Labor 6.docx

8/9/2019 Labor 6.docx

1/34

[G.R. No. 117040. January 27, 2000]

RUBEN SERRANO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION andISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE, respondents.

FACTS

Ruben Serrano was the head of the security checers section of !setann "e#art$ent Store. %e

was char&ed with the tas of su#er'isin& security checers in their (obs )a##rehendin& sho#*ifters

and #re'entin& #i*+re&e of $erchandise. -n -ctober 11, 11, the $ana&e$ent sent hi$ a

*etter i$$ediate*y ter$inatin& his ser'ices as security section head, e/ecti'e on the sa$e day.

he reason &i'en by the $ana&e$ent was retrench$ent3 they had o#ted to hire an

inde#endent security a&ency as a costcuttin& $easure. Serrano +*ed a co$#*aint for !", i**e&a*

*ayo/, 56, under#ay$ent of wa&es and non#ay$ent of sa*ary and - #ay with the 68.

he LA rendered a decision in fa'or of Serrano. !t stated that !setann fai*ed to estab*ish that ithad retrenched its security di'ision, that the #etitioner was not accorded due #rocess, etc. and

e'en stated that the day after Serrano9s dis$issa*, !setann e$#*oyed a safety and security

su#er'isor with si$i*ar duties to that of the for$er.

he NLRC on the other hand re'ersed the 68 but ordered !setann to #ay se#aration #aye:ui'a*ent to one $onth #er year of ser'ice, un#aid sa*ary, et a*. !t he*d that the #haseout of the

security section was a 'a*id e;ercise of $ana&e$ent #rero&ati'e on the #art of !setann, for

which the N6R< cannot substitute its (ud&$ent in the absence of bad faith or abuse of discretion

on the #art of the *atter3 and that the security and safety su#er'isor9s #osition was *on& in #*ace

#rior to Serrano9s se#aration fro$ the co$#any, or the #haseout of the Security Section.

ISSUE

=hether the #etitioner9s dis$issa* was i**e&a*.

RULING: Valid, but inee!tual "#it$%ut le&al ee!t' ( )a*+ent % ba!-#a&e,e)a/ati%n )a* and %t$e/ +%neta/* !lai+

No. he ed cause under 8rt. 2?@ of the 6abor


2/34

#rocedura* re:uire$ent #ro'ided by 8rt. 2?@ of 6ed causes, the

e$#*oyer $ust &i'e a written notice of ter$ination to the e$#*oyee concerned and to the "-6B

at *east @0 days #rior to its e/ecti'ity. his !setann fai*ed to do.

he :uestion now arises as to whether the fai*ure of !setann to co$#*y with the #rocedura*

re:uire$ents renders the dis$issa* in'a*id, or, in the e'ent that it is 'a*id, what the a##ro#riate

sanction or #ena*ty $ust be $eted out.

rior to the doctrine *aid down in the decision rendered in Wenphil Corp. NLRC in 1?, the

ter$ination of an e$#*oyee, e'en for (ust cause but without fo**owin& the re:uisite #rocedure,

renders such dis$issa* i**e&a*, and therefore nu** and 'oid.

!n the Wenphil doctrine, this was re'ersed3 the said ru*e was un(ust to e$#*oyers. !nstead, thedis$issa* was he*d to be sti** 'a*id but the e$#*oyer was sanctioned by way of the #ay$ent of

inde$nity )da$a&es C in that case, 1,000. he a$ount of inde$nity wi** be de#ended on the

circu$stances of each case, tain& into account the &ra'ity of the o/ense co$$itted by the

e$#*oyer.

Now, the ed cause. his was thou&ht to ba*ance the interests of both #arties, reco&ni>in& the

e$#*oyee9s ri&ht to notice and at the sa$e ti$e the ri&ht of the e$#*oyer to dis$iss for any of

the (ust and authori>ed causes.


3/34

he ed society is

brou&ht u#on the indi'idua*. 5nder 8rt. 2?@, howe'er, the #ur#ose is to &i'e hi$ ti$e to

#re#are for the e'entua* *oss of his (ob and for "-6B to deter$ine whether econo$ic

causes e;ist to (ustify ter$ination. !t is not to &i'e o##ortunity to be heard C there is no

char&e a&ainst the e$#*oyee under 8rt. 2?@

@ he e$#*oyer cannot be e;#ected to be an i$#artia* (ud&e of his own cause.

4 Not a** notice re:uire$ents are re:uisites of due #rocess. So$e are si$#*y a #art of a#rocedure to be fo**owed before a ri&ht &ranted to #arty can be e;ercised3 others are an

a##*ication of the Justinian #rece#t. Such is the case here. he fai*ure of the e$#*oyer to

obser'e a #rocedure for the ter$ination of e$#*oy$ent which $aes the ter$ination of

e$#*oy$ent $ere*y ine/ectua*.

E 8rt. 27 of the 6< #ro'ides that on*y dis$issa* without (ust or authori>ed cause renders

such dis$issa* i**e&a*. o consider ter$ination without obser'in& #rocedura* re:t9s as a*so

!" is to add another &round for !", thereby a$endin& 8rt. 27.3 Fu/t$e/, there is adis#arity in *e&a* treat$ent, as e$#*oyees who resi&n without &i'in& due notice are on*y

*iab*e for da$a&es3 it does not $ae their resi&nation 'oid.

!n this case, the se#aration #ay was a distinct award fro$ the #ay$ent of bacwa&es as a

way of #ena*ty.

etition was denied.


4/34

AGABON 1.NLRC

FACTSFir&i*io and Jenny 8&abon wored for res#ondent Ri'iera %o$e !$#ro'e$ents, !nc. as &y#su$and cornice insta**ers fro$ January 12 unti* Aeb 1. heir e$#*oy$ent was ter$inated whenthey were dis$issed for a**e&ed*y abandonin& their wor. etitioners 8&abon then +*ed a case ofi**e&a* dis$issa*. he LA ru*ed in fa'or of the s#ouses and ordered Ri'iera to #ay the$ their$oney c*ai$s. he NLRC re'ersed the 68, +ndin& that the 8&abons were indeed &ui*ty ofabandon$ent. he CA $odi+ed the 68 by ru*in& that there was abandon$ent but orderin&Ri'iera to #ay the 8&abons9 $oney c*ai$s.

he ar&u$ents of both #arties are as fo**owsDT$e A&ab%n !lai+, a+%n& %t$e/ that Ri'iera 'io*ated the re:uire$ents of notice andhearin& when the *atter did not send written *etters of ter$ination to their addresses.Ri1ie/a ad$itted to not sendin& the 8&abons *etters of ter$ination to their *ast nown addressesbecause the sa$e wou*d be futi*e, as the 8&abons do not reside there any$ore. %owe'er, it a*soc*ai$s that the 8&abons abandoned their wor. Hore than once, they subcontracted insta**ationwors for other co$#anies. hey a*ready were warned of ter$ination if the sa$e act wasre#eated, sti**, they disre&arded the warnin&.

ISSUES1. =hether the 8&abons were i**e&a**y dis$issed2. =hether Ri'iera 'io*ated the re:uire$ents of notice and hearin&@. !s the 'io*ation of the #rocedura* re:uire$ents of notice and hearin& for ter$ination of

e$#*oyees a 'io*ation of the ed re#resentati'e in connection with the e$#*oyee9s worb. Gross and habitua* ne&*ect of the by the e$#*oyee of his duties )in!lude aband%n+ent'c. Araud or wi**fu* breach of the trust re#osed by the e$#*oyer or his du*y authori>ed

re#resentati'e to the e$#*oyeed. ed re#resentati'ee. 8ny other causes ana*o&ous to the fore&oin&.

o estab*ish abandon$ent, two e*e$ents $ust be #resentDa. he un(usti+ed fai*ure of the e$#*oyee to re#ort for worb. 8 c*ear intention to se'er ee re*ationshi#, $anifested by o'ert acts

%ere, the 8&abons were fre:uent*y absent fro$ wor for ha'in& #erfor$ed insta**ation worfor another co$#any, des#ite #rior warnin& &i'en by Ri'iera. his c*ear*y estab*ishes anintention to se'er the ee re*ationshi# between the$, and which constitutes abandon$ent.

7. es. =hi*e the e$#*oyer has the ri&ht to e;#ect &ood #erfor$ance, di*i&ence, &ood conductand *oya*ty fro$ its e$#*oyees, it a*so has the duty to #ro'ide (ust co$#ensation to hise$#*oyees and to %be/1e t$e )/%!edu/al /e8ui/e+ent % n%ti!e and $ea/in& in t$ete/+inati%n % $i e+)l%*ee.P/%!edu/e % te/+inati%n )-$nibus Ru*es !$#*e$entin& the 6abor


5/34

b. 8 hearin& where the e$#*oyee is &i'en the o##ortunity to res#ond to the char&es a&ainsthi$ and #resent e'idence or rebut the e'idence #resented a&ainst hi$ )if he so re:uests

c. 8 written notice of ter$ination indicatin& that &rounds ha'e been estab*ished to (ustify hister$ination u#on due consideration of a** circu$stances

!n this case, Ri'iera fai*ed to notify the 8&abons of their ter$ination to their *ast nownaddresses. %ence, they 'io*ated the #rocedura* re:uire$ent *aid down by the *aw in theter$ination of e$#*oyees.

@. No. C%ntituti%nal due )/%!e is that #ro'ided under the ed causes of e$#*oy$ent ter$ination, whi*e the second onerefers to the $anner of dis$issa*. 8 denia* of statutory due #rocess is not the sa$e as a denia*of


6/34

and other $onetary c*ai$s fro$ the ti$e co$#ensation was withhe*d unti* reinstate$ent3if reinstate$ent is not #ossib*e, se#aration #ay sha** be &i'en.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC. "IMI' VS ADONIS A. PIONILLA

G.R. NO. 744777, AUGUST 7


7/34

FACTS:

etitioner !H! e$#*oyed res#ondent 8donis ioni**a as one of its #roduction worer. ioni**a

was *ater on dis$issed for 'io*atin& co$#any ru*es and re&u*ations which #rohibits *endin& oneMs

!" since the sa$e is considered a breach of its security ru*es. !t was re#orted that ioni**a was

seen escortin& a *ady to board the co$#any shutt*e bus at a ter$ina*, and that the *ady was

wearin& a co$#any !" C which ser'es as a free #ass for shutt*e bus #assen&ers C e'en if she was

(ust a (ob a##*icant at !H!. ioni**a ad$itted that he *ent his !" to the *ady who turned out to be

his re*ati'e. !t was a*so ad$itted by ioni**a that at the ti$e of the incident, he had two !ds in hisna$e as he *ost his ori&ina* !" but was ab*e to secure a te$#orary !" *ater on. 8s ioni**a and his

re*ati'e were about to board the shutt*e bus, they were both ho*din& se#arate !ds, both in his

na$e. he day after the incident, ioni**a recei'ed a notice re:uirin& hi$ to e;#*ain the incident

and a co$$ittee was subse:uent*y for$ed to in'esti&ate the $atter. Subse:uent*y !H! found

ioni**a &ui*ty and was dis$issed fro$ ser'ice.

ISSUE: =hether or not ioni**a was i**e&a**y dis$issed and hence entit*ed to reinstate$ent andfu** bac wa&es

RULING:

8n i**e&a**y dis$issed e$#*oyee is entit*ed to either reinstate$ent, if 'iab*e or se#aration #ay if

reinstate$ent is no *on&er 'iab*e and bacwa&es. !n certain cases, howe'er, the


8/34

The prerogative of the employer to dismiss an employee on the ground or willful

disobedience to company policies must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the

rights of labor.

Natahnie* "on&on was dis$issed fro$ Ra#id Ho'ers and Aorwarders , accosted the$ and re#orted the $atter to the $ana&e$ent of anduay.

Now, "on&on is c*ai$in& that he is i**e&a**y dis$issed fro$ his wor.

"on&on c*ai$s that his dis$issa* was a #ena*ty too harsh and dis#ro#ortionate to his

su##osed 'io*ation3 and that his dis$issa* was ina##ro#riate due to the 'io*ation bein& his +rst

infraction that was e'en co$$itted in &ood faith and without $a*ice. -n the other hand, Ra#id

Ho'ers c*ai$s they ri&ht*y e;ercised its #rero&ati'e to dis$iss #etitioner because he 'io*ated the


9/34

Horeo'er, the Su#re$e


10/34

Fa!t:

Bs#adero had been e$#*oyed by Batscetera Aood Ser'ices -ut*et since June @0, 2001 as cashier.

=hen she re#orted for duty, Bs#adero disco'ered that her ti$e card was a*ready #unched in.

8fter asin& around, she found out that a certain Jose*ito ed cause as #ro'ided by*aw.

%B R-


11/34

)d !n a** cases of ter$ination of e$#*oy$ent,the fo**owin& standards of due #rocess sha** be substantia**y obser'edDAor ter$ination of e$#*oy$ent based on (ust causes as de+ned in 8rtic*e 2?2 of the 6abor


12/34

8s an e$#*oyee occu#yin& a (ob which re:uires ut$ost +de*ity to her e$#*oyers, she fai*ed to

re#ort to her i$$ediate su#er'isor the ta$#erin& of her ti$e card. =hether her fai*ure was

de*iberate or due to sheer ne&*i&ence, and whether Bs#adero was or was not in cahoots with a

coworer, the fact re$ains that the ta$#erin& was not #ro$#t*y re#orted and cou*d, 'ery

*ie*y, not ha'e been nown by #etitioners, or, at *east, cou*d ha'e been disco'ered at a $uch

*ater #eriod, if it had not been re#orted by Bs#adero9s su#er'isor to the #ersonne* $ana&er.

etitioners, therefore, cannot be b*a$ed for *osin& their trust in Bs#adero.

Horeo'er, the #ecu*iar nature of Bs#adero9s #osition a&&ra'ates her $isconduct.H!S


13/34

he essentia* antecedent facts are su$$ari>ed in the assai*ed >[*e]$ent ofco$#any funds in 'io*ation of !te$ 11, Ru*e F of the


14/34

; ; ; ;

!n the instant case, J 6%5!66!BR was not ab*e to dischar&e the burden of #ro'in& that thedis$issa* of the co$#*ainant was for 'a*id or (ust causes of serious $isconduct and wi**fu* breachof trust. hus, =e disa&ree with the 6abor 8rbiterMs +ndin&s and conc*usion that co$#*ainant was'a*id*y dis$issed fro$ ser'ice.

; ; ; ;

... Si&ni+cant*y, the co$#*ainantMs o$ission or #rocedura* *a#se did not cause any *oss or da$a&eto the co$#any.7chanrob*es*aw

Nonethe*ess, +ndin& that the re*ations between the #etitioners and the res#ondent ha'e beco$estrained, the N6R< did not order the reinstate$ent of the res#ondent.

husDchanrob*es'irtua**aw*ibrary

=%BRBA-RB, the instant a##ea* is GR8NB". he assai*ed decision is hereby SB 8S!"B andRBFBRSB", and a new one entered dec*arin& that co$#*ainant was !66BG866 "!SH!SSB".8ccordin&*y, res#ondent J )


15/34

of discretion a$ountin& to *ac or e;cess of (urisdiction when it set aside the factua* conc*usionand ru*in& of the 68. he


16/34

was forced to *iti&ate and incur e;#enses to #rotect her ri&hts and interests by reason of theun(usti+ed acts of the #etitioners.


17/34

res#onsibi*ity and trust e;#ected of the e$#*oyeeMs #osition. -n the other hand, the res#ondentis not (ust char&ed with a $isdeed, but with *oss of trust and con+dence under 8rtic*e 2?2)c ofthe 6abor e the cash recei#t ofE40.00 in the co$#uteri>ed accountin& syste$ )o#eratin& syste$ of the J6!. he res#ondentc*ai$ed that she tried 'ery hard but cou*d not trace the source of her une;#*ained cash sur#*usof E40.00, but a branch audit conducted so$eti$e in "ece$ber 2007 showed that it ca$e fro$a era ada*a custo$er.

o be sure, no si&ni+cant +nancia* in(ury was sustained by the J6! in the *oss of a $ere E40.00in cash, which, accordin& to the res#ondent she sincere*y wanted to account for e;ce#t that shewas #ree$#ted by fear of what her branch $ana&er $i&ht do once she *earned of it. Put intreatin& the res#ondentMs $isconduct as a si$#*e ne&*i&ence or a si$#*e $istae, both the


18/34

#osition as branch cashier and 'au*tcustodian and booee#er.

he res#ondent insists that she ne'er intended to a##ro#riate the $oney but was afraid that u*in& wou*d sco*d her, and that she e#t the $oney for a *on& ti$e in her drawer and on*ydecided to tae it ho$e after her search for the cause of the cash o'era&e had #ro'ed futi*e.Poth the ed at the end of theday as $isce**aneous inco$e. !ne;#*icab*y, des#ite bein& with the co$#any for four years asaccountin& c*er and cashier, the res#ondent fai*ed to $ae the re:uired entry in the brancho#eratin& syste$ reco&ni>in& $isce**aneous inco$e. Such an entry cou*d ha'e been easi*yre'ersed once it beca$e c*ear how the o'era&e ca$e about. Put the res#ondent ob'ious*ythou&ht that by si##in& the entry, she cou*d ee# u*in& fro$ *earnin& about the o'era&e. %ertrustworthiness as branch cashier and booee#er has been irre#arab*y tarnished. heres#ondentMs untrustworthiness is further de$onstrated when she be&an to concoct *iesconcernin& the o'era&eD +rst, by denyin& its e;istence to u*in& and a&ain to the co$#anyauditor3 *ater, when she fa*se*y c*ai$ed that a co$#uter &*itch or $a*function had #re'ented herfro$ #ostin& the a$ount on -ctober 2, 20073 and +na**y, when she was forced to ad$it beforethe co$#anyMs in'esti&atin& #ane* that she too and s#ent the $oney.[21


19/34

Here substantia* e'idence issucient to estab*ish *oss of trustand con+dence

he res#ondentMs actuations were wi**fu* and de*iberate. 8 cashier who, throu&h care*essness,*ost a docu$ent e'idencin& a cash recei#t, and then wi*fu**y chose not to record the e;cess cashas $isce**aneous inco$e and instead too it ho$e and s#ent it on herse*f, and *ater re#eated*ydenied or concea*ed the cash o'era&e when confronted, deser'es to be dis$issed.

8rtic*e 2?222 of the 6abor '. 8*turas Grou# of


20/34

assets of the e$#*oyer. he betraya* of this trust is the essence of the o/ense for which ane$#*oyee is #ena*i>ed.@2 )B$#hasis and underscorin& in the ori&ina*

!n ho*din& a #osition re:uirin& fu** trust and con+dence, the res#ondent &a'e u# so$e of the ri&id&uarantees a'ai*ab*e to ordinary e$#*oyees. She insisted that her $isconduct was (ust aninnocent $istae, and $aybe it was, had it been co$$itted by other e$#*oyees. Put sure*y notas to the res#ondent who #recise*y because of the s#ecia* trust and con+dence &i'en her by here$#*oyer $ust be #ena*i>ed with a $ore se'ere sanction.@@

8 cashierMs inabi*ity to safe&uardand account for $issin& cash is sucientcause to dis$iss her.

he res#ondent insisted that she ne'er intended to $isa##ro#riate the $issin& fund, but inSantos '. San Hi&ue*


21/34

was assi&ned at the Pusiness


22/34

"e* Rosario subse:uent*y +*ed her co$#*aint for i**e&a* dis$issa* a&ainstNorthwest.2cra*aw*aw*ibrary

"ecision of the 6abor 8rbiter

!n her decision dated January 1?, 1,@ 6abor 8rbiter eresita ".


23/34

abused its discretion in orderin& the reinstate$ent of "e* Rosario and the #ay$ent of herbacwa&es and attorney9s fees.

8s stated, the


24/34

estab*ished and de+nite ru*e of action, a forbidden act, a dere*iction of duty, wi**fu* in character,and i$#*ies wron&fu* intent and not $ere error in (ud&$ent. Put $isconduct or i$#ro#erbeha'ior, to be a (ust cause for ter$ination of e$#*oy$ent, $ustD )a be serious3 )b re*ate to the#erfor$ance of the e$#*oyee9s duties3 and )c show that the e$#*oyee has beco$e un+t tocontinue worin& for the e$#*oyer.cra*aw*aw*ibrary

here is no doubt that the *ast two e*e$ents of $isconduct were #resent in the case of "e*Rosario. he cause of her dis$issa* re*ated to the #erfor$ance of her duties as a Ki&ht attendant,and she beca$e un+t to continue worin& for Northwest. Re$ainin& to be deter$ined is,therefore, whether the $isconduct was serious as to $erit "e* Rosario9s dis$issa*. !n thatres#ect, the +&ht between her and Ga$boa shou*d be so serious that it entai*ed the ter$inationof her e$#*oy$ent e'en if it was her +rst o/ense. Northwest insists that what trans#ired on Hay1?, 1? between her and Ga$boa was ob'ious*y a for$ of +&ht that it strict*y #rohibited, but"e* Rosario dis#utes this by contendin& that it was on*y an ani$ated discussion between her andGa$boa. She ar&ues that as sett*ed in 8$erican (uris#rudence +&ht #ertained to co$bat orbatt*e, *ie the hosti*e encounter or en&a&e$ent between o##osin& forces, su&&estin& #ri$ari*ythe notion of a braw* or un#re$editated encounter, or of a #u&i*istic co$bat310 whi*e ar&u$entwas a connected discourse based u#on reason, or a course of reasonin& tendin& and intended toestab*ish a #osition and to induce be*ief.11cra*aw*aw*ibrary

!n se'era* ru*in&s where the $eanin& of +&ht was decisi'e, the


25/34

Horeo'er, e'en assu$in& ar&uendo that the incident was the ind of +&ht #rohibited byNorthwest9s Ru*es of


26/34

Se#te$ber and "ece$ber 200?, a tea$ fro$ the head oce audited e$icMs o#erations. heaudit tea$ a**e&ed*y disco'ered se'era* irre&u*arities, #articu*ar*y with res#ect to e$icMs#urchasin& transactions su##osed*y attended by fraudu*ent acti'ities.O So$e #urchase orders)-s, it was c*ai$ed, were ensured to &o to so$e su##*iers, thereby syste$atica**y a'oidin& aco$#etiti'e tender #rocess. e$ic be*ie'ed the irre&u*arities cou*d on*y ha'e ha##ened with the#artici#ation of #ersonne* in the urchasin& and Hanufacturin& de#art$ents. !t stressed thatinitia* +ndin&s indicated that


27/34

the other docu$ents were irre*e'ant or can be #resented at the #ro#er ti$e if dee$ednecessary by the co$#any.12cra*awred


28/34

!n -ctober 200?, Kowers for the dead were sent to e$icMs urchasin& Hana&er, Ge$$a !&nacio)!&nacio who had taen o'er , too the cud&e*s for !&nacio who had assu$ed the#osition of =i$#e; Hana&er. =adewit> wanted


29/34

!n its decision under re'iew, the


30/34

%e ar&ues that the


31/34

he


32/34

in'esti&ated for their in'o*'e$ent in the su##osed 'io*ation of the co$#anyMs #urchasin&#rocedures and $eted a si$i*ar dis$issa* action. 8&ain, e$ic is si*ent with res#ect to this#articu*ar assertion of


33/34

ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC., NO> NO>N AS ALILEM MULTIPURPOSECOOPERATIVE, INC. 1. SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, R.G.R. N%. 63@


34/34

nu$erous co$#*aints and #etitions fro$ the coo#erati'e $e$bers the$se*'es asin& for there$o'a* of Pandio*a because of his i$$ora* conduct.

Labor 6.docx

Documents