Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
6. Mirant Phils. vs Caro GR No. 181490 April 23, 2014
Serious Misconduct
FACTS:
Petitioner corporation is organized and operating under
and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines.
It is a holding company that owns shares in project
companies such as Mirant Sual Corporation and Mirant
Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant Pagbilao) which operate and
maintain power stations located in Sual, Pangasinan and
Pagbilao, Quezon, respectively. Petitioner corporation and
its related companies maintain around 2,000 employees
detailed in its main office and other sites. Petitioner
corporation had changed its name to CEPA Operations in
1996 and to Southern Company in 2001. In 2002, Southern
Company was sold to petitioner Mirant whose corporate
parent is an Atlanta-based power producer in the United
States of America. Petitioner corporation is now known as
Team Energy Corporation.
Petitioner Edgardo A. Bautista (Bautista) was the President
of petitioner corporation when respondent was terminated
from employment.
Respondent was hired by Mirant Pagbilao on January 3,
1994 as its Logistics Officer. In 2002, when Southern
Company was sold to Mirant, respondent was already a
Supervisor of the Logistics and Purchasing Department of
petitioner. At the time of the severance of his employment,
respondent was the Procurement Supervisor of Mirant
Pagbilao assigned at petitioner corporations corporate
office. As Procurement Supervisor, his main task was to
serve as the link between the Materials Management
Department of petitioner corporation and its staff, and the
suppliers and service contractors in order to ensure that
procurement is carried out in conformity with set policies,
procedures and practices. In addition, respondent was put
in charge of ensuring the timely, economical, safe and
expeditious delivery of materials at the right quality and
quantity to petitioner corporations plant. Respondent was
also responsible for guiding and overseeing the welfare and
training needs of the staff of the Materials Management
Department. Due to the nature of respondents functions,
petitioner corporation considers his position as
confidential.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
money claims for 13th and 14th month pay, bonuses and
other benefits, as well as the payment of moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees. It is the contention
of respondent that he was illegally dismissed by petitioner
corporation due to the latters non-compliance with the
twin requirements of notice and hearing. He asserts that
while there was a notice charging him of unjustified refusal
to submit to random drug testing, there was no notice of
hearing and petitioner corporations investigation was not
the equivalent of the hearing required under the law which
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
should have accorded respondent the opportunity to be
heard.
In a decision dated August 31, 2005, Labor Arbiter Aliman
D. Mangandog found respondent to have been illegally
dismissed. The Labor Arbiter also found that the quitclaim
purportedly executed by respondent was not a bona fide
quitclaim which effectively discharged petitioners of all the
claims of respondent in the case at bar. If at all, the Labor
Arbiter considered the execution of the quitclaim as a clear
attempt on the part of petitioners to mislead its office into
thinking that respondent no longer had any cause of action
against petitioner corporation.
On appeal to the NLRC, petitioners alleged that the decision
of the Labor Arbiter was rendered with grave abuse of
discretion for being contrary to law, rules and established
jurisprudence, and contained serious errors in the findings
of facts which, if not corrected, would cause grave and
irreparable damage or injury to petitioners. The NLRC,
giving weight and emphasis to the inconsistencies in
respondents explanations, considered his omission as
unjustified refusal in violation of petitioner corporations
drug policy. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,
while petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration
of the NLRC decision. In a Resolution dated June 30, 2006,
the NLRC denied both motions.
ISSUE: Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
We agree with the disposition of the appellate court that
there was illegal dismissal in the case at bar.
While the adoption and enforcement by petitioner
corporation of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid
exercise of its management prerogative as an employer,
such exercise is not absolute and unbridled. Managerial
prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law,
collective bargaining agreements, and the general
principles of fair play and justice. In the exercise of its
management prerogative, an employer must therefore
ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-
related activities of the employees must always be fair and
reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when
prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to
the degree of the infraction. The Anti-Drugs Policy of
Mirant fell short of these requirements.
Petitioner corporations subject Anti-Drugs Policy fell short
of being fair and reasonable.
First. The policy was not clear on what constitutes
unjustified refusal when the subject drug policy prescribed
that an employees unjustified refusal to submit to a
random drug test shall be punishable by the penalty of
termination for the first offense. To be sure, the term
1|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
unjustified refusal could not possibly cover all forms of
refusal as the employees resistance, to be punishable by
termination, must be unjustified. To the mind of the Court,
it is on this area where petitioner corporation had fallen
short of making it clear to its employees as well as to
management as to what types of acts would fall under the
purview of unjustified refusal. Even petitioner corporations
own Investigating Panel recognized this ambiguity.
7. Definition and Elements – Aparece vs J Marketing Corp.
GR No. 174224 Oct. 17, 2008
FACTS:
Sometime in August 1997, while Aparece was
assigned in the Butuan City area, Aparece lost seven (7)
pages of the turn-over sheets and 230 ledger cards, which
was transmitted to him by Mr. Balingan, Credit Investigator
and Collector in the Butuan City area, before the turn-over
of area of collection. The loss was discovered by JMC when
it conducted the regular inventory of collections. Thus, on
25 August 1997, JMC issued a Memorandum warning
Aparece that a similar act of negligence will warrant his
termination from service.Aparece lost Official Receipts
bearing Nos. 519151D to 519200D during a field collection.
Said incident was reported to Mr. Roger Soyao, Executive
Vice President and General Manager of JMC. As a result,
Aparece was subjected to six (6) days suspension without
pay.
Aparece, for several occasions, reported late for
work and would leave the office without permission, in
violation of the company's rules and regulations. He was
again caught sleeping while on duty. JMC also observed
that Aparece on repeated occasions does not report to the
office before noonbreak. As a last straw to the test of JMC's
patience, Aparece's motorcycle unit was reported missing
after he left said motorcycle in front of the JMC Office.
Although the motorcycle was recovered, it was only after
earnest efforts to locate it were made. Thereafter, Aparece
was notified of the investigation report and consequent
termination of his services. Aparece filed a Complaint for
illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
YES. The conduct of petitioner during his
employment was short of the ideal. He was undoubtedly
negligent and careless with respect to his handling of
company property which resulted in the loss of the latter's
turn-over sheets, ledger cards, and official receipts.
Moreover, petitioner also committed a series of violations
of company policies. He had repeatedly failed to report for
work before noon; left the office without notice; slept while
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
on duty; and failed to report to the office after noon break.
Petitioner's conduct exhibited his nonchalance and
insolence; traits that have no place in a work setting.
8. Instances – Dishonesty / Deceit – The Peninsula Manila
vs Alipio GR No. 167310 June 17 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner, is a corporation engaged in the hotel business.
The hotel operates a clinic 24-hours a day and employs
three regular nurses who works eight hours each day on
separate shifts. The hotel also engages the services of
reliever nurses who substitute for the regular nurses who
are either off-duty or absent.
Respondent was hired merely as a reliever nurse. However,
she had been performing the usual tasks and functions of a
regular nurse since the start of her employment. Hence,
after about four years of employment in the hotel, she
inquired why she was not receiving her 13th month pay.
Santos, the general manager, directed Alipio not to report
for work anymore.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Alipio was illegally
dismissed.
RULING:
An employment is deemed regular when the activities
performed by the employee are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business. However, any employee
who has rendered at least one year of service, even though
intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity
performed and while such activity exists.
In this case, records show that Alipio’s services were
engaged by the hotel intermittently from 1993 to 1998. Her
services as a reliever nurse were necessary and desirable.
Therefore, she had become a regular employee as early as
1994.
Clearly, Alipio was illegally dismissed because petitioner
failed on both counts to comply with the twin-notice rule
for a valid termination.
9.Instances – Fighting / Assault on a Co-employee – Gatus
vs Quality House Inc. GR No. 156766 April 16, 2009
Petitioner is an assembler of respondent when the latter
placed the former under preventive suspension through a
notice on the ground that petitioner’s husband mauled
Echavez her supervisor.
2|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
The petitioner in her response explained that she was
experiencing difficulties in her work caused by her co-
employees including her supervisor due to her trade union
activities. The petitioner responded to the preventive
suspension by filing a complaint for illegal suspension and
damages against respondent. In a memorandum, the
respondent through Director Go, terminated the
petitioner’s employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.
RULING:
There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that
petitioner was dismissed for just cause. That petitioner’s
transgression merits the penalty of dismissal is fully
supported by our past rulings. It is at the very least a
serious misconduct of a grave and aggravated character
that directly violated the personal security of another
employee due to an employment-related cause. The
petitioner was not denied due process because the law only
requires ample opportunity to be heard which in this case
was given to the petitioner.
10. Instances – Offensive Utterances and Gestures –
Woodridge School vs Pe Benito GR 160240 Oct. 29, 2008
FACTS:
Woodridge School hired Joanne C. Pe Benito and Randy T.
Balaguer as probationary high school teachers.
Their contracts of employment covered a three (3) year
probationary period.
Respondents, together with twenty other teachers,
presented petitioner with a Manifesto Establishing Relevant
Issues Concerning the School.
Petitioner sent two separate Memoranda to respondents
placing them under preventive suspension for a period of
thirty days for maligning the school.
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
Petitioner issued respondents their Notice of Termination,
informing respondents that they did not qualify as regular
employees for their failure to meet the performance
standards made known to them at the start of their
probationary period.
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are regular employees?
HELD:
Respondents were not regular or permanent employees;
they had not yet completed three (3) years of satisfactory
service as academic personnel that would have entitled
them to tenure as permanent employees in accordance
with the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of
time, is being observed and evaluated to determine
whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment.
A probationary appointment affords the employer an
opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude
of a probationer. The word "probationary," as used to
describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of
the term or period. While the employer observes the
fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to
ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent
employment, the probationer at the same time seeks to
prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to
meet the reasonable standards for permanent
employment.
Petitioner failed to substantiate their claim by documentary
evidence. Considering that respondents were on probation
for three years, and they were subjected to yearly
evaluation by the students and by the school administrators
(principal and vice-principal), it is safe to assume that the
results thereof were definitely documented. As such,
petitioner should have presented the evaluation reports
and other related documents to support its claim, instead
of relying solely on the affidavits of their witnesses. The
unavoidable inference, therefore, remains that the
respondents’ dismissal is invalid.
11. Instances – Anomalous Transactions – PLDT vs Bolso
GR No. 159701 August 17, 2007
3|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
FACTS:
Petitioner PLDT claiming that it terminated in 1995 the
employment of several rank and file, supervisory and
executive employees dues to redundancy. In compliance
with labor law requirements, it paid those separated
employees separation pay and other benefits, and that as
employer and withholding agent, it deducted from the
separation pay withholding taxes which was remitted to
BIR.
Petitioner filed with BIR a claim of tax credit or refund
invoking sec. 28(b)(7)(B) of NIRC which excluded from gross
income any amount received by an official or employee or
by his heirs from the employer as a consequence of
separation of such official or employee from service of the
employer due to death, sickness or other physical ability or
for any cause beyond the control of the said official or
employer.
CTA denied PLDT claim on the ground that it failed to
sufficiently prove that the terminated employees received
separation pay and that taxes were withheld therefrom or
remitted to the BIR.
ISSUE: WON the withholding taxes, which petitioner
remitted to the BIR, should be refunded for having been
erroneously withheld and paid to the later?
HELD:
PLDT failed to establish that the redundant employees
actually received separation ay and it withheld taxes
therefrom and remitted the same to the BIR.
A taxpayer must do two (2) things to be able to be able to
successfully make a claim for the tax refund:
1. Declare the income payment it received as part of its
gross income.
2. Establish the fact of withholding.
On this score, the relevant revenue regulations provides as
follows:
Sec. 10. Claims for tax credit or refund - claims for tax credit
or refund of income tax deducted and withheld on income
payments shall be given due course only when it is shown
on the return that the income payment received was
declared as part of the gross income and the fact of
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
withholding is established by a copy of the statement duly
issued by the payer to the payee showing the amount paid
and the amount of tax withheld therefrom.
12. Instances – Extortion – Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp vs
Simon GR 164081 April 16, 2008
Facts:
Rolando Simon and Constatino Ajero were employees of
Mitsubishi and members of the Hourly Union. Simon was
designated as the Union Chairman of the Rice Subsidy Sub-
Committee and Ajero as the Vice-Chairman. Rodolfo Siena,
one of the accredited rice suppliers of petitioner
complained to the petitioner Mitsubishi that respondents
had extorted money from him in exchange for union
protection for his rice stores continued accreditation in the
rice subsidy program. In support of said allegation, Siena
executed a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” wherein he detailed
that he was approached by respondents who introduced
themselves as newly elected union officers, and demanded
that he pay the P50.00 per sack of rice given to petitioners
employees. Siena claimed that he was forced to give
respondents P3,000.00 after they threatened him that they
would no longer get him as a rice supplier. He was also
warned not to tell anyone about the incident.
Mitsubishi, through its Industrial Relations Department,
issued a Notice of Disciplinary Charge with Preventive
Suspension against respondents. Administrative hearings
were conducted, after which respondents were found guilty
of serious misconduct and breach of trust amounting to loss
of confidence, under Article 282(a) and (c) of the Labor
Code in relation to par. E(1) of the Company Rules and
Regulation for Commission of an Act which is considered a
crime under the Republic of the Philippines namely,
Swindling or Estafa (extortion) under Article 315(2)(a)
and/or Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of respondents on the
grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust
amounting to loss of confidence is proper.
Ruling:
Yes. Respondents acts constitute serious misconduct and
willful breach of trust reposed by the employer, which are
just causes for termination under the Labor Code. For
serious misconduct to exist, the act complained of should
be corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a
persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. On the other
hand, in loss of trust and confidence, it must be shown that
the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct
or infraction and that the nature of his participation therein
rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and
4|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
confidence demanded by his position. Respondents
demanded money from Siena, giving the impression that
they had the authority to cause the termination of his
contract should he not accommodate their demand. This
amounts to fraud and extortion, and possible estafa under
Art. 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Under SMC Rules, the
commission of an act which is considered a crime under the
Republic of the Philippines, committed against the
company or its employees is punishable by dismissal after
administrative conviction. By their acts, they have betrayed
not only SMC, but also their fellow union members who
elected them. They have prejudiced SMC's rice subsidy
program, and disrupted the efficient administration of the
services and benefits to their fellow employees. Without a
doubt, there is substantial evidence to support respondents
dismissal for cause.
13. Instances - Pilferage / Misappropriation of funds /
non-remittance of collected fees – Asian Terminals Inc vs
Sallao GR No. 166211 July 14, 2008
Facts:
Nepthally Sallao was employed as an electrician by
petitioner. On September 22, 1998, ATI, through Lt.
Leonardo M. Soriano, Detachment Commander of the Core
Security & Training Agency Corp., conducted an
investigation regarding the loss and sale of electric copper
wire cable. Lt. Soriano reported that Sallao admitted having
sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three
co-employees. His co-employees submitted their sworn
statements where they detailed how the aforecited
infraction was committed.
Sallao was directed to explain within 48hours his
participation in the aforecited infraction. In the meantime,
he was placed under preventive suspension. Sallao
submitted his written explanation wherein he denied the
allegation against him. He requested that an investigation
in the presence of his counsel be conducted and that he be
given copies of the sworn statements of his co-employees.
Lt. Soriano recommended that Sallao be penalized for
unauthorized disposition/sale of company property. On
October 20, 1998, ATI dismissed Sallao effective
immediately.
Issue:
Whether or not was validly dismissed for cause and with
due process.
Ruling:
Yes. The court, after reviewing the records of this case, are
in agrement that Sallao's dismissal was in accordance with
the law. Upon its discovery of the loss and sale of electric
copper wire cable, ATI conducted an initial investigation
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
through Lt. Soriano. In his memorandum, Soriano disclosed
that Sallao admitted his complicity in the incident. To
buttress ATI's initial finding, Sallao co-employees submitted
their respective sworn statements where they identified
him as the one responsible for the incident. When ATI
required Sallao to explain his alleged infarction, he merely
denied in general the allegations and requested for an
investigation in the presence of his counsel and for copies
of the sworn statements of his co-employees. Sallao never
squarely addressed Soriano's report that Sallao admitted
during the initial investigation that he sold the wire cable
and shared the proceeds with his co-employees. Even in the
pleadings submitted in this case, Sallao remained silent on
this point
The court are persuaded that Sallao indeed committed the
aforecited infraction. In effect, the sworn statements of his
co-employees merely corroborated his admission. Thus, no
need to delve into the probative value of the sworn
statements since his guilt has been proven by his own
admission.
14. Instances – Obstinate refusal to reform attitude –
Citibank vs NLRC GR No. 159302 Feb. 6, 2008
Principle:
When an employee, despite repeated warnings from the
employer, obstinately refuses to curtail a bellicose
inclination such that it erodes the morale of co-employees,
the same may be a ground for dismissal for serious
misconduct.
Facts:
Rosita Paragas was hired as secretary Citi Bank and
was assigned to various position. She was
employee of Citi Bank for around 18 yrs. Before
her dismissal, Rosita was assigned to file Universal
Account Opening Forms in file boxes and retrieving
such OAOF’s. thereafter she was assigned to
undertake the special project of reorganizing the
UAOF’s from December 1996 to 15 may 1997. AVP
NarcisoFerrera issued a two Memo’s to
complainant Rosita calling her attention on various
misfiling. AVP Ferrera directed complainant to
explain in writing why her employment should not
be terminated on the ground of serious
misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and
habitual neglect of her duties and gross
inefficiency. Correspondingly, complainant was
5|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
placed under Preventive suspension. Thereafter,
she was terminate on the ground of serious
misconduct willful disobedience, gross and
habitual neglect of her duties and gross
inefficiency.
In labor arbiter her dismissal on the ground of
work inefficiency was valid.
NLRC affirmed the decision of LA with modification
that respondent should paid separation pay as a
form of equitable relief in the view of her length
of service with petitioner.Respondent filed a
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION of the
NLRCResolution. She no longer challenged her
dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency, but
prayed that petitioner be ordered to pay her the
"Provident Fund" benefits under its retirement
plan for which she claimed to be qualified
pursuant to petitioner’s "Working Together"
Manual. NLRC GRANTED IT.
Issue:
WON THE RESPONDENT DISMISSAL IS VALID?
Ruling:
YES. The dismissal of respondent is valid.
When an employee, despite repeated warnings from the
employer, obstinately refuses to curtail a bellicose
inclination such that it erodes the morale of co-employees,
the same may be a ground for dismissal for serious
misconduct.
It is respondent’s obstinate refusal to reform herself which
ultimately persuades this Court to find that her dismissal on
the ground of serious misconduct was valid. Clearly, the
following statement of Jaime R. Paraiso, head of
petitioner’s Records Management Unit, quoted with
approval both by the labor arbiter and the NLRC, relates not
only to respondent’s inefficiency but also to her admittedly
tactless and insolent dealings with her superior.
Having been validly dismissed on the ground of serious
misconduct, respondent is thus disqualified from receiving
her retirement benefits pursuant to the provision of
petitioner’s "Working Together" Manual quoted earlier.
15. Instances – Drug Abuse- Bughaw vs Treasure Island
Ind. GR No. 173151 March 28, 2008
Facts:
petitioner was employed as production worker by
respondent. Respondent was receiving information that
many of its employees were using prohibited drugs during
working hours and within the company premises. One of its
employees, ErlitoLoberanes (Loberanes) was caught in
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
flagrante delicto by the police officers while in possession
of shabu. Loberanes was arrested and sent to jail. In the
course of police investigation, Loberanes admitted the
commission of the crime. He implicated petitioner in the
crime by claiming that part of the money used for buying
the illegal drugs was given by thelatter, and the illegal drugs
purchased were for their consumption for the rest of the
month.
Respondent Memo for Explanation to petitioner requiring
him to explain within 120 hours why no disciplinary action
should be imposed against him for his alleged involvement
in illegal drug activities. And was further directed to appear
at the office of respondent’s legal counsel.But.petitioner
failed to appear before the respondent’s legal counsel on
the scheduled hearing date and to explain his side on the
matter.Respondent, in a third letter1 addressed to
petitioner, terminated the latter’s employment retroactive
for using illegal drugs within company premises during
working hours, and for refusal to attend the administrative
hearing and submit written explanation on the charges
hurled against him.
petitioner filed a complaintfor illegal dismissal against
respondent
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both ruled that petitioner
was illegally dismissed from employment and ordered the
payment of his unpaid wages, backwages, and separation
pay, while the Court of Appeals found otherwise..
Issue: WON petitioner was illegally dismissed from
employment?
Ruling:
NO. The charge of drug abuse inside the company’s
premises and during working hours against petitioner
constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just
causes for termination.
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not merely an
error in judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the
meaning of the Act must be of such a grave and aggravated
character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless, in
connection with the work of the employee, constitute just
cause for his separation. Drug abuse can damage the
mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question therefore
that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot
possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious
threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even
his employer.
Loberanes’sstatements given to police during investigation
is evidence which can be considered by the respondent
6|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
against the petitioner. Petitioner failed to controvert
Loberanes’ claim that he too was using illegal drugs.
Records reveal that respondent gave petitioner a first
notice dated 11 June 2001, giving him 120 hours within
which to explain and defend himself from the charge
against him and to attend the administrative hearing
scheduled on 16 June 2001. There is no dispute that
petitioner received said notice as evidenced by his
signature appearing on the lower left portion of a copy
thereof together with the date and time of his receipt . He
also admitted receipt of the first notice in his Memorandum
before this Court.Despite his receipt of the notice, however,
petitioner did not submit any written explanation on the
charge against him, even after the lapse of the 120-day
period given him. Neither did petitioner appear in the
scheduled administrative hearing to personally present his
side. Thus, the respondent cannot be faulted for
considering only the evidence at hand, which was
Loberanes’ statement, and conclude therefrom that there
was just cause for petitioner’s termination.
16. Instances – Violation of Company Policy – McDonalds
vs Alba GR No. 156382 Dec. 18 2008
Willful Disobedience
MCDONALD’S (KATIPUNAN BRANCH) VS MA. DULCE ALBA
574 SCRA 427 (2008)
Violation of established rules and policies, to be
considered serious misconduct, should be performed with
wrongful intent.
Ma. Dulce Alba (Alba) was hired as part of the
service crew of McDonald’s Katipunan Branch. During the
orientation of newly hired employees, McDonald’s
provided Alba with a copy of the Crew Employee Handbook
on rules and regulations including its meal policies, which
state that an employee was not permitted to eat inside the
crew room while on duty, and that doing so would result in
summary dismissal.
Rizza Santiago (Santiago), another crew member,
reported to the store manager Kit Alvarez (Alvarez) that she
witnessed Alba eating inside the crew room during her
duty. McDonald’s thus suspended Alba for five days
because of the incident. When asked about it, Alba
explained that she did indeed ate inside the crew room but
that it was only because she was had a stomach ache due
to hunger. Nevertheless, McDonald’s found Alba guilty of
flouting company regulations and immediately terminated
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
her services. Alba thus lodged a complaint against
McDonald’s before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which dismissed it without prejudice.
Alba re-filed her complaint, and after submission
of the parties’ respective position papers and responsive
pleadings, Labor Arbiter Pablo Espiritu Jr. found in favor of
Alba, holding that while she violated the meal policy of
McDonald’s, dismissal was too harsh a penalty, and
suspension without pay would have sufficed. McDonald’s
appealed the finding of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC,
which denied the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the violation of the meal policy
amounts to serious or willful misconduct which would
justify dismissal.
HELD:
There is no dispute that Alba violated McDonald’s
meal policy. The only issue is whether such violation
amounts to or borders on “serious or willful” misconduct or
willful disobedience, as petitioners posit, to call for
respondent’s dismissal. By any measure, the Supreme Court
holds not.
With respect to serious misconduct, it is not
sufficient that the act or the conduct complained of must
have violated some established rules or policies. It must
have been performed with wrongful intent.
McDonald’s, on which the onus of proving lawful
cause in sustaining the dismissal of Alba lies, failed to prove
that her misconduct was induced by a perverse and
wrongful intent, they having merely anchored their claim
that she was on her knowledge of the meal policy.
While McDonald’s wields a wide latitude of
discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and
regulations on work-related activities of its employees,
these must, however, be fair and reasonable at all times,
and the corresponding sanctions for violations thereof,
when prescribed, must be commensurate thereto as well as
to the degree of the infraction.
Given Alba’s claim that she was having stomach
pains due to hunger, which is not implausible, the same
should have been properly taken into account in the
imposition of the appropriate penalty for violation of the
meal policy. McDonald’s suspension for five days sufficed.
With that penalty, the necessity of cautioning other
employees who may be wont to violate the same policy
was not compromised.
7|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
Moreover, McDonald’s likewise failed to prove any
resultant material damage or prejudice on their part as a
consequence of respondent’s questioned act. Their claim
that the act would cause “irremediable harm to the
company’s business” is too vague to merit consideration.
17. Instances - Abandonment - San Miguel Corp. vs
Pontillas GR No. 155178 May 7 2008
San Miguel Corporation vs. Angel Pontillas
G.R. No.155178. May 7, 2008
Facts:
On 24 October 1980, San Miguel Corporation
(petitioner) employed Angel C. Pontillas (respondent) as a
daily wage company guard. In 1984, respondent became a
monthly-paid employee which entitled him to yearly
increases in salary. On 19 October 1993, respondent filed
an action for recovery of damages due to discrimination
under Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
(Labor Code), as amended, as well as for recovery of salary
differential and backwages, against petitioner. Respondent
questioned the rate of salary increase given him by
petitioner.
On 6 December 1993, Ricardo F. Elizagaque (Elizagaque),
petitioner’s Vice President and VisMin Operations Center
Manager, issued a Memorandum ordering, among others,
the transfer of responsibility of the Oro Verde Warehouse
to the newly-organized VisMin Logistics Operations
effective 1 January 1994. Respondent continued to report
at Oro Verde Warehouse. He alleged that he was not
properly notified of the transfer and that he did not receive
any written order from Capt. Fortich, his immediate
superior.
In a letter dated 28 February 1994, petitioner informed
respondent that an administrative investigation.In a letter
dated 7 April 1994, petitioner informed respondent of its
decision to terminate him for violating company rules and
regulations, particularly for Insubordination or Willful
Disobedience in Carrying Out Reasonable Instructions of his
superior.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent’s dismissal from
employment is legal.
Ruling:
Respondent was dismissed for a just cause. An
employer may terminate an employment for serious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
connection with his work. Willful disobedience requires the
concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee’s assailed
conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a
wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated
must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had
been engaged to discharge. The records show that
respondent was not singled out for the transfer.
Respondent’s transfer was the effect of the integration of
the functions of the Mandaue Brewery – Materials
Management and the Physical Distribution group into a
unified logistics organization, the VisMin Logistics
Operations.
Moreover, the employer exercises the prerogative to
transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the
requirements of its business, provided the transfer does not
result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employee’s
salary, benefits, and other privileges. In this case, we found
that the order of transfer was reasonable and lawful
considering the integration of Oro Verde Warehouse with
VisMin Logistics Operations. Respondent was properly
informed of the transfer but he refused to receive the
notices on the pretext that he was wary because of his
pending case against petitioner. Respondent failed to prove
that petitioner was acting in bad faith in effecting the
transfer. There was no demotion involved, or even a
diminution of his salary, benefits, and other privileges.
Respondent’s persistent refusal to obey petitioner’s lawful
order amounts to willful disobedience under Article 282 of
the Labor Code. The petition was granted.
18. Instances - Absenteeism and Tardiness – Aguillano vs
Christian Publishing GR No. 164850 Sept 25, 2008
19 Instances – Poor Performance / inefficiency – Universal
Staffing Services vs NLRC GR No. 177576 July 21, 2008
20. Instances – Negligence / Carelessness – School of Holy
Spirit of Quezon City vs Taguiam GR No. 165565 Jly 14,
2008
21. Instances – Fraud / Willful breach of Trust – Gulf Arv s
NLRC GR No. 159687 April 24, 2009
22. Instances – Fraud / Willful breach of Trust -- Salas vs
Aboitiz One GR No. 178236 June 27 2008
23. Instances – Other Analogous cases – Yasuegui vs Phil.
Airlines GR 168081 Oct. 17, 2008
Due Process
24. Perez vs Phil Telegraph and Telephone Co. GR 152048
April 7, 2009
PEREZ vs PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
COMPANY & SANTIAGO
8|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
FACTS:
Perez and Doria were employed by (PT&T) as shipping clerk
and supervisor, respectively, in PT&T’s Shipping Section,
Materials Management Group. Acting on an alleged
unsigned letter regarding anomalous transactions at the
Shipping Section, respondents formed a special audit team
to investigate the matter. It was discovered that the
Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for
goods shipped and that the duplicates of the shipping
documents allegedly showed traces of tampering,
alteration and superimposition.
Petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30
days for their alleged involvement in the anomaly. Their
suspension was extended for 15 days twice. Then in a
Memorandum, petitioners were dismissed from the service
for having falsified company documents. Petitioners filed a
complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal
alleging that they were dismissed on November 8, 1993,
the date they received the above-mentioned
memorandum.
ISSUE:
Whether respondents were dismissed for just cause and
with due process.
RULING:
Respondents’ evidence is insufficient to clearly and
convincingly establish the facts from which the loss of
confidence resulted. Other than their bare allegations and
the fact that such documents came into petitioners’ hands
at some point, respondents should have provided evidence
of petitioners’ functions, the extent of their duties, the
procedure in the handling and approval of shipping
requests and the fact that no personnel other than
petitioners were involved. The alterations on the shipping
documents could not reasonably be attributed to
petitioners because it was never proven that petitioners
alone had control of or access to these documents.
Respondents’ illegal act of dismissing petitioners was
aggravated by their failure to observe due process. To meet
the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an
employee, an employer must furnish the worker with 2
written notices: (1) a written notice specifying the grounds
for termination and giving to said employee a reasonable
opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written
notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the
employer’s decision to dismiss the employee.
Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex
25. Agabon vs NLRC GR No. 158693 Nov. 17, 2004
26. REYES VS TRAJANO
GR NO. 84433, JUNE 2, 1992
FACTS:
Public Respondent Trajano as OIC of the Bureau
of Labor Relations sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter
of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one members of
the “Iglesia ni Kristo” (INK), all employed in the same
company, at a certification election at which two labor
organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
The certification election was authorized to be conducted
by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of
Tri-Union Industries Corporation. The competing unions
were Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-
OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied
Services (TUPAS).
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
TUPAS 1, TUEU-OLALIA 95, NO UNION 1, SPOILED 1,
CHALLENGED 141
The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK
members. They were segregated and excluded from the
final count in virtue of an agreement between the
competing unions, reached at the pre-election conference,
that the INK members should not be allowed to vote
“because they are not members of any union and refused
to participate in the previous certification elections.”
The INK employees promptly filed a petition to cancel the
election alleging that it “was not fair” and the result thereof
did “not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the
employees.” TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition contending
that the petitioners “do not have legal personality to
protest the results of the election,” because “they are not
members of either contending unit, but . . . of the INK”
which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from
joining or forming any labor organization . . . .”
ISSUE: W/N employees who are not part of any union may
validly exercise their right to vote in a certification election
HELD:
YES. Guaranteed to all employees or workers is
the “right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of
9|Page
Labor Relations/ Digest/ USPF
collective bargaining.” This is made plain by no less than
three provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines. The
right of self-organization includes the right to organize or
affiliate with a labor union or determine which of two or
more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in
concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of
collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the
protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and
interests.
Neither does the contention that petitioners should be
denied the right to vote because they “did not participate in
previous certification elections in the company for the
reason that their religious beliefs do not allow them to
form, join or assist labor organizations,” persuade
acceptance. No law, administrative rule or precedent
prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of
neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections.

The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily

includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said
right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied
the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one
should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The
fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a
labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to
renounce such membership.

The purpose of a certification election is precisely the

ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not
to be represented by a labor organization, and in the
affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. If
the results of the election should disclose that the majority
of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union,
then their wishes must be respected, and no union may
properly be certified as the exclusive representative of the
workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment. The minority employees — who wish to have
a union represent them in collective bargaining — can do
nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition
for a certification election and hope that the results will be
different. They may not and should not be permitted,
however, to impose their will on the majority — who do
not desire to have a union certified as the exclusive
workers’ benefit in the bargaining unit — upon the plea
that they, the minority workers, are being denied the right
of self-organization and collective bargaining.

The respondents’ argument that the petitioners are

disqualified to vote because they “are not constituted into
a duly organized labor union” — “but members of the INK
which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from
joining or forming any labor organization” — and “hence,
not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole
and exclusive bargaining representative,” is
specious. Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence
requires that only employees affiliated with any labor
organization may take part in a certification election. On
the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law
is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in
the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor
organization or not.

10 | P a g e

Ledesma, Rojas, Mayordo, Perez, Arrabis, Ursal, Sanchez, Bacus, Lex