Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Code - Case Digest Part III
Labor Code - Case Digest Part III
Meralco v. NLRC
GR 114129 October 24, 1996
Facts:
Private respondent Jeremias C. Cortez, Jr. was employed on probationary status by petitioner as lineman
driver. Six months later, he was regularized as a 3rd class lineman-driver and eventually as 1st class
lineman-driver. His duties and responsibilities included the maintenance of Meralco's distribution facilities
(electric lines) by responding to customer's complaints of power failure, interruptions, line trippings and
other line troubles.
Due to his numerous infractions, private respondent was administratively investigated for violation of
Meralco's Code on Employee Discipline, particularly his repeated and unabated absence from work
without prior notice from his superiors specifically from August 2 to September 19, 1989.
After such administrative investigation was conducted by petitioner, it concluded that private respondent
was found to have grossly neglected his duties by not attending to his work as lineman from Aug. 2, 1989
to September 19, 1989 without notice to his superiors. He was later notified of the judgment and was
eventually dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent’s dismissal from service was illegal.
Held:
The penchant of private respondent to continually incur unauthorized absences and/or a violation of
petitioner's sick leave policy finally rendered his dismissal as imminently proper. Private respondent
cannot expect compassion from this Court by totally disregarding his numerous previous infractions and
take into consideration only the period covering August 2, 1989 to September 19, 1989. As ruled by this
Court in the cases of Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 8 and National Service
Corporation v. Leogardo, Jr., it is the totality, not the compartmentalization, of such company
infractions that private respondent had consistently committed which justified his penalty of
dismissal.
Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination. This cause includes gross
inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. Such just causes are derived from the right of the
employer to select and engage his employees. For indeed, regulation of manpower by the
company clearly falls within the ambit of management prerogative. This court had defined a valid
exercise of management prerogative as one which covers: hiring, work assignment, working methods,
time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers,
working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers. Except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an employer is free to
regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent’s termination, on the ground of wilful misconduct, was proper.
Held:
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Gonzales cannot be considered to have willfully disobeyed his
employer. Willful disobedience entails the concurrence of at least two (2) requisites: (1) the
employee’s assailed conduct has been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by
a "wrongful and perverse attitude;" and (2) the order violated must have been (i) reasonable,
lawful, (ii) made known to the employee and (iii) must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged to discharge.
In Gonzales’ case, his assailed conduct has not been shown to have been characterized by a perverse
attitude, hence, the first requisite is wanting. His receipt of the telegram disapproving his application for
emergency leave starting April 30, 1998 has not been shown. And it cannot be said that he disobeyed the
May 5, 1998 telegram since he received it only on May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he immediately hied
back to Manila upon receipt thereof negates a perverse attitude.
Globe-Mackay v. NLRC
GR 82511 March 3, 1992
Facts:
Petitioner, prompted by reports that company equipment and spare parts under the custody of
Imelda Saldivar were missing, caused the investigation of the latter's activities. The report
prepared by the company's internal auditor, indicated that Saldivar had entered into a
partnership styled Concave Commercial and Industrial Company with Richard A. Yambao,
owner and manager of Elecon, a supplier of petitioner often recommended by Saldivar. The
report also disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioner's missing Fedders airconditioning unit for
his own personal use without authorization and also connived with Yambao to defraud petitioner
of its property. The airconditioner was recovered only after petitioner GMCR filed an action for
replevin against Saldivar.
Consequently, petitioner placed private respondent Salazar under preventive suspension for
one (1) month, giving her thirty (30) days within which to, explain her side. But instead of
submitting an explanations three (3) days later, private respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner for illegal suspension. Thereafter, petitioner notified her in writing that she was
considered dismissed in view of her inability to refute and disprove these findings.
Issue:
Whether or not the Labor Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the
suspension and subsequent dismissal of private respondent was illegal.
Held:
The investigative findings of Mr. Maramara, which pointed to Delfin Saldivar's acts in conflict
with his position as technical operations manager, necessitated immediate and decisive action
on any employee closely, associated with Saldivar. The suspension of Salazar was further
impelled by the discovery of the missing Fedders airconditioning unit inside the apartment
private respondent shared with Saldivar. Under such circumstances, preventive suspension was
the proper remedial recourse available to the company pending Salazar's investigation. By
itself, preventive suspension does, not signify that the company has adjudged the employee
guilty of the charges she was asked to answer and explain. Such disciplinary measure is
resorted to for the protection of the company's property pending investigation any
alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee.
Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying reinstatement
under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto; that reinstatement can no longer be
effected in view of the long passage of time (22 years of litigation) or because of the realities of
the situation; or that it would be "inimical to the employer's interest; " or that reinstatement may
no longer be feasible; or, that it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved; or that
the company would be prejudiced by the workers' continued employment; or that it will not serve
any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have transpired which make execution on that
score unjust or inequitable or, to an increasing extent, due to the resultant atmosphere of
"antipathy and antagonism" or "strained relations" or "irretrievable estrangement" between the
employer and the employee.
In such cases, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position
where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if
reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to
adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
There being no evidence to show an authorized, much less a legal, cause for the dismissal of
private respondent, she had every right, not only to be entitled to reinstatement, but ay well, to
full backwages. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to his full backwages.
In the instant case, petitioner has predicated its dismissal of Salazar on loss of confidence. As
we have held countless times, while loss of confidence or breach of trust is a valid ground for
terminations it must rest and some basis which must be convincingly established.
On close scrutiny, we agree with public respondent that such a circumstance did not create a
conflict of interests situation. As a systems analyst, Salazar was very far removed from
operations involving the procurement of supplies. Salazar's duties revolved around the
development of systems and analysis of designs on a continuing basis. In other words, Salazar
did not occupy a position of trust relative to the approval and purchase of supplies and company
assets.