TIRAZONA v. PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO-SERVICE
29, 2008: Petitioner moved for reconsideration
INC. (PET, Inc.)
January 20, 2009 | Chico-Nazario, J. | When to/not to tilt
the scales of justice as a measure of equity and
compassionate social justice
Digester: Arreza, Jose Augusto
SUMMARY: Petitioner Tirazona was dismissed from
service by Respondent PET, Inc. for her willful breach
of trust reposed upon her by her employer. The NLRC,
CA, and SC all found her dismissal as justified. In her
2nd Motion for Reconsideration, she prayed for the
invalidation of her dismissal and for the award of
separation pay for just causes on the basis of equity.
The SC denied her petition for lack of merit.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS:
 Because of her improper handling of a situation
involving a rank-and-file employee, officers/directors
of respondent PET, Inc. called the attention of
petitioner Ma. Wenelita Tirazona, the Administrative
Manager of respondent company. Claiming she was
denied due process, she demanded Php 2M
indemnity from PET and its officers/directors. She
also admitted to reading a confidential letter
addressed to PET officers/directors containing the
legal opinion of the counsel of PET regarding her
case. Because of all this, she was validly terminated
on the ground that she willfully breached the trust
and confidence reposed in her by her employed. The
SC denied her original petition.
 Apr.
praying that her dismissal be declared illegal and
that she be awarded separation pay and retirement
benefits out of humanitarian considerations. But the
SC denied MR.
 Aug. 21, 2008: Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to
File a Second Motion for Reconsideration for the
reconsideration of the SC resolution raising
essentially the same arguments and prayers.
RULING: Motion for leave to file a second Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
W/N her dismissal was justified – YES
W/N she may be awarded separation pay out of
humanitarian considerations – NO
 First of all, a 2nd MR is prohibited, except for
extraordinarily persuasive reasons [Sec. 2, Rule 52,
ROC]. Here, no extraordinary persuasive reasons
are present to allow the 2nd MR.
 Next, as re petitioner’s dismissal, the general rule is
that an employee who has been dismissed for any of
the just causes enumerated under Art. 282 of the
Labor Code is not entitled to separation pay. Only
unjustly dismissed employees are entitled to
retirement benefits and other privileges including
reinstatement and backwages.
 An exception, however, is that separation pay or
other financial assistance may be allowed to an
employee dismissed for just causes on the basis of
equity. This 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.
 Given the above, petitioner is not entitled to the
award of separation pay for violating the trust and
 confidence reposed in her by her employer when she
arrogantly demanded from respondent the
exorbitant amount of Php 2M in damages with a
threat of a lawsuit if the money was not paid within
five days. She also continually refused to cooperate
with PET’s investigation of her case.
 Lastly, petitioner tried to persuade the Court to
consider in her favor the length of her service to
PET, but in the end, failed. She claimed that she was
employed by PET for 26 years. However, it was later
on found out that she had only been there for 2
years and 9 months.
 The cases she cited to support her case were
misleading as the circumstances were totally
different from hers.
BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA DE LEMOS and
CECILE OCUBILLO
December 5, 2012 | Villarama, Jr., J. | Nature of work of piece rate
workers
Digester: Sumagaysay, Rev
SUMMARY: Cecile and Adelaida were employed as sewers on
piece-rate basis. They were transferred to other areas of
operation so they filed for constructive dismissal alleging they
could no longer “earn as much” as before. The Court held that it
was within management prerogative to deploy them to work
different on different garments, and in absence of bad faith, such
should be upheld.
DOCTRINE: Being piece-rate workers assigned to individual
sewing machines, respondents’ earnings depended on the quality
and quantity of finished products. That their work output might
have been affected by the change in their specific work
assignments does not necessarily imply that any resulting
reduction in pay is tantamount to constructive dismissal. Workers
under piece-rate employment have no fixed salaries and their
compensation is computed on the basis of accomplished tasks.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Best Wear Garments (sole proprietorship owned by
Alex Sitosta) hired Respondents Cecile and Adelaida as sewers
on piece-rate basis on 1993 and 1994 respectively.
 May 20, and June 10, 2004, Adelaida and Cecile, respectively,
filed for illegal dismissal with prayer for backwages and other
accrued benefits, separation pay, service incentive leave pay,
and attorney’s fees.
 Both allege that they were arbitrarily transferred to other
areas of operation of petitioner’s garments company which
amounted to constructive dismissal as it resulted in less
earnings for them.
o Adelaida – could not earn as much as before
because by-products require long period of time to
finish; transfer was caused by her refusal to
render overtime work up to 7:00pm; request to
be returned to previous assignment was rejected as
she was “constrained not to report for work as
Sitostta had become indifferent to her since said
transfer of operation; salary was withheld.
o Cecile – alleged transfer was caused by her having
“incurred excessive absences since 2001”. Her
absences were due to her father becoming very sick
from 2001 to his death in 2003; she herself became
very sick; she was assigned to different machines
“whichever is available” and that “there were times
she could not earn for a day because there was no
available machine to work for; she was required to
render overtime work up to 7:00pm which she
refused since she was only paid up to 6:25pm.
 Petitioners denied terminating respondents who supposedly
committed numerous absences without leave (AWOL). They
claim that:
o Adelaida informed them that due to personal
problem, she intended to resign. Cecile also
intimated her intention to resign. Both demanded
separation pay but as the company had no existing
policy on granting separation pay, petitioner could
not act on their request.
o After that, both respondents never reported back to
work.
 o The allegation that their transfer was caused by
their refusal to work overtime was unfounded as
respondents were piece-rate workers and are not
paid according to the number of hours worked.
 LA Ruled in favor of Adelaida and Cecile. Held that
respondents were illegally dismissed. Ordered separation pay
and backwages.
o Respondents id not resign or abandon their jobs, the
ambiguities in circumstance are resolved in favor of
the workers.
o Termination because of AWOL should have been
exercised before dismissals have been effected.
o Illogical for respondents to resign then file a case for
illegal dismissal.
 NLRC Reversed LA. Respondents were not dismissed. Ordered
respondents to report back to work without backwages and for
petitioners to accept them.
o Alleged demotion is vague as they did simply stated
that by reason of their transfer, they did not earn as
much. They failed to state how much this was, if only
to determine if there was indeed diminution in
earnings
o Transfer was an exercise of management
prerogative.
 CA Reversed NLRC and reinstated LA Decision. Service
incentive pay shall be excluded in computation of monetary
award.
o No valid reason for transfer which entailed
reduction of earnings.
o Since plea to be returned to former posts was not
heeded, transfer was tantamount to constructive
dismissal.
o Unauthorized absences did not warrant a finding of
abandonment.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED. NLRC
decision REINSTATED.
Whether CA erred in applying the law on constructive
dismissal – YES
 The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them
vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving
management of its prerogative to change their assignments or
to transfer them. Thus, an employer may transfer or assign
employees from one office or area of operation to another,
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary,
benefits, and other privileges, and the action is not motivated
by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.
 Being piece-rate workers assigned to individual sewing
machines, respondents’ earnings depended on the
quality and quantity of finished products. That their work
output might have been affected by the change in their
specific work assignments does not necessarily imply
that any resulting reduction in pay is tantamount to
constructive dismissal. Workers under piece-rate
employment have no fixed salaries and their
compensation is computed on the basis of accomplished
tasks.
 As admitted by respondent De Lemos, some garments or by-
products took a longer time to finish so they could not earn as
much as before. Also, the type of sewing jobs available would
depend on the specifications made by the clients of petitioner
company. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the
transfer was unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the
respondents.
 Such deployment of sewers to work on different types of
garments as dictated by present business necessity is within
the ambit of management prerogative which, in the absence of
bad faith, ill motive or discrimination, should not be interfered
with by the courts.
 There was no evidence that respondents were dismissed from
employment. There being no termination of employment by the
employer, the award of backwages cannot be sustained.
Backwages may be granted only when there is a finding of
illegal dismissal. In cases where there is no evidence of
dismissal, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages.

NOTES:
 For those details which are not important but seems important.
JAMER v. NLRC
FACTS: Petitioners are cashiers of Isetann Department
Store were incurred the following shortages:
a) On the Shortage of P15,353.78:
The 3 petitioners, Lutgarda Inducta, Cristy
Amortizado and Corazon Jamer denied any involvement
in the loss of P15,353.78. Although the money, is under
their responsibility, not one of them gave any
explanation about the shortage or loss.
b) On the amount of P1,000.00 borrowed by Inducta
from Jamer:
On July 18, 1990, Lutgarda Inducta borrowed
money from respondents Jamer amounting to P1,000.00
to cover her shortage. Ms. Jamer said that Ms. Inducta
paid the amount on that day. But Ms. Jamer did not
report the shortage.
c) On the Underdeposit of Cash = P450.00.
Total cash admitted P65,428.05 (cash in drawer)
while Total cash remitted P64,978.05 (per tally sheet).
Overage P 450.00
d) On the P70.00 Replenishment of Petty Cash
Expenses:
She added that she previously incurred a
shortage amounting to P100.00. Then she used
the P70.00 to cover for the shortage. The remaining
balance of P30.00 was paid by Amortizado.
The labor arbiter ruled them having been illegally
dismissed. The NLRC reversed the ruling.
ISSUE: Were the petitioners validly dismissed?
HELD: Yes. The failure of the petitioners to report to
the management the irregularities constitute "fraud or
willful breach of the trust reposed in them by their
employer or duly authorized representative"--one of the
just causes of valid termination of employment. The
employer cannot be compelled to retain employees who
were guilty of malfeasance as their continued
employment will be prejudicial to the former's best
interest. The law, in protecting the rights of the
employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-
destruction of the employer.
The cause of social justice is not served by upholding
the interest of petitioners in disregard of the right of
private respondents. Social justice ceases to be an
effective instrument for the equalization of the social
and economic forces by the State when it is used to
shield wrongdoing. While it is true that compassion and
human consideration should guide the disposition of
cases involving termination of employment since it
affects ones source or means of livelihood, it should not
be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do
not include compelling an employer to retain the
services of an employee who has been shown to be a
gross liability to the employer. It should be made clear
that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of
labor, it is but a recognition of the inherent economic
inequality between labor and management. The intent
is to balance the scale of justice; to put up the two
parties on relatively equal positions. There may be
cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor
over the interests of management but never should the
scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the
employer, Justicia remini regarda est (Justice is to be
denied to none

Gandara vs. NLRC
Facts: The private respondent Silvestre Germano failed
to report from February 6 – 11, 1995 because her wife
gave birth on February 12, 1995. Two weeks after
private respondent returned to duty, and to his
surprise, he was met by his employer to personally tell
him that someone had been hired to take his place. He
was advised, however, that he was to be re-admitted in
June 1996. A case of illegal dismissal was commenced
by the private respondent with the Department of
Labor and Employment. The Labor Arbiter ordered the
petitioner to pay separation pay, backwages, SLIP and
attorney’s fees. The NLRC dismissed the appeal due to
failure to post cash or surety bond.
Issue: WON the private respondent was illegally
dismissed
Ruling: Yes, it appears decisively clear that private
respondent Silvestre Germano was illegally dismissed.
While a prolonged absence without leave may
constitute as a just cause of dismissal, its illegality
stems from the non-observance of due process.
The Labor Code explicitly provides, that :
No preventive suspension shall last longer than
thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate
the worker to his former or substantially equivalent
position or the employer may extend the period of
suspension provided that during the period of
extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to
the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound
to reimburse the amount paid to him during the
extension if the employer decides after completion of
the hearing to dismiss the worker
In this case, the supposed suspension was expected
to last for more than the period allowed by law, thus
making the suspension constitutive of an illegal
dismissal
PAL v. NLRC
G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993
Facts: PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of
Discipline. The Code was circulated among the
employees and was immediately implemented, and
some employees were forthwith subjected to
the disciplinary measures embodied therein.
The Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA)
filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). PALEA contended that PAL, by its
unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of
unfair labor practice, specifically Paragraphs E and G
of Article 249 and Article 253 of the Labor Code.
PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been
circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in
nature the Code must conform with the requirements of
sufficient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary,
oppressive, and prejudicial to the rights of the
employees.
It prayed that implementation of the Code be held
in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the substance of
the Code with PALEA; that employees dismissed under
the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to
further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of
unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages
PAL asserted its prerogative as an employer to prescibe
rules and regulations regarding employess' conduct in
carrying out their duties and functions, and alleging
that by implementing the Code, it had not violated the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or any provision
of the Labor Code. Assailing the complaint supported
by evidence, PAL maintained that Article 253 of the
Labor Code cited by PALEA reffered to the
requirements for negotiating a CBA which was
inapplicable as indeed the current CBA had
been negotiated.
Issue: W/N the formulation of a Code of Discipline
among employees is a shared responsibility of the
employer and the employees.
Ruling: Petitioner's assertion that it needed the
implementation of a new Code of Discipline considering
the nature of its business cannot be overemphasized. In
fact, its being a local monopoly in the business
demands the most stringent of measures to attain safe
travel for its patrons. Nonetheless, whatever
disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly
implemented in the absence of full cooperation of the
employees. Such cooperation cannot be attained if
the employees are restive on account, of their being left
out in the determination of cardinal and fundamental
matters affecting their employment.
Fuentes vs NLRC
Facts: Petitioners were regular employees of private
respondent Agusan Plantations, Inc., which was
engaged in the operation of a palm tree plantation in
Trento, Agusan del Sur, since September 1982.
Claiming that it was suffering business losses which
resulted in the decision of the head office in Singapore
to undertake retrenchment measures, private
respondent sent notices of termination to petitioners
and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
On 31 October 1990 petitioners filed with the DOLE
office in Cagayan de Oro City a complaint for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages
and damages against private respondent Agusan
Plantation, Inc., and/or Chang Chee Kong.The Labor
Arbiter ruled favour to the petitioner. Unfortunately,
the NLRC reversed the decision.
Issue: WON there is a valid retrenchment
Ruling;
NO, Under Art. 283 therefore retrenchment may be
valid only when the following requisites are met: (a) it
is to prevent losses; (b) written notices were served on
the workers and the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month before the
effective date of retrenchment; and, (c) separation pay
is paid to the affected workers.
The closure of a business establishment is a ground for
the termination of the services of an employee unless
the closing is for the purpose of circumventing
pertinent provisions of the Labor Code. But while
business reverses can be a just cause for terminating
employees, they must be sufficiently proved by the
employer
On 31 October 1990 petitioners filed with the DOLE
office in Cagayan de Oro City a complaint for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages
and damages against private respondent Agusan
Plantation, Inc., and/or Chang Chee Kong
As regards the requirement of notices of termination to
the employees, private respondents failed to comply
with this requisite. The earliest possible date of
termination should be 12 October 1990 or one (1)
month after notice was sent to DOLE unless the notice
of termination was sent to the workers later than the
notice to DOLE on 12 September 1990, in which case,
the date of termination should be at least one (1) month
from the date of notice to the workers. Petitioners were
terminated less than a month after notice was sent to
DOLE and to each of the workers.
The State is bound under the Constitution to afford full
protection to labor and when conflicting interests of
labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of
social justice the heavier influence of the latter should
be counterbalanced with the sympathy and compassion
the law accords the less privileged worker. This is only
fair if the worker is to be given the opportunity and the
right to assert and defend his/her cause not as a
subordinate but as part of management with which
he/she can negotiate on even plane. Thus labor is not a
mere employee of capital but its active and equal
partner.
PLDT vs. NLRC
Facts: Private respondent Lettie Corpuz was employed
as traffic operator at the Manila International Traffic
Division (MITD) by the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT) for ten years and nine
months, from September 19, 1978, until her dismissal
on June 17, 1989.Her primary task was to facilitate
requests for incoming and outgoing international calls
through the use of a digital switchboard.
On July 26, 1988, MITD Manager Erlinda Kabigting
directed respondent to explain her alleged infraction,
that is, facilitating 34 calls using the disconnected
number. Instead of tendering the required explanation,
respondent requested a formal investigation to allow
her to confront the witnesses and rebut the proofs that
may be brought against her. On grounds of serious
misconduct and breach of trust, the Legal Department
recommended her dismissal. In a letter dated June 16,
1989, respondent was terminated from employment
effective the following day.
The Labor Arbiter ruled for the reinstatement of the
private respondent and payment of backwages. The
NLRC affirmed the decision.
Issue: WON the private respondent was illegally
dismissed.
Ruling: Yes, while the power to dismiss is a normal
prerogative of the employer, the same is not without
limitations. The right of an employer to freely discharge
his employees is subject to regulation by the State,
basically through the exercise of its police power. This
is so because the preservation of the lives of citizens is
a basic duty of the State, an obligation more vital than
the preservation of corporate profits.
Petitioner insists that respondent was guilty of
defrauding them when she serviced 56 of the 439 calls
coming from telephone number 98-68-16 and received
numerous requests for overseas calls virtually from the
same calling number, which could not have been a
mere coincidence but most likely was a pre-arranged
undertaking in connivance with certain subscribers.
The records show, however, that the subject phone
calls were neither unusual nor coincidental as other
operators shared similar experiences. A certain Eric
Maramba declared that it is not impossible for an
operator to receive continuous calls from the same
telephone number. He testified that at one time, he was
a witness to several calls consistently effected from
9:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. The calls having passed the
verification tone system, the incident was undoubtedly
alarming enough but there was no way that he or his
co-operators could explain the same.
It should be borne in mind that in termination
cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that
the dismissal is for just cause failing which would mean
that the dismissal is not justified and the employee is
entitled to reinstatement. In the instant case, the
petitioner failed to convincingly establish valid bases
on the alleged serious misconduct and loss of trust and
confidence.

In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Codes

provisions and its implementing regulations, the
working man’s welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation
gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in
Article 4 of the Labor Code, as amended, which states
that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of the Labor Code including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in
favor of labor as well as the Constitutional mandate
that the State shall afford full protection to labor and
promote full employment opportunities for
all. Likewise, it shall guarantee the rights of all workers
to security of tenure. Such constitutional right should
not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and
nebulous basis