Socorro Ramirez vs Court of Appeals

No. 2
Case Digests: Statutory Construction
Socorro Ramirez vs Court of Appeals
248 SCRA 590
G. R. No. 93833
September 25 1995
Facts:
A civil case for damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the RTC of Quezon City alleging that
the private respondent, Ester Garcia, in a confrontation in the latters office, allegedly vexed, insulted and
humiliated her in a hostile and furious mood and in a manner offensive to petitioners dignity and
personality, contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event. The transcript on which the
civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.
As a result of petitioners recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the RTC of Pasay City for
violation of RA 4200, entitled An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wiretapping and Other Related Violations of
Private Communication, and Other Purposes.
Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that
the facts charged do not constitute an offense particularly a violation of RA 4200. The trial court granted
the Motion to Quash, agreeing with petitioner.
From the trial courts Order, the private respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court,
which forthwith referred the case to the CA.
Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial courts order null and
void.
Issue:
W/N RA 4200 applies to taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to a conversation.
Held:
Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute
is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be
resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an
injustice.
Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all
parties to any private communication, to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder.
The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a
party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statutes intent to
penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of qualifier any.
Consequently, as respondent CA correctly concluded, even a (person) privy to a communication who

records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator
under this provision of RA 4200.
The unambiguity of the express words of the provision therefore plainly supports the view held by the
respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications.
Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.
Stat Con Principle: Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.
Legal Maxims: Verba Legis (the statute must be interpreted literally if the language of the statute is plain
and free from ambiguity)
GLOBE- MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION VS. NLRC
G.R. NO. 82511. MARCH 3, 1992.ROMERO, J.
FACTS
1.Sometime in 1984, petitioner GMCR, prompted by reports that company equipment and
spare parts worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing, caused
the investigation of the latter's activities.2.The report prepared by the company's internal
auditor, Mr. Agustin Maramara,indicated that Saldivar had entered into a partnership styled
Concave Commercialand Industrial Company with Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of
Elecon Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier of petitioner often recommended
bySaldivar.3.The report also disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioner's missing
Feddersairconditioning unit for his own personal use without authorization and also
connivedwith Yambao to defraud petitioner of its property. The airconditioner was
recoveredonly after petitioner GMCR filed an action for replevin against Saldivar.4.Moreover,
it appeared in the investigation that Imelda Salazar violated companyregulations by
involving herself in transactions conflicting with the company'sinterests. Evidence showed
that she signed as a witness to the articles of partnershipbetween Yambao and Saldivar. It
also appeared that she had full knowledge of theloss and whereabouts of the Fedders
airconditioner but failed to inform her employer.5.Consequently, in a letter dated October 8,
1984, GMCR placed private respondentSalazar under preventive suspension for one (1)
month, effective October 9, 1984,thus giving her thirty (30) days within which to explain her
side. But instead ofsubmitting an explanation, three (3) days later or on October 12, 1984,
Salazar fileda complaint against petitioner for illegal suspension, which she
subsequentlyamended to include illegal dismissal, after petitioner notified her in writing
thateffective November 8,1984, she was considered dismissed "in view of (her) inabilityto
refute and disprove these findings."6.After due hearing, the Labor Arbiter ordered GMCR to
reinstate private respondent toher former or equivalent position and to pay her full
backwages and other benefitsshe would have received were it not for the illegal dismissal.
Petitioner was alsoordered to pay private respondent moral damages of P50,000.00.7.On
appeal, the NLRC in its resolution affirmed the said decision with respect to thereinstatement
of Salazar but limited the backwages to a period of two (2) years anddeleted the award for
moral damages.
ISSUES
1.Whether or not the suspension of Salazar was illegal.2.Whether or not Salazar was entitled
to reinstatement and two (2) years' backwageswith respect to her subsequent dismissal.
HELD

1. YES. The investigative findings of Mr. Maramara, which pointed to Delfin Saldivar'sacts in
conflict with his position as technical operations manager, necessitatedimmediate and
decisive action on any employee closely associated with Saldivar.The suspension of Salazar
was further impelled by the discovery of the missingairconditioning unit inside the
apartment private respondent shared with Saldivar.Under such circumstances, preventive
suspension was the proper remedial recourseavailable to the company pending Salazar's
investigation. By itself, preventivesuspension does not signify that the company has
adjudged the employee guilty ofthe charges she was asked to answer and explain. Such
disciplinary measure isresorted to for the protection of the company's property pending
investigation of anyalleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. Thus,
it is notcorrect to conclude that petitioner GMCR had violated Salazar's right to due
processwhen she was promptly suspended. If at all, the fault lay with private
respondentwhen she ignored petitioner's memorandum "giving her ample opportunity to
present
That in all things, God may be glorified.
CSB DIGESTSLABOR STANDARDS LAW-152(her) side to the Management." Instead, she went directly to the Labor Departmentand filed
her complaint for illegal suspension without giving her employer a chance toevaluate her
side of the controversy.2.YES. Under Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended: Security of
Tenure.-In casesof regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employeeexcept for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is
unjustlydismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rightsand other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to hisother
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensationwas
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement."In the case at bar, there was
no evidence which clearly showed an authorized, muchless a legal, cause for the dismissal
of private respondent, she had every right, notonly to be entitled to reinstatement, but as
well, to full backwages. The intendmentof the law in prescribing the twin remedies of
reinstatement and payment ofbackwages is, in the former, to restore the dismissed
employee to her status beforeshe lost her job, for the dictionary meaning of the word
"reinstate is "to restore to astate, condition, position, etc. from which one had been
removed" and in the latter, togive her back the income lost during the period of
unemployment. Both remedies,looking to the past, would perforce make her "whole."The
Labor Code is clear and unambiguous: "An employee who is unjustly dismissedfrom work
shall be entitled to reinstatement ... and to his full backwages . . ." Neitherdoes the provision
admit of any qualification. An exception to the rule is when thereinstatement may be
inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between theemployer and the employee. In
such cases, it should be proved that the employeeconcerned occupies a position where he
enjoys the trust and confidence of hisemployer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an
atmosphere of antipathy andantagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the
efficiency and productivityof the employee concerned.The principle of "strained relations"
cannot be applied indiscriminately. Otherwise,reinstatement can never be possible simply
because some hostility is invariablyengendered between the parties as a result of litigation.
That is human nature.Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of
assertingone's right; otherwise an employee who shall assert his right could be
easilyseparated from the service, by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext thathis
relationship with his employer had already become strained.Here, it has not been proved
that the position of private respondent as systemsanalyst is one that may be characterized
as a position of trust and confidence suchthat if reinstated, it may well lead to strained
relations between employer andemployee. Hence, this does not constitute an exception to
the general rulemandating reinstatement for an employee who has been unlawfully
dismissed. As asystem analyst, Salazar was very far removed from operations involving
theprocurement of supplies.In the instant case, petitioner has predicated its dismissal of

Salazar on loss ofconfidence. As has been held before, while loss of confidence or breach of
trust is avalid ground for termination, it must rest on some basis which must be
convincinglyestablished. An employee may not be dismissed on mere presumptions
andsuppositions. While the Court should not condone the acts of disloyalty of anemployee,
neither should it dismiss him on the basis of suspicion derived fromspeculative inferences. To
rely on the Maramara report as a basis for Salazar'sdismissal would be most inequitous
because the bulk of the findings centeredprincipally Saldivars alleged thievery and
anomalous transactions as technicaloperations' support manager. Said report merely
insinuated that in view of Salazar'sspecial relationship with Saldivar, Salazar might have had
direct knowledge ofSaldivar's questionable activities. Direct evidence implicating private
respondent iswanting from the records. Thus, she was illegally dismissed.