
violating the twin notice requirement in labor cases. Thus, Unilever was ordered
to pay her nominal damages, retirement benefits and separation pay.

The CA awarded separation pay in her favor as a measure of social justice.

ISSUE:

Is Rivera, a validly dismissed employee, entitled to an award of separation pay?

LAW APPLICABLE:

Section 2, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

CASE HISTORY:

Subject of this disposition is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Unilever Philippines, Inc. (Unilever)
questioning the June 22, 2011 Decision and the April 25, 2012 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals (CA)Cagayan de Oro City, an Illegal Dismissal case filed by
respondent Maria Ruby M. Rivera (Rivera).

The CA affirmed with modification the March 31, 2009 Resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding Rivera's dismissal from work to be
valid as it was for a just cause and declaring that she was not entitled to any
retirement benefit. The CA, however, awarded separation pay in her favor as a
measure of social justice.

RULING:

NO.
The leading case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. NLRC is
instructive on this point:
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social
justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or
an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a
fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on
the ground of social justice.

Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when
the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice
cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an
impediment to the punishment of the guilty.

Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their
motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. This great
policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have
proved they are not worthy of it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of
labor with the blemishes of their own character.

In this case, Rivera was dismissed from work because she intentionally
circumvented a strict company policy, manipulated another entity to carry out
her instructions without the companys knowledge and approval, and directed
the diversion of funds, which she even admitted doing under the guise of
shortening the laborious process of securing funds for promotional activities from
the head office.

These transgressions were serious offenses that warranted her dismissal from
employment and proved that her termination from work was for a just cause.
Hence, she is not entitled to a separation pay.

BAGUIO CENTRAL UNIVERSITYv. IGNACIO GALLENTE

G.R. No. 188267
SECOND DIVISION
December 02, 2013
BRION, J. :

FACTS:

Baguio Central University (BCU) hired Gallente as an instructor. The BCU

subsequently promoted and appointed Gallente as Dean of the BCUs Colleges of
Arts and Sciences and Public Administration.

On February 5, 2005, Gallente, using the name Genesis Gallente, along with six
other incorporators, organized the GRC Review and Language Center, Inc.
( GRC ). 6 The GRCs Articles of Incorporation 7(AOI) listed its primary purpose as
to conduct review classes for teachers, nursing, engineering and other
professional and technical for Board Licensure examinations and Civil Service
Professional examination, and its secondary purpose as to conduct tutorial and
proficiency trainings for foreign languages. This AOI also listed the BCU as the
GRCs primary address.

The BCUs President, Dr. Margarita Fernandez , subsequently called Gallentes

attention regarding the establishment of the GRC and his use of the BCU as the
GRCs address and of the BCUs resources. The BCUs officers conducted
grievance meetings 8 with Gallente to allow him to explain his side. On
September 30, 2005, Gallente tendered his resignation by letter.

Gallente filed before the LA a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal, nonpayment of vacation and sick leave pay for 2005, tax refund for the same year
and attorneys fees.

LA found that Gallente was illegally dismissed and ordered the BCU and
Fernandez to pay Gallente separation pay, backwages, 13 th month pay,
vacation and sick leave pay, service incentive leave benefits, tax refund for the
year 2005 and attorneys fees. The LA essentially held that, first Gallentes
resignation was not voluntary. The LA noted that while the BCU conducted
grievance meetings, the BCU had already decided to terminate Gallentes
employment and practically coerced him to resign.

Thus, to the LA, the BCU constructively dismissed Gallente.

The NLRC partially granted the BCUs appeal. In contrast with the LAs ruling, the
NLRC found justifiable grounds for the BCUs loss of trust and confidence that
rendered Gallentes dismissal valid.

The CA reversed the NLRCs ruling and reinstated the LAs June 30, 2006
decision. The CA significantly affirmed the LAs findings on the insufficiency of
the BCUs bases for the loss-of-trust charge. Additionally, the CA pointed out that
at the time Gallente organized the GRC, the BCUs
Review Center did not yet exist; also, the GRC did not successfully operate
because it failed to comply with certain legal requirements.

ISSUE:
DID BCU OBSERVED DUE PROCESS IN THE DISMISSAL OF GALLENTE?

LAW APPLICABLE:

SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.

No person shall deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

CASE HISTORY:
CA decision vacated the November 28, 2007 decision 4 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (N LRC ) in NLRC NCR CA No. 050099-06 (NLRC CASE NO.
RAB-CAR-12-0657-05) which, in turn, modified the June 30, 2006 decision5 of the
Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring that respondent Ignacio Gallente had been illegally
dismissed.

RULING:
YES.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied

to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or x x x to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 44 Section 2(d), Rule I of
the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, in relation to Article 282 of

the Labor Code, provides the due process requirements prior to the termination
of employment, namely: (1) a written notice specifying the ground or grounds for
termination; (2) a hearing or conference to give the employee concerned the
opportunity to respond to the charge; and (3) a written notice of termination.

The LA, the NLRC and the CA in this case unanimously declared that Gallente did
not voluntarily resign and that the BCU failed to observe the due process
requirements as outlined above. We agree and we will not disturb their findings
on this point.

We, therefore, find proper the NLRCs award of nominal damages in accordance
with this Courts ruling.
In sum, we find the NLRCs appreciation of the parties arguments and presented
evidence in this case to be proper, as its findings were supported by the
established facts, the law and jurisprudence. The CA, on the other hand,
incorrectly found grave abuse of discretion in appreciating the NLRCs rulings.

WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby G RANT the petition. We

REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated March 12, 2009 and the resolution
dated May 26, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Sp No. 104144 and
accordingly REINSTATE the decision dated November 28, 2007 of the National
Labor Relations Commission
Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs.MARIA RUBY M. RIVERA
MENDOZA, J.:
ALTHEA SAMANTHA A. CALVAN

FACTS:
Unilever is a company engaged in the production, manufacture, sale, and
distribution of various food, home and personal care products, while Rivera was
employed as its Area Activation Executive in the cities of Cotabato and Davao.
She was primarily tasked with managing the sales, distribution and promotional
activities in her area and supervising Ventureslink International, Inc.
(Ventureslink), a third party service provider for the companys activation
projects.

Unilever enforces a strict policy that every trade activity must be accompanied
by a Trade Development Program (TDP) and that the allocated budget for a
specific activity must be used for such activity only. 4

Sometime in 2007, Unilevers internal auditor conducted a random audit and

found out that there
were fictitious billings and fabricated receipts supposedly from Ventureslink. It
was also discovered that some funds were diverted from the original intended
projects.

Upon further verification, Ventureslink reported that the fund deviations were
upon the instruction of Rivera.

Unilever issued a show cause notice to Rivera asking her to explain the following
charges, to wit: a) Conversion and Misappropriation of Resources b) Breach of
Fiduciary Trust c) Policy Breaches and d) Integrity Issues.

Responding through an email, Rivera admitted the fund diversions, but explained
that such actions were mere resourceful utilization of budget because of the
difficulty of procuring funds from the head office. She insisted that the diverted
funds were all utilized in the companys promotional ventures in her area of
coverage.

Unilever found Rivera guilty of serious breach of the companys Code of Business
Principles compelling it to sever their professional relations.

Rivera asked for reconsideration and requested Unilever to allow her to receive
retirement benefits having served the company for fourteen (14) years already.
Unilever denied her request, reasoning that the forfeiture of retirement benefits
was a legal consequence of her dismissal from work.

On appeal, the NLRC partially granted Riveras prayer. NLRC held that although
she was legally dismissed from the service for a just cause, Unilever was guilty of
violating the twin notice requirement in labor cases. Thus, Unilever was ordered
to pay her nominal damages, retirement benefits and separation pay.

The CA awarded separation pay in her favor as a measure of social justice.

ISSUE:

Is Rivera, a validly dismissed employee, entitled to an award of separation pay?

LAW APPLICABLE:

Section 2, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

CASE HISTORY:

Subject of this disposition is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Unilever Philippines, Inc. (Unilever)
questioning the June 22, 2011 Decision and the April 25, 2012 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals (CA)Cagayan de Oro City, an Illegal Dismissal case filed by
respondent Maria Ruby M. Rivera (Rivera).

The CA affirmed with modification the March 31, 2009 Resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding Rivera's dismissal from work to be
valid as it was for a just cause and declaring that she was not entitled to any
retirement benefit. The CA, however, awarded separation pay in her favor as a
measure of social justice.

RULING:

NO.
The leading case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. NLRC is
instructive on this point:
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social
justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or
an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a
fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on
the ground of social justice.

Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when
the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice
cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an
impediment to the punishment of the guilty.

Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their
motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. This great
policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have

proved they are not worthy of it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of
labor with the blemishes of their own character.

In this case, Rivera was dismissed from work because she intentionally
circumvented a strict company policy, manipulated another entity to carry out
her instructions without the companys knowledge and approval, and directed
the diversion of funds, which she even admitted doing under the guise of
shortening the laborious process of securing funds for promotional activities from
the head office.

These transgressions were serious offenses that warranted her dismissal from
employment and proved that her termination from work was for a just cause.
Hence, she is not entitled to a separation pay.