Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SECOND DIVISION
GLOBAL INCORPORATED,
Petitioner,
-versus-
On November 11, 1976 Global Inc. filed with the Department of Labor,
Regional Office No. 4, an application for clearance to terminate the
services of Clarita Rosal, for having violated company rules and
regulations by incurring repeated absences and tardiness. (Case No.
T-IV-11-7480-76) The subject employee was placed under preventive
suspension on November 16, 1976 pending resolution of the
application for clearance.
chanroblespublishingcompany
On May 31, 1978, the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads
chanroblespublishingcompany
SO ORDERED.
Respondent Commissioner Cleto T. Villatuya voted to affirm the
Labor Arbiters decision.
chanroblespublishingcompany
In the Resolution of this Court dated Oct. 17, 1979 respondents were
required to file their comment within ten (10) days from notice. In the
same resolution, a temporary restraining order was issued enjoining
the respondents from enforcing and or carrying out the assailed
decision.
chanroblespublishingcompany
In the subsequent Resolution dated March 21, 1980 this Court, acting
on the Petition as well as the respondents Comments and petitioners
Reply to the said Comments resolved to give due course to the
petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda,
after which the case was deemed submitted for decision.
chanroblespublishingcompany
Petitioner takes issue with the ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission granting backwages and overtime pay in favor of private
respondent Clarita Rosal. Thus, it argues that if both the Labor
Arbiter who tried the case and the National Labor Relations
Commission which reviewed the same, found the grounds of
absenteeism and tardiness as valid and just causes to terminate the
employment of Clarita Rosal, the inevitable conclusion is that the
preventive suspension on the same grounds is likewise just and valid.
If the suspension is just and valid, she is not entitled to backwages.
(Be it noted that under the Rules of the Ministry, an employee placed
unjustly under preventive suspension is entitled to be paid her wages,
even if she does not work during said period). On the issue of
overtime pay, it is the contention of petitioner that the grant of
overtime pay in favor of Clarita Rosal at the rate of one hour everyday
starting Nov. 1, 1974 to Nov. 16, 1976 is not justified as there is
nothing in the record except her bare allegations which would show
that she truly and actually rendered said overtime work. Besides it is
Note that the only ground for the imposition of preventive suspension
is provided for under Sec. 4, Rule XIV of the Implementing
Regulations of the Ministry of Labor which reads
chanroblespublishingcompany
SEC. 4.
Preventive suspension. The employer may place the
employee concerned under preventive suspension only if the
continued employment of the employee poses a serious and
imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the
co-employees. Any preventive suspension before the filing of
the application shall be considered worked days, and shall be
duly paid as such if the continued presence of the employee
concerned does not pose a serious threat to the life and property
of the employer or of the co-employees.
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany