CASE DIGEST: HILARIO S. RAMIREZ VS.

COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Respondent Mario Valcueba filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wage differential, 13th month pay differential, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and service incentive leaves with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees, against ilario Ramire!" Valcueba claimed that Ramire! hired him as mechanic and was paid per day from 1### to $%%&" 'n (eb" $), $%%&, Valcueba was advised not to return to wor* unless he would agree to wor* on a pa*yaw basis" 'n the other hand, Ramire! contended that Valcueba fails to obey the formers lawful order when he had an emergency call and re+uested Valcueba to report to Calawisan ,tation to repair a taxi unit of Ramire! since the mechanic assigned in the said station was absent" Ramire! insisted that he did not terminate the complainant, it was the latter who abandoned his -ob following his absence the following day after the emergency call without any leave of absence" .he /abor 0rbiter rendered a decision finding Ramire! not guilty of illegal dismissal and awarded complainant for 13 th month pay and wage differential for a total of 123, 4$3"#4 and the reinstatement of complainant" Ramire! filed a memorandum of appeal with urgent motion to reduce bond before the 5/RC" (or failure to post a reasonable amount and to offer meritorious grounds, 5/RC dismissed his appeal" e went to the Court of 0ppeals" .he Court of 0ppeals dismissed the 1etition outright for failure of Ramire! to properly verify his petition and to state material dates" ence, this petition" ISSUE: 6hether or not Ramire! has complied with the re+uirements to perfect his appeal" HELD: 7nder Rule V8 of the 5ew Rules of 1rocedure of 5/RC which explicitly reaffirms the -urisdictional principle in 0rt" $$3 of the /abor Code, appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory re+uisites, namely9 :1; payment of the appeal fees< :$; filing of the memorandum of appeal< and :3; payment of the re+uired cash or surety bond" .he posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter" Clearly, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but also a -urisdictional re+uirement that must be complied with in order to confer -urisdiction upon the 5/RC" 5on=compliance with the re+uirement renders the decision of the /abor 0rbiter final and executory" 6hile the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is sub-ect to the conditions that :1; the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds< and :$; a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant< otherwise, the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal" .he 5/RC was -ustified in denying the motion for there was no meritorious grounds offered by the appellant and the 11%, %%%"%% bond posted by the latter is not a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award of 123, 4$3"#4" Ramire!s failure to verify and state material dates as re+uired under the rules warranted the outright dismissal of his petition before the Court of 0ppeals " 8n an actions filed under Rule &3, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the -udgment or final order or resolution sub-ect thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received" (ailure to comply shall be a ground for dismissal" ence, the ,upreme Court finds no sufficient -ustification to set aside the 5/RC and Court of 0ppeals resolutions" .hus, the decision of the /abor 0rbiter is already final and executory and binding upon this Court"

CASE DIGEST: YSS EMPLOYEES UNION- PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION VS. YSS LABORATORIES INC. (0C.,9 8n order to arrest escalating business losses, >,, /aboratories, a domestic corporation engaged in 1harmaceutical business implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11 employees purportedly chosen in accordance with the reasonable standards established by the company" 'f the 11 employees sought to be retrenched, nine were officers and members of >,,?7, a duly registered labor organi!ation and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ran*=and=file employees of >,," Claiming that >,, /aboratories was guilty of discrimination and union=busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program, >,,?7 decided to hold a valid stri*e" 0 number of conciliation proceedings were made by the 5CM@=5CR but still the dispute was not resolved" .his prompted the ,ectary of /abor to intervene" (inding that the labor dispute was inimical to the national interest, it certifies the case to the 5/RC for compulsory arbitration and issued two orders9 first, directing all stri*ing wor*ers to return to wor* and for the Company to accept them bac* under the same terms and conditions of employment prior to the stri*e< second, that the nine retrenched employees be included in the return to wor* order" 0ggrieved, >,, /aboratories filed a petition under Rule &3 before the Court of 0ppeals in which the latter reversed the orders of the ,ecretary of /abor and granted the petition of >,, /aboratories" .he appellate court found that >,, /aboratories validly carried out its retrenchment program, which effectively severed the concerned employees employment with the company" ence, >,,?7 comes to this petition" 8,,7?9 6hether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the coverage of the return=to=wor*= order" ?/A9 .he 'rders of the ,ecretary of /abor, certifying the labor dispute involving the herein parties to the 5/RC for compulsory arbitration, and en-oining >,,?7 to return to wor* and >,, /aboratories to admit them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the stri*e, were issued pursuant to 0rticle $&3:g; of the /abor Code" ,aid provision reads9 0rt" $&3" ,tri*es, pic*eting, and loc*outs" xxxx :g; 6hen, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or li*ely to cause a stri*e or loc*out in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the ,ecretary of /abor and ?mployment may assume -urisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration" ,uch assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically en-oining the intended or impending stri*e or loc*out as specified in the assumption or certification order" 8f one has already ta*en place at the time of assumption or certification, all st !"!#$ % l%&"'( %)t '*+l%,''s s-all !**'(!at'l, 't) # t% .% " a#( t-' '*+l%,' s-all !**'(!at'l, 's)*' %+' at!%#s a#( 'a(*!t all .% "' s )#(' t-' sa*' t' *s a#( &%#(!t!%#s + '/a!l!#$ 0'1% ' t-' st !"' % l%&"%)t. 8t should be noted that the primary reason why the stri*e was conducted in the first place was to protest the implementation of the retrenchment program, which clearly discriminated against union officers and members" >,, /aboratories vigorous insistence on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return=to=wor* order seriously impairs the authority of the ,ecretary of /abor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the national economy" 0ccordingly, when the ,ecretary of /abor directed >,, /aboratories to accept all the stri*ing wor*ers bac* to wor*, the ,ecretary did not exceed his -urisdiction, or gravely abuse the same, said the ,upreme Court" ence, the petition is granted" .he orders of the ,ecretary of /abor and ?mployment are hereby reinstated"

CASE DIGEST: RAMON B. FORMANTES VS. DUNCAN PHARMACEUTICAL2 PHILS.2 INC. FACTS: Ramon @" (ormantes, the 0cting Aistrict Manager of respondent for the 8locos Aistrict, filed a case for illegal suspension and constructive dismissal against respondent company after the company excludes him from any meetings and activities of the company, withheld his salary, and directed one of its district managers to ta*e over his position and functions without prior notice to him" .he company did the foregoing upon a complaint of one of its medical representative, Cynthia Magat, on the attempt by Ramon (ormantes to sexually force himself upon his subordinate" .he /abor 0rbiter rendered decision finding the dismissal of Ramon (ormantes valid for an attempt to sexually abuse Cynthia Magat but imposing a penalty on respondent for its failure to give formal notice and conduct the necessary investigation before dismissing petitioner" Aissatisfied, 1etitioner appeal to the 5/RC" 5/RC affirmed the decision of the /abor 0rbiter" 5ot contented, petitioner went to the Court of 0ppeals" .he C0 affirmed the 5/RCs decision with modification of the penalty imposed against the respondent from 11,%%%"%% to 13,%%%"%%" ence, this petition" ISSUE: 6hether or not the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of sexual abuse is proper when the charge against him, stated in the termination letter, was insubordination" HELD: 8n Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, the ,upreme Court held that9 8t is now axiomatic that if -ust cause for termination of employment actually exists and is established by substantial evidence in the course of the proceedings before the /abor 0rbiter, the fact that the employer failed, prior to such termination, to accord to the discharged employee the right of formal notice of the charge or charges against him and a right to ventilate his side with respect thereto, will not operate to eradicate said -ust cause so as to impose on the employer the obligation of reinstating the employee and otherwise granting him such other concomitant relief as is appropriate in the premises" x x x 0lthough petitioner was dismissed from wor* by the respondent on the ground of insubordination, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that the ground of sexual abuse committed against petitionerBs subordinate actually exists and was established by substantial evidence before the /0" .he /0 would be rendered inutile if she would -ust seal her lips after finding that a -ust cause for dismissal exists merely because the said ground was not stated in the notice of termination" .hus, we hold the dismissal as valid, but we find that there was non= compliance with the twin procedural re+uirements of notice and hearing for a lawful dismissal" ,ince the dismissal, although for a valid cause, was done without due process of law, the employer should indemnify the employee with nominal damages" .he Aecision and Resolution of the Court of 0ppeals are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the sanction imposed on respondent for non=compliance with statutory due process is increased from 13,%%%"%% to 13%,%%%"%%"