SEVILLA TRADING CO. V.

SEMANA
FACTS:
 Sevilla Trading added to the base figure of the computation of its 13th month pay
the amount of other benefits received by the employees which are beyond basic
pay.
 Sevilla Trading claims that when it changed the person in charge of the payroll, it
discovered the error of including non-basic pay or other benefits in the base
figure used in the computation of the 13th month pay of its employees.
o Under PD 851 (13th Month Pay Law), basic salary includes “all
remunerations or earnings paid by an employer to an employee for
services rendered but may not include cost-of-living allowances granted
pursuant to P.D. No. 525 or Letter of Instruction No. 174, profit-sharing
payments, and all allowances and monetary benefits which are not
considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary of the
employee at the time of the promulgation of the Decree on December 16,
1975.”
 Sevilla Trading then added more exclusions to the 13th month pay.
 Sevilla Trading Workers Union contested the new computation and reduction of
their 13th month pay.
 Parties then submitted the matter to Voluntary Arbitrator Semana.
o The Union alleged that petitioner violated the rule prohibiting the
elimination or diminution of employees’ benefits as provided for in Art. 100
of the Labor Code, and that leaves with pay in the CBA should be included
in the base figure.
o Semana decided in favor of the Union.
ISSUE: WON the computation for the 13th month pay is proper.
HELD: NO.
 From 1975 to 1981, Sevilla Trading had already included the paid leave in the
base pay. The considerable length of time the questioned items had been
included by Sevilla Trading indicates a unilateral and voluntary act on its part,
sufficient in itself to negate any claim of mistake.
 A company practice favorable to the employees had indeed been established
and the payments made pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.
And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.
o With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been
exercised to constitute voluntary employer practice which cannot be
unilaterally withdrawn by the employer, we hold that jurisprudence has not
laid down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years.

DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY V. DLSU EMP. ASSO.

FACTS:
 Some respondent members headed by Belen Aliazas filed a petition for the
election of union officers in the Bureau of Labor Relations, alleging that there has
been no election since 1992 in violation of their union constitution and by-laws.
 o The other respondents allegedly repeatedly voted for the holdover of the
previously elected officers led by Baylon Baez.
 The BLR held that an election shall be presided by the DOLE.
o Baez faction appealed to the BLR Regional Director.
o Aliazas faction filed a motion for intervention, alleging that the Baez faction
held a “regular” election without the DOLE.
o BLR Director held that the unilateral act of setting a date for election and
the disqualification of the Aliazas faction was a biased election. Baez’
appeal was dismissed.
 Another election under the supervision of DOLE was held. Baez faction won.
 Petitioner entered into a 5-year CBA with the respondent. Aliazas wrote to
petitioner requesting it to place in escrow the union dues and other fees
deducted from the salaries of employees pending the resolution of the intra-union
conflict. Petitioner agreed.
 Respondent filed a complaint for ULP in the NLRC. They asserted that the
creation of escrow accounts was not an act of neutrality as it was influenced by
the Aliazas faction’s letter and was an act of interference with the internal affairs
of the union.
o Respondent meanwhile filed a notice of strike.
o Petition was eventually dismissed.
 Respondent claims that the creation of escrow accounts was biased since the
Aliazas faction interfered with the internal affairs of the union.
 Respondent filed a second notice of strike.
 The Sec. of Labor found the petitioner guilty of ULP for refusing to bargain with
the union. Petitioner appealed to the CA, causing the respondent to file a third
notice of strike.
ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of ULP.
HELD: YES.
 The intra-union dispute (subject of several notices of strike) is insufficient ground
for the petitioner to suspend CBA negotiations with respondent union.
 Not only has petitioner refused to negotiate with respondent, it has unduly
withheld the money belonging to the bargaining agent. Both these acts are illegal
and are tantamount to Unfair Labor Practice under Article 248 in relation to
Article 252 of the Labor Code.

GURANGO V. BEST CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS INC.

FACTS:
 Gurango and Albao worked as a boiler operator and as a security guard
(respectively) in BCPI.
 BCPI prohibited its employees from bringing personal items into their work area,
and erring employees will be suspended for 6 days.
 According to Gurangao, he had in his pocket a camera without film. Albao
allegedly grabbed him and got the camera, and then started beating him.
 BCPI wrote a letter to Gurango finding him guilty of engaging in a fistfight and
violating company policy by bringing a camera.
  Gurango filed a criminal complaint against Albao for slight physical injuries with
the MCTC.
 BCPI dismissed Gurango. Gurango then filed with the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal.
 LA: BCPI guilty. BCPI appealed.
 NLRC: affirmed LA.
 CA: reversed.
ISSUE: WON Gurango was illegally dismissed.
HELD: YES.
 In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to discharge
the burden of proof, the dismissal is deemed illegal.
 BCPI did not present any evidence to show that Gurango engaged in a fistfight.
Moreover, there is no showing that Gurango’s actions were performed with
wrongful intent.
o His account was corroborated, Albao’s was not.
o He had a medical report which showed physical injury.
 Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in
matters within their jurisdiction, are accorded not only respect but finality when
supported by substantial evidence.

LABADAN V. FOREST HILLS ACADEMY

FACTS:
 Lilian Labadan was hired by Forest Hills as a teacher. She filed a complaint
against Forest Hills and its administrator Naomi Cabaluna for illegal dismissal.
 Forest Hills alleged that Lilian went on leave for 2 weeks but did not return for
work after the period. When she returned, the next school year was already
ongoing.
 Lilian alleged that since 1990, the Seventh Day Adventist Church have been
illegally deducting a 10th of her salary, and she has not been paid overtime pay,
13th month pay, etc., and her SSS contributions have not been remitted.
 LA: ruled in favor of petitioner.
 NLRC: reversed.
ISSUE: WON Labadan was illegally dismissed.
HELD: NO.
 While in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that
the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish
by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal.
 The records do not show that petitioner was dismissed from the service. They in
fact show that despite petitioner's absence which, by her own admission,
exceeded her approved leave, she was still considered a member of the Forest
Hills faculty which retained her in its payroll.
 Lilian claims that she was constructively dismissed, but she failed to refute Forest
Hills' claim that when she expressed her intention to resume teaching, classes
were already ongoing for School Year 2002-2003.
  There being no substantial proof that petitioner was dismissed, she is not entitled
to separation pay or backwages.

COCOPLANS, INC. V. VILLAPANDO

FACTS:
 Villapando was a financial advisor for Cocoplans. She was promoted to Senior
Sales Manager. However, her employment was terminated on the ground that
she was deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company thereby
breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to her by Cocoplans.
 Villapando filed a case for illegal dismissal. According to her, people whom she
had personal quarrels with were merely trying to oust her from the company.
o In support of this, she submitted a written statement signed by officers of
the company, wherein they attested that Villapando never influenced them
to resign or join another company.
 LA: ruled in favor of Villapando.
 NLRC: reversed.
ISSUE: WON Villpando was illegally dismissed.
HELD: YES.
 To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on
a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is
willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable
excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly
or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would
eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
 It must also be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proving just and
valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the
employer. Failure by the employer to discharge this burden shall result in the
finding that the dismissal is unjustified.
 Cocoplans’ evidence are not substantial.
o In dismissing an employee for just cause, it must be shown that the
employer fairly made a determination of just cause in good faith, taking
into consideration all of the evidence available to him.
o The affidavit presented by Villapando was never presented before the
Cocoplans’ investigation panel.
o Not only is there no showing that said affidavit was considered by
petitioners in arriving at their decision to dismiss Villapando, Villapando
never had the opportunity to address the accusations stated therein.
 Cocoplans’ affidavit of a witness’ statement of Villapando’s disloyal acts wherein
she allegedly answered in the affirmative when she was asked if she told her
subordinated to leave Cocoplans.
 With regard to the Joint Affidavit against Villapando:
o The allegations therein are contradicted by other documents.
o A single Joint Affidavit of doubtful probative value can hardly be
considered as substantial. Had petitioners provided the Court with other
convincing proof, apart from said Joint Affidavit, that Villapando had,
 indeed, wilfully influenced her subordinates to transfer to a competing
company, their claims of loss of confidence could have been sustained.
 When there is doubt between the evidence submitted by the employer and that
submitted by the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
employee. This is consistent with the rule that an employer's cause could only
succeed on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
employee's.