LABOR STANDARDS CASES DIGEST

PENAFLOR VS OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORP.

FACTS:

Peñaflor was hired as probationary HRD Manager of the respondent. On

March 13, 2000, after returning from field work, he learned of Chief Officer
Syfu’s memoranda of Buenaobra’s appointment as the new HRD dated March
10, 2000. On March 15, 2000, he submitted his resignation letter as a response
to discriminatory treatment and hostile environment he underwent at work.
Claiming that he was constructively dismissed, petitioner filed a case of illegal
dismissal before the labor arbiter, who decided in his favor. In an appeal at
the NLRC, the respondent submitted new evidence claiming that Peñaflor
tendered his resignation on March 1, 2000, before Beunaobra’s appointment
on that same day. The NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision, and this was
affirmed by CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner’s constructive dismissal is considered to be an illegal

dismissal?

RULING:

Yes. As expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code “all doubts in the

interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in
favor of the workingman.” This principle has been extended by jurisprudence
to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.
Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory
working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the
escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment
of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than
the company’s chief corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no
alternative but to resign from his employment.
GANDARA VS NLRC AND GERMANO

FACTS:

On February 6, 1995, the private respondent, without notifying his

employer, Milagros Sy, did not report for work until February 11, 1995. Like
any expectant father, he chose to be near his wife who was then about to
deliver. The wife gave birth on February 12, 1995. Two (2) weeks
after, private respondent returned to duty, and to his surprise, he was met by
his employer to personally tell him that someone had been hired to take his
place. He was advised, however, that he was to be re-admitted in June 1996.
On February 27, 1995, a case of illegal dismissal was commenced by the
private respondent with the Department of Labor and Employment. For
failure of the petitioner to submit position paper, DOLE decided in favour of
the private respondent based on the evidences submitted. Respondent
appealed to NLRC contending that private respondent was merely suspended
for abandoning his job. But for failure to post cash or surety bond, the appeal
was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:

Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed or merely suspended?

RULING:

The private respondent was illegally dismissed. While a prolonged absence

without leave may constitute as a just cause of dismissal, its illegality stems
from the non-observance of due process. Applying the WenPhil Doctrine by
analogy, where dismissal was not preceded by the twin requirement of notice
and hearing, the legality of the dismissal in question, is under heavy clouds
and therefore illegal.

Moreover, the Labor Code explicitly provides, that :

No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The employer
shall thereafter reinstate the worker to his former or substantially equivalent
position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that
during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the
worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount
paid to him during the extension if the employer decides after completion of the
hearing to dismiss the worker.[5]

In this case, the supposed suspension was expected to last for more than
the period allowed by law, thus making the suspension constitutive of an
illegal dismissal. Therefore, the Labor Arbiters contention is upheld by the
Court.

TSPIC CORPORATION VS TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION

FACTS:

Respondent TSPIC Employees Union (FFW) (Union) is the registered

bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of petitioner TSPIC. In 1999,
TSPIC and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for
the years 2000 to 2004. On January 19, 2001, a few weeks after the salary
increase for the year 2001 became effective, TSPICs Human Resources
Department notified 24 employees, that due to an error in the automated payroll
system, they were overpaid and the overpayment would be deducted from their
salaries in a staggered basis, starting February 2001. TSPIC explained that the
correction of the erroneous computation was based on the crediting provision of
Sec. 1, Art. X of the CBA. The Union, on the other hand, asserted that there was no
error and the deduction of the alleged overpayment from employees constituted
diminution of pay.

ISSUE:

Whether or not TSPIC’s deduction of the salaries of the affected members of

the Union based on Sec. 1, Art. X of the CBA constitutes diminution of benefits in
violation of the Labor Code?

RULING:

No. Diminution of benefits is the unilateral withdrawal by the employer of benefits

already enjoyed by the employees. There is diminution of benefits when it is
shown that: (1) the grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a
practice over a long period; (2) the practice is consistent and deliberate; (3) the
practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or
difficult question of law; and (4) the diminution or discontinuance is done
unilaterally by the employer. As correctly pointed out by TSPIC, the overpayment
of its employees was a result of an error. This error was immediately rectified by
TSPIC upon its discovery.

Moreover, it is familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the
law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. CBA
entered into by the parties could not be disregarded. Respondents should not be
allowed to receive benefits from the CBA while avoiding the counterpart crediting
provision.