Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meralco Industrial Engineering Services, Co., vs. NLRC
Meralco Industrial Engineering Services, Co., vs. NLRC
Judgment
and
Resolution
Held:
5. Woodridge School vs. Benito and Balaguer | Nachura
ISSUE
W/N THERE WERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR SILAYROS
DISMISSAL.
HOLDING & RATIO
NO, there was no sufficient ground for his dismissal. The SC
affirmed the decision of the CA
3.
ISSUE:
Was there abandonment so as to give a valid cause of
dismissal?
HELD:
No. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the
employer to show that the employee was dismissed for a valid
and just cause. Petitioner did not elaborate or show proof of the
claimed abandonment. Instead, he concluded that Javilgas
abandoned his corresponding duties and responsibilities when
he established and created his own machine shop outfit.
Machica Case:
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[12] we sustained
the employers denial as against the employees
categorical assertion of illegal dismissal. In that case, several
employees who allegedly refused to sign a memorandum[13] from
their employer, detailing the commission of alleged anomalies
that resulted in the overpricing and overcharging of customers,
filed an illegal dismissal case three days after receiving the said
memorandum. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed
and were told not to report for work anymore; the employer
2.
3.
ISSUE:
Is obesity a just cause in terminating the employees services?
HELD:
The obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under
Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
It is a continuing qualification. Tersely put, an employee may be
dismissed the moment he is unable to comply with his ideal
weight as prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of
the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor
Code. The standards violated in this case were not mere
"orders" of the employer; they were the "prescribed weights" that
a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep
his or her position in the company.
In this sense, the failure to maintain these standards does not
fall under Article 282(a) whose express terms require the
element of willfulness in order to be a ground for dismissal. The
failure to meet the employer's qualifying standards is in fact a
ground that falls under Article 282(e) - the "other causes
analogous to the foregoing."
By its nature, these "qualifying standards" are norms that apply
prior to and after an employee is hired. They apply prior to
employment because these are the standards a job applicant
must initially meet in order to be hired. They apply after hiring
because an employee must continue to meet these standards
while on the job in order to keep his job. Under this perspective,
a violation is not one of the faults for which an employee can be
dismissed pursuant to pars. (a) to (d) of Article 282; the
employee can be dismissed simply because he no longer
"qualifies" for his job irrespective of whether or not the failure to
qualify was willful or intentional.
In fine, We hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the
context of his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous
cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his
dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended,
but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it,
FACTS:
The Calamba Medical Center (petitioner), a privately-owned
hospital, engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses
Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Lanzanas) and Merceditha Lanzanas
(Dr. Merceditha), as part of its team of resident physicians.
Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour shifts,
respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4,800.00
each. They were also given a percentage share out of fees
charged for out-patient treatments, operating room assistance
and discharge billings. The work schedules of the members of
the team of resident physicians were fixed by petitioner's medical
director Dr. Raul Desipeda (Dr. Desipeda). And they were issued
identification cards by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social
Security System (SSS). Income taxes were withheld from them.
On March 7, 1998, Dr. Meluz Trinidad (Dr. Trinidad), also a
resident physician at the hospital, inadvertently overheard a
telephone conversation of respondent Dr. Lanzanas with a fellow
2.
3.
The
retrenchment
must
be
reasonably necessary and likely to
effectively prevent the expected losses;
and
4.
Closure or Retrenchment?
The decision of the LA, disposed of the issue by stating that the
decision to close the Robinsons branch was a management
prerogative.
After a perusal of the records of the case and pleadings
submitted, we find that petitioner had in fact retrenched
workers. All the pleadings submitted to the LA by the petitioner
clearly showed that what it had in mind when it terminated the
services of respondents was that it had retrenched workers. It
was only when respondents appealed the LA decision that
petitioner pursued a new theory, that is, that what was involved
was a simple closure of business which did not require proof of
substantial losses.
Lastly, but certainly not the least important, alleged losses if already
realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be
forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.
The reason for requiring this quantum of proof is readily apparent: any
less exacting standard of proof would render too easy the abuse of this
ground for termination of services of employees.
The Court notes that the appellate court erred in giving due course to petitioner's
petition for certiorari, for his proper mode of appeal was for review under Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 of Rule 43 states that the rule applies
to voluntary arbitrators. Sec. 4, however, requires that the petition for review to be
taken to the Court of Appeals should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the award, judgment or final order or resolution of the VA. Mora filed before the
appellate court a petition for certiorari 49 days after receipt of the decision of the VA
at which time the 15-day period to file appeal had expired.
Issues:
Whether or not the three respondents were illegally dismissed by
the petitioner
Whether or not respondents were afforded due process
On the first issue, the court enumerated the valid grounds
for termination namely: Art. 282, Art. 283, Art. 284 and Art. 285.
Further another cause for termination of dismissal from
employment is due to the enforcement of the union security
clause in the CBA. Termination of employment by virtue of a
union security clause embodied in the CBA is recognized in our
jurisdiction. It is also clear upon demand by the Union and after
due process; the Club shall dismiss the employment of the
respondents who were found liable to the offense.
Not let us go with the second issue. In the present case,
the Club has substantially complied with due process. The three
respondents were notified that their dismissal was being
was repatriated to Manila and the following day, the City Health
Officer of Cabanatuan City conducted an autopsy and found that
Jasmin died of violent circumstances due to lacerations and
abrasions on various parts of her body and not poisoning as
found by the physician from KSA. The NBI also conducted
another autopsy and the toxicology report tested negative for
non-volatile, metallic poison and insecticides. Jasmins parents
received from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA) amounts for death, funeral and medical reimbursement
benefits.The Cuaresmas filed a complaint against Becmen and
its principal in the KSA, Rajab & Silsilah Company, claiming
death and insurance benefits, as well as moral and exemplary
damages for Jasmins death, claiming that Jasmins death was
work-related, having occurred at the employers premises.
Becmen and Rajab insist that Jasmin committed suicide, citing a
prior unsuccessful suicide attempt and relying on the medical
report of the KSA physician. While the case was pending,
Becmen filed a manifestation and motion for substitution alleging
that Rajab terminated their agency relationship and had
appointed White Falcon Services, Inc. (White Falcon) as its new
recruitment agent in the Philippines. Thus, White Falcon was
impleaded as respondent and it adopted and reiterated
Becmens arguments.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, gave
weight to the medical report of the Al-Birk Hospital finding that
Jasmin died of suicide through poisoning and held that her death
was not service-connected, nor did it occur while she was on
duty. The LA also noted that her parents have received all
corresponding benefits they were entitled to under the law. The
NLRC reversed the same and held that Jasmins death was the
result of an accident occurring within the employers premises
that is attributable to her employment, or to the conditions under
which she lived, and thus arose out of and in the course of her
employment as nurse. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC
but amended the same with respect to the monetary award.
ISSUE; Whether or not Rajab & Silsilah Company, White Falcon
Services, Inc., Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. are
liable for the death of Jasmin Cuaresma.
RULING: They are liable. Under Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A.
8042), or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995, the State shall, uphold the dignity of its citizens whether in
country or overseas, and provide adequate and timely social,
economic and legal services to Filipino migrant workers.
Recruitment agencies should be the first to come to the rescue
of our OFWs. Upon them lies the primary obligation to protect
the rights and ensure the welfare of our OFWs, whether
distressed or not. Private employment agencies are held jointly
and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any
violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of
employment. This joint and solidary liability imposed by law
against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to
assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient
payment of what is due him. If the recruitment/placement agency
is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and
solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the
aforesaid claims and damages
Becmen and White Falcon, as licensed local
recruitment agencies, miserably failed to abide by the provisions
of R.A. 8042.Recruitment agencies are expected to extend
assistance to their deployed OFWs, especially those in distress.
The evidence does not even show that Becmen and Rajab lifted
a finger to provide legal representation and seek an investigation
of Jasmins case. They even stood by the argument that Jasmin