G.R. No. 187122. February 22, 2012.

*
NEGROS SLASHERS, INC., RODOLFO C. ALVAREZ AND
VICENTE TAN, petitioners, vs. ALVIN L. TENG,
respondent.

Remedial Law; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Rules of

procedure are strictly enforced by courts in order to impart stability
in the legal system.Ordinarily, rules of procedure are strictly
enforced by courts in order to impart stability in the legal system.
However, in not a few instances, we relaxed the rigid application of
the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully
ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time
honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all
the parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. In that
way, the ends of justice would be better served. For indeed, the
general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of
justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in
mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the
administration of justice.
Same; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; Elements of Forum
Shopping.For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a)
there be identity of parties or at least such parties that represent
the same interests in both actions; (b) there be identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in one action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other action.
Petitioners are correct as to the first two requisites of forum
shopping. First, there is identity of parties involved: Negros
Slashers Inc. and respondent

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

Teng. Second, there is identity of rights asserted i.e., the right of

management to terminate employment and the right of an
employee against illegal termination. However, the third requisite
of forum shopping is missing in this case. Any judgment or ruling of
the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA will not amount to res
judicata.
Same; Same; Res Judicata, Defined; Words and Phrases; Res
Judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted
upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.As defined
in Agustin v. Delos Santos, 576 SCRA 576 (2009), Res Judicata is
defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or
decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. According to
the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court
of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its
jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies,
in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial
tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in
issue in the first suit. To state simply, a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the
rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points
and matters determined in the former suit. (Emphasis supplied.)
To clarify, res judicata is defined in jurisprudence as to have four
basic elements: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must
be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4)
there must be as between the first and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Management
Prerogative; While the employer has the inherent right to discipline,
including that of dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject
to the regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.As
an employee of the Negros Slashers, Teng was expected to report for
work regularly. Missing a team game is indeed a punishable
offense. Untying of shoelaces when the game is not yet finished is
also irresponsible and unprofessional. However, we agree with the
Labor Arbiter that such isolated foolishness of an employee does not
justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioners
could have opted to impose a fine or suspension on Teng for his
unacceptable
 631

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 631

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

conduct. Other forms of disciplinary action could also have been

taken after the incident to impart on the team that such misconduct
will not be tolerated. In Sagales v. Rustans Commercial
Corporation, 572 SCRA 89 (2008), this Court ruled: Truly, while the
employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of
dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject to the
regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. In this
regard, it is a hornbook doctrine that infractions committed by
an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty
demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be
commensurate with the act, conduct or omission imputed to
the employee and must be imposed in connection with the
disciplinary authority of the employer. (Emphasis in the
original.) In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by the
petitioners was the ultimate penalty of dismissal. There was no
warning or admonition for respondents violation of team rules, only
outright termination of his services for an act which could have
been punished appropriately with a severe reprimand or
suspension.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Roberto C. Leong for petitioners.
Ambray, Castillo Law Firm for respondent.

VILLARAMA, JR.,J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing
the Decision1 dated September 17, 2008 and Resolution2
dated February 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 00817. The appellate court had reversed
and set aside the

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 87-99. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta
with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Edgardo L. Delos
Santos concurring.
2 Id., at p. 100.
 632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

September 10, 2004 Decision3 and March 21, 2005

Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) and reinstated with modification the Decision5 of
the Labor Arbiter finding respondent to have been illegally
dismissed.
The facts are undisputed.
Respondent Alvin Teng is a professional basketball
player who started his career as such in the Philippine
Basketball Association and then later on played in the
Metropolitan Basketball Association (MBA).
On February 4, 1999, Teng signed a 3-year
contract6 (which included a side contract and agreement for
additional benefits and bonuses) with the Laguna Lakers.
Before the expiration of his contract with the Laguna
Lakers on December 31, 2001, the Lakers traded and/or
transferred Teng to petitioner Negros Slashers, with the
latter assuming the obligations of Laguna Lakers under
Tengs unexpired contract, including the monthly salary
of P250,000, P50,000 of which remained to be the
obligation of the Laguna Lakers. On March 28, 2000, the
management of the Laguna Lakers formally informed Teng
of his transfer to the Negros Slashers.7 Teng executed with
the Negros Slashers the Players Contract of Employment.8
On Game Number 4 of the MBA Championship Round
for the year 2000 season, Teng had a below-par playing
performance. Because of this, the coaching staff decided to
pull him out of the game. Teng then sat on the bench,
untied his shoelaces and donned his practice jersey. On the
following game, Game Number 5 of the Championship
Round, Teng called-in sick and did not play.

_______________
3 Id., at pp. 70-79.
4 Id., at pp. 80-81.
5 Id., at pp. 54-69.
6 CA Rollo, pp. 53-55.
7 Id., at p. 56.
8 Id., at pp. 96-99.
 633

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 633

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

On November 21, 2000, Vicente Tan, Finance Head of

Negros Slashers, wrote9 Teng requiring him to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him for his precipitated absence during the crucial Game 5
of the National Championship Round. He was further
informed that a formal investigation would be conducted on
November 28, 2000. The hearing, however, did not push
through because Teng was absent on the said scheduled
investigation. Hearing was rescheduled for December 11,
2000. On said date, the investigation proceeded, attended
by Tengs representatives, Atty. Arsenio Yulo and Atty. Jose
Aspiras.10 A subsequent meeting was also conducted
attended by the management, coaching staff and players of
the Negros Slashers team, wherein the team members and
coaching staff unanimously expressed their sentiments
against Teng and their opposition against the possibility of
Teng joining back the team.11
On March 16, 2001, the management of Negros
Slashers came up with a decision, and through its General
Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Alvarez, wrote12 Teng
informing him of his termination from the team.
On July 28, 2001, Teng filed a complaint before the
Office of the Commissioner of the MBA pursuant to the
provision of the Uniform Players Contract which the
parties had executed. Subsequently, on November 6, 2001,
Teng also filed an illegal dismissal case with the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. VI of the NLRC.13
On July 16, 2002, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision
finding Tengs dismissal illegal and ordering petitioner
Negros Slashers, Inc. to pay Teng P2,530,000 representing
his unpaid salaries, separation pay and attorneys fees. The
Labor Arbi-

_______________
9 Id., at p. 101.
10 Id., at pp. 104-109.
11 Id., at pp. 108-112.
12 Id., at pp. 60-61.
13 Rollo, pp. 45-46, 89; CA Rollo, p. 186.
 634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

ter ruled that the penalty of dismissal was not justified

since the grounds relied upon by petitioners did not
constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience or
insubordination that would call for the extreme penalty of
dismissal from service. The dispositive portion of the Labor
Arbiters decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant illegal and
respondents Negros Slashers, Inc. are hereby ordered
to PAY complainant the total sum of TWO MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND (P2,530,000.00)
PESOS representing complainants unpaid salaries, separation pay
and attorneys fee, the award to be deposited with this Office within
ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.
All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14

The case was then appealed to the NLRC. On September

10, 2004, the NLRC issued a Decision setting aside the
July 16, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and entering a
new one dismissing the complaint for being premature
since the arbitration proceedings before the Commissioner
of the MBA were still pending when Teng filed his
complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of
the NLRC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the

Executive Labor Arbiter a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. A new one is entered, dismissing the instant case for being
premature.
SO ORDERED.15

Teng filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was

denied for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary
period pro-

_______________
14 Id., at pp. 68-69.
15 Id., at p. 78.
 635

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 635

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

vided for in Section 15,16 Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of

Procedure.
Aggrieved, Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA assailing the NLRC Decision dated September 10,
2004 and the Resolution dated March 21, 2005 denying his
motion for reconsideration.
On September 17, 2008 the CA rendered the assailed
Decision setting aside the September 10, 2004 Decision and
March 21, 2005 Resolution of the NLRC and reinstating
with modification the Labor Arbiters Decision.
The CA reinstated the findings of the Labor Arbiter that
Teng was illegally dismissed because the grounds relied
upon by petitioners were not enough to merit the supreme
penalty of dismissal. The CA held that there was no serious
misconduct or willful disobedience or insubordination on
Tengs part. On the issue of jurisdiction, the CA ruled that
the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case
notwithstanding the pendency of arbitration proceedings in
the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA.
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the above ruling,
but their motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution17
dated February 11, 2009.
Petitioners now come to this Court assailing the
Decision dated September 17, 2008 and Resolution
dated February 11, 2009 of the CA.

_______________
16 Section15.Motions for Reconsideration.Motion for
reconsideration of any decision/resolution/order of the Commission shall
not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent errors,
provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar
days from receipt of decision/resolution/order, with proof of service that a
copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the
adverse party, and provided further, that only one such motion from the
same party shall be entertained.
xxxx
17 Rollo, pp. 100-102.

636
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

Firstly, petitioners argue that respondent Teng and his

counsel committed a blatant violation of the rule against
forum shopping. Petitioners aver that on July 28, 2001,
Teng filed a complaint before the MBA pursuant to the
voluntary arbitration provision of the Uniform Players
Contract he executed with Negros Slashers, Inc. During the
pendency of said complaint, Teng filed another complaint
for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. It is petitioners
position that Teng lied by certifying under oath that there
is no similar case pending between him and Negros
Slashers, Inc., when in fact, months before he had filed a
complaint with the MBA alleging the same factual
antecedents and raising the same issues.
Secondly, petitioners argue that the CA erred in ruling
that Tengs offenses were just minor lapses and
irresponsible action not warranting the harsh penalty of
dismissal. Petitioners allege that the CA paid scant
attention to two very important pieces of evidence which
would clearly show the gravity and seriousness of the
offenses committed by Teng. Petitioners claim that these
two documents, i.e., the minutes of the meeting18 of
players, management, and coordinating staff, and a
petition19 by the players to the management not to allow
Teng to come back to the team, would show that Teng
should not have been treated as an ordinary working man
who merely absented himself by feigning sickness when
called upon to work. Petitioners argue that the nature of
the work and team atmosphere should have been
considered and given credence. By neglecting these two
documents, the CA failed to appreciate the gravity of the
misconduct committed by Teng and the effects it had on the
basketball organization.
Petitioners also argue that respondents petition for
certiorari with the CA should have been dismissed outright
because it was filed beyond the reglementary
period. Petitioners point

_______________
18 CA Rollo, pp. 108-112.
19 Id., at p. 113.

637
 VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 637
Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

out that Teng received the NLRC Decision on October 15,

2004 and therefore had ten days20 or until October 25, 2004
within which to file a motion for reconsideration. But he
filed his motion for reconsideration only on October 26,
2004 and said motion was denied21 on March 21, 2005 for
being filed late. Thereafter he filed his petition for
certiorari22 with the CA on June 20, 2005. Petitioners
contend that the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the
period allowed by the Rules of Court because the 60-day
period to file the petition for certiorari should have started
to run from the receipt of the NLRC decision on October 15,
2004. And it should have expired on December 14,
2004 because it was as if no motion for reconsideration was
filed in the NLRC. Further, petitioners argue that the CA
could not take cognizance of the case because it is a settled
rule that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie
unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the
NLRC to allow it an opportunity to correct its errors. In
this case, since the motion for reconsideration was filed
late, it should have been treated as if no motion for
reconsideration was filed.
Teng, on the other hand, maintains that there is no
violation of the rule against forum shopping. He submits
that he indeed filed his complaint before the MBA as early
as July 28, 2001. Unfortunately, for more than three
months, the supposed voluntary arbitration failed to yield
any result until the MBA itself was dissolved. It was only
on November 2001, after exhausting the arbitration
process, did he file his complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
In other words, it was only after the MBA failed to come up
with a resolution on the matter did he opt to seek legal
redress elsewhere.

_______________
20 Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, supra note
15.
21 Rollo, p. 80.
22 CA Rollo, pp. 2-20.

638
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

On the merits, Teng relies on the reasoning of the Labor

Arbiter in finding that his alleged lapses and misconduct
were too minor to justify the extreme penalty of dismissal
from service. In large part, he quotes the Labor Arbiters
decision, and emphasizes the Labor Arbiters statements
that (1) loosening of the shoe laces and the donning of the
practice jersey are not indicative of serious misconduct that
would justify dismissal from employment; (2) it cannot be
concluded that he merely feigned sickness when he
informed the Coach of his inability to play during Game
No. 5; and (3) there is no showing of any bad faith or ill
motive on his part that would qualify his actions as serious,
severe and grave as to warrant termination from service.
Teng also argues that the CA aptly clarified and
explained the legal reason why the petition for certiorari
was given due course despite some procedural lapses
regarding the motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
Teng stresses that jurisprudence allows the relaxation of
procedural rules even of the most mandatory character in
the interest of substantial justice. In this particular case,
justice and equity calls for the relaxation of the
reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration
as well as the rule prohibiting the filing of a petition for
certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration.
Simply put, the basic issues for our resolution are as
follows: (1) whether the CA erred in giving due course to
respondent Tengs petition for certiorari despite its late
filing; (2) whether Teng violated the rule on forum shopping
when he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC while a similar
complaint was pending in the Office of the Commissioner of
the MBA; and (3) whether the CA erred in ruling that
Tengs dismissal from the Negros Slashers Team was
unjustified and too harsh considering his misconduct.
The petition is bereft of merit.

639

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 639

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng
 On the first issue raised by petitioners, we rule that the
CA did not commit a reversible error in giving due course to
Tengs petition for certiorari although said petition was
filed late. Ordinarily, rules of procedure are strictly
enforced by courts in order to impart stability in the legal
system. However, in not a few instances, we relaxed the
rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the
parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. This is in line with the time honored principle that
cases should be decided only after giving all the parties the
chance to argue their causes and defenses. In that way, the
ends of justice would be better served. For indeed, the
general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application
of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing
always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to
promote the administration of justice.23 In Ong Lim Sing,
Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,24 we ruled:

Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even

the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both
the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties right to
due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal
construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of
substantial justice and equity. x x x

Indeed the prevailing trend is to accord party litigants

the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of their causes, free from the constraints of
needless technicalities.
Here, besides the fact that a denial of the recourse to the
CA would serve more to perpetuate an injustice and
violation

_______________
23 Republic Cement Corporation v. Guinmapang, G.R. No. 168910,
August 24, 2009, 596 SCRA 688, 695.
24 G.R. No. 168115, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 333, 343, citing Barnes v.
Padilla, G.R. No. 160753, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 533, 539.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

of Tengs rights under our labor laws, we find that as

correctly held by the CA, no intent to delay the
administration of justice could be attributed to Teng. The
CA therefore did not commit reversible error in excusing
Tengs one-day delay in filing his motion for reconsideration
and in giving due course to his petition for certiorari.
As regards the second issue, we likewise find no merit in
petitioners claim that respondents act of filing a complaint
with the Labor Arbiter while the same case was pending
with the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA constituted
forum shopping.
For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a)
there be identity of parties or at least such parties that
represent the same interests in both actions; (b) there be
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the
two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in one action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other action.25
Petitioners are correct as to the first two requisites of
forum shopping. First, there is identity of parties involved:
Negros Slashers Inc. and respondent Teng. Second, there is
identity of rights asserted i.e., the right of management to
terminate employment and the right of an employee
against illegal termination. However, the third requisite of
forum shopping is missing in this case. Any judgment or
ruling of the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA
will not amount to res judicata. As defined in Agustin v.
Delos Santos,26

_______________
25 Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 142286-87, April 15,
2005, 456 SCRA 224, 243, citing Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
125359, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 334, 345.
26 G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 576, 585,
citing Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation,
G.R. No. 129788, December 3, 2002, 393 SCRA 278, 285-286, quoting
Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1968) 1470, Philippine National

641

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 641

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

Res Judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing

judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled
by judgment. According to the doctrine of res judicata, an existing
final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud
or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any
matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or
any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points
and matters in issue in the first suit. To state simply, a final
judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies
in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former
suit. (Emphasis supplied.)

To clarify, res judicata is defined in jurisprudence as to

have four basic elements: (1) the judgment sought to bar
the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the
case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must
be as between the first and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.27
Here, although contractually authorized to settle
disputes, the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA is not
a court of competent jurisdiction as contemplated by law
with respect to the application of the doctrine of res
judicata. At best, the Office of the Commissioner of the
MBA is a private mediator or go-between as agreed upon by
team management and a player in the MBA Players
Contract of Employment.28 Any judgment that the Office of
the Commissioner of the MBA

_______________
Bank v. Barreto, 52 Phil. 818, 823-824 (1929), Taganas v. Emuslan,
G.R. No. 146980, September 2, 2003, 410 SCRA 237, 241-242.
27 Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 50, 57-58,
citing Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, id.,
at p. 287.
28 Rollo, p. 47.

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng
may render will not result in a bar for seeking redress in
other legal venues. Hence, respondents action of filing the
same complaint in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC does not constitute forum shopping.
On the third issue, we find that the penalty of dismissal
handed out against Teng was indeed too harsh.
We understand petitioners in asserting that a basketball
organization is a team-based enterprise and that a
harmonious working relationship among team players is
essential to the success of the organization. We also take
into account the petition of the other team members voicing
out their desire to continue with the team without Teng.
We note likewise the sentiments of the players and
coaching staff during the meeting of February 4,
2001 stating how they felt when Teng abandoned them
during a crucial Game Number 5 in the MBA championship
round.
Petitioners rely heavily on the alleged effects of Tengs
actions on the rest of the team. However, such reaction
from team members is expected after losing a game,
especially a championship game. It is also not unlikely that
the team members looked for someone to blame after they
lost the championship games and that Teng happened to be
the closest target of the teams frustration and
disappointment. But all these sentiments and emotions
from Negros Slashers players and staff must not blur the
eyes of the Court from objectively assessing Tengs
infraction in order to determine whether the same
constitutes just ground for dismissal. The incident in
question should be clear: Teng had a below-par
performance during Game Number 4 for which he was
pulled out from the game, and then he untied his shoelaces
and donned his practice jersey. In Game Number 5, he did
not play.
As an employee of the Negros Slashers, Teng was
expected to report for work regularly. Missing a team game
is indeed a punishable offense. Untying of shoelaces when
the game is not yet finished is also irresponsible and
unprofessional.

643

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 643

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng
However, we agree with the Labor Arbiter that such
isolated foolishness of an employee does not justify the
extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioners could
have opted to impose a fine or suspension on Teng for his
unacceptable conduct. Other forms of disciplinary action
could also have been taken after the incident to impart on
the team that such misconduct will not be tolerated.
In Sagales v. Rustans Commercial Corporation,29 this
Court ruled:

Truly, while the employer has the inherent right to discipline,

including that of dismissing its employees, this prerogative is
subject to the regulation by the State in the exercise of its police
power.
In this regard, it is a hornbook doctrine that infractions
committed by an employee should merit only the
corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The
penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and must be imposed in
connection with the disciplinary authority of the
employer. (Emphasis in the original.)

In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by the

petitioners was the ultimate penalty of dismissal. There
was no warning or admonition for respondents violation of
team rules, only outright termination of his services for an
act which could have been punished appropriately with a
severe reprimand or suspension.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated September 17, 2008 and Resolution dated

_______________
29 G.R. No. 166554, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 89, 104,
citing Manila Trading and Supply Co. v. Zulueta, 69 Phil. 485, 486
(1940), Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) v. National Labor
Relations Commission (Third Division), G.R. No. 102993, July 14, 1995,
246 SCRA 271, 279; Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 102958, June 25, 1993, 223 SCRA 656, 667.

644

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng
 February 11, 2009, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00817 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Perlas-Bernabe,** JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.It is acknowledged that an employer has free

rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all
aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill
discipline on his employees and to impose penalties,
including dismissal, if warranted, upon erring employees.
(Caong, Jr. vs. Regualos, 640 SCRA 597 [2011]).
The managements prerogative of transferring and
reassigning employees from one area of operation to
another in order to meet the requirements of the business
is generally not constitutive of constructive dismissal.
(Bello vs. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc., 655 SCRA 143.
[2011].)
o0o

_______________
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1203
dated February 17, 2012.

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.