You are on page 1of 3

Valeroso v. Skycable Corp., G.R. No.

202015, 13 July 2016
FACTS: Valeroso and Legatona alleged that they started working as account
executives tasked to solicit cable subscriptions for respondent. From being direct hires of
respondent, they were transferred to Skill Plus Manpower Services sans any agreement for
their transfer. they were informed that their commissions would be reduced due to the
introduction of prepaid cards sold to cable subscribers resulting in lower monthly cable
subscriptions. Dismayed, they notified their manager, Marlon Pasta (Pasta), of their intention
to file a labor case with the NLRC, which they did. Pasta then informed them that they will be
dropped from the roster of its account executives. Respondent claimed that it did not
terminate the services of petitioners for there was never an employer-employee relationship
to begin with. It averred that respondent (then Central CATV, Inc.) engaged petitioners as
independent contractors under a Sales Agency Agreement. Petitioners claim that tey were
directly hired, paid and dismissed by respondent. They cited the following as indicators that
they are under the direct control and supervision of respondent: 1) respondent's officers
supervise their area of work, monitor them daily, update them of new promos and
installations they need to work on, inform them of meetings and penalize them for non-
attendance, ask them to train new agents/account executives, and inform them of new prices
and expiration dates of product promos; 2) respondent's supervisors delegate to them
authority to investigate, campaign against and legalize unlawful cable connections; 3)
respondent's supervisors monitor their quota production and impose guaranteed charges as
penalty for failing to meet their quota; and 4) respondent consistently gives trophies to award
them of their outstanding performance.
ISSUE: WON petitioners are regular employees of respondent
HELD: YES. To prove the claim of an employer-employee relationship, the following
should be established by competent evidence: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's
power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is
to be accomplished. Among the four, the most determinative factor in ascertaining the
existence of employer-employee relationship is the "right of control test." Under this control
test, the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only
the end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end is reached.

MARY JUNE CELIZ v. CORD CHEMICALS GR No. 200352, Jul 20, 2016

FACTS: Cord Chemicals, Inc. (Cord, Inc.) is a domestic company owned and
managed by private respondent Leonor Sanz (Leonor), its Chief Executive Officer. It was
formerly operated by Francisco Sanz (Francisco), husband of Leonor, who died. Celiz started
her employment with Cord, Inc. when she was hired as an Assistant Accounting Manager
and she climbed the ranks until her promotion as Chief of Sales, the second highest ranking
Celiz averred that upon the death of Francisco, the new management advised her not to
report for work anymore. She was then invited by Leonor and her children to a meeting at a
restaurant in Makati City where the Sanz family came with two lawyers in tow. She was
supposedly informed that Leonor was jealous of her intimate relationship with Francisco.
Reeling in protest, Celiz insisted that her relationship with Francisco was purely professional.
Knowing that fighting Leonor was pointless as she was well connected, Celiz then asked that
she be allowed to resign. To her utter disbelief, however, she was informed by the company
counsel that she will be dismissed from work because of her failure to account for numerous
unliquidated advances. Respondent alleged that during their audit, it discovered the
unliquidated cash advances of Celiz. The Accounting personnel reported that by her conduct,
Celiz gave everyone the impression that her "closeness" to Francisco rendered her exempt
from compliance with the requirement to liquidate.
ISSUE: WON Celiz commited serious breach of trust that warranted her termination
HELD: YES. In cases of dismissal for breach of trust and confidence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt of an employee's misconduct is not required. It is sufficient that the
employer had reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the
misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his
position. In the case at bench, it cannot be doubted that petitioner succeeded in discharging
its burden of proof. ontrary to petitioner's contention, there was substantial evidence showing
that the subject cash advances were properly attributed to petitioner and that she failed to
liquidate the same. In short, there was just cause to dismiss her from the service.
Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc., et. al. vs. Rebecca F. Simbillo, G.R. No.
207315, November 23, 2016

FACTS: Simbillo worked at Interadent as a rank-and-file employee then she was
rehired by Interadent as Accounting Manager. she was promoted to the position of Finance
and Accounting Manager. She was also Interadent’s Treasurer upon being elected by the
Board of Directors on March 31, 2010.
On July 23, 2010, Interadent sought a company-wide implementation of certain
security measures. petitioners served Simbillo a Memorandum9(Notice to Explain) requiring
her to submit a written explanation regarding a message she posted on her Facebook
account "referring to company concerns with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and
insulting statements against a co-worker." In the Notice to Explain, Simbillo was reminded
that as Treasurer, as well as Finance and Accounting Manager, he should observe the
highest degree of confidentiality in handling sensitive information. After observing the
procedural due process requirement, petitioner dismissed Simbillo.
ISSUE: WON the facebook post of SImbillo referring to company concerns with the
BIR constitutes a valid ground for dismissal
HELD: NO. As a managerial employee, the existence of a basis for believing that
Simbillo has breached the trust of petitioners justifies her dismissal. 35 However, to be a valid
ground, loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of trust, that is, done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an
act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. If at all, Simbillo can only be
said to have acted "carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently'' in making such a
comment on Facebook; however, such would not amount to loss of trust and confidence as
to justify the termination of her employment. When the breach of trust or loss of confidence
conjectured upon is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on
the ground of loss of trust and confidence cannot be upheld.

Turks Shawarma Company/Gem Zenarosa Vs. Feliciano Z. Pajaron and Larry A.
Carbonilla, G.R. No. 207156. , January 16, 2017

FACTS: Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew
and Larey A. Carbonilla (Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew. Both Pajaron and Carbonilla
claimed that there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal and petitioners also
failed to comply with the requirements of due process. On April 15, 2010, they filed their
respective Complaints for constructive and actual illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime
pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th
month pay against petitioners. Petitioners denied having dismissed Pajaron and Carbonilla;
they averred that they habitually abandoned their work. They likewise failed to substantiate
their claims that they were not paid labor standards benefits.
ISSUE: WON the employer sufficiently roved his employees habitual absenteeism
that would justify their dismissal
HELD: NO. hile petitioners vehemently argue that Pajaron and Carbonilla abandoned
their work, the records are devoid of evidence to show that there was intent on their part to
forego their employment. In fact, petitioners adamantly admitted that they refused to rehire
Pajaron and Carbonilla despite persistent requests to admit them to work. Hence, petitioners
essentially admitted the fact of dismissal. However, except for their empty and general
allegations that the dismissal was for just causes, petitioners did not proffer any evidence to
support their claim of misconduct or misbehavior on the part of Pajaron and Carbonilla. "In
termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for
a just cause."37 For lack of any clear, valid, and just cause in terminating Pajaron and
Carbonilla's employment, petitioners are indubitably guilty of illegal dismissal.
CORPORATION, January 18, 2017, G.R. No. 205727
FACTS: Grand Placement and General Services Corp. (GPGS) is a licensed recruitment or
placement agency in the Philippines while Saudi Aramco (Aramco) is its counterpart in Saudi
Arabia. On the other hand, Industrial & Management Technology Methods Co. Ltd. (ITM) is
the principal of GPGS, a company existing in Saudi Arabia. GPGS, for and on behalf of ITM,
employed Dagasdas as Network Technician. He was to be deployed in Saudi Arabia under a
one-year contract.
Dagasdas arrived in Saudi Arabia.15 Thereafter, he signed with ITM a new employment
contract16 which stipulated that the latter contracted him as Superintendent or in any capacity
within the scope of his abilities. Under this contract, Dagasdas shall be placed under a three-
month probationary period; and, this new contract shall cancel all contracts prior to its date
from any source. Subsequently, his employer gave him a termination notice20 indicating that
his last day of work was on April 30, 2008, and he was dismissed pursuant to clause 17.4.3
of his contract, which provided that ITM reserved the right to terminate any employee within
the three-month probationary period without need of any notice to the employee
ISSUE: WON his termination was valid under the said clause in the contract
HELD: NO. Based on the foregoing, there is no clear justification for the dismissal of
Dagasdas other than the exercise of ITM's right to terminate him within the probationary
period. While our Civil Code recognizes that parties may stipulate in their contracts such
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, these terms and conditions must not be
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or policy.42 The above-cited clause is
contrary to law because as discussed, our Constitution guarantees that employees, local or
overseas, are entitled to security of tenure. To allow employers to reserve a right to terminate
employees without cause is violative of this guarantee of security of tenure.