LABOR SD
August 16, 2018
Ho Cheng Philippines Corporation v. Antonio M. Farrales | GR No.
211497 | March 18, 2015 | Ponente: J. Reyes
Summary: The case is an appeal from the CA which found that Ho Cheng
Philippines Corporation (HPC) illegally dismissed Antonio Farrales, who
was involved in a case of alleged theft of a helmet. The Court ruled that
Farrales was illegally dismissed because the incident was not grave and that
there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the respondent. It reviewed
the factual basis of the NLRC’s findings. The case was dismissed.
Facts:
 Antonio Farrales was an employee of HPC who consistently
received citations for outstanding performance, as well as appraisal
and year-end bonuses
o 1998 – Production operator
o 2004 – Leadsman
o 2007 – Acting Asst. Unit Chief
o 2008 – Asst. Unit Chief of Production (supervisory
position)
 Monthly salary: P17,600
 December 2 2009 – An incident of theft was reported to the HPC
management regarding a motorcycle helmet of an employee,
Reymar Solas, which was stolen in the parking lot of the
workplace
o A CCTV footage of events on November 27 2009 was
showed the following day that Farrales took the missing
helmet from a parked motorcycle
 He was seen walking towards the motorcycle
before walking back to the pedestrian gate
 He called Andy Lopega and instructed him to get
the hlemt he was pointing at
 Andy gave the helmet to Farrales
 December 3 2009 – HPC sent Farrales a notice to explain his
involvement in the theft, supported by the employees’ union
 FARRALES’ EXPLANATION
o He borrowed a helmet from Eric Libutan.
o Eric said that his motorcycle was black in color
o Because there were many motorcycles with helmets in the
parking lots, Eric said that Farrales can ask another
employee which was his
o Andy handed to him the helmet which he believed to be
Eric’s
o The following day, Eric asked Farrales why he did not get
the helmet yet. Farrales was shocked and he immediately
phoned HPC’s guard to report that he mistook the helmet
o After having asked several employees about the helmet,
they found out that it was owned by Reymar
o Farrales immediately returned the helmet the following
day and apologized, saying it was an honest mistake
o Farrales did not know that HPC will send him a notice
 December 10 – a hearing was held attended by Eric, Andy, Jun
Reyes (uncle of Reymar), Antonio Alinda (witness) and Rolando
Garciso (representative of union)
 ANDY’S TESTIMONY
o At the time of the incident, he was seated on his
motorcycle and about to leave when Farrales approached
him
o The latter asked him to hand over a yellow helmet
hanging on a motorcycle parked next to him
o He hesitated by Farrales told him that he owned it
 It was found that Eric gave specific instructions to Farrales, such as
the color of the helmet (red), model of the motor (Honda XRM-
125), plate number (8746-DI), and location of parking
o Farrales claimed that he could no longer remember the
details and that he could not explain why he missed the
directions
 February 15 2010 – HPC issued a Notice of Termination to
Farrales
 o Violation of Art. 69 Class A, Item No. 29 of the HPC
Code of Discipline
 “Stealing form the company, its employees, and
officials, or from its contractors, visitors or
clients, is akin to serious misconduct and fraud
or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative,w hcih are just causes
for termination of employment under Art. 282 of
the Labor Code”
 March 25 2010 – Farrales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of appraisal and mid-year bonuses, service incentive
leave pay and 13th month pay. He also prayed for reinstatement, or
in lieu thereof, separation pay with full backwages and moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
 HPC paid Farrales P10,914.51 during the mandatory conference,
which represented his 13th month pay for January-February 2010
and vacation leave/sick leave conversion.
o Farrales waived his claim for incentive bonus
 Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Farrales
 NLRC reversed the LA’s findings and denied respondet’s motion
for reconsideration
 CA ruled the following:
o HPC was able to perfect its appeal by posting a bond
equivalent to the monetary award of P897,893 and paying
the appeal fees by postal money in the amount of 520,000
o Agreed with LA that Farrales’ act of taking Reymar’s
helmet did not amount to theft and that HPC failed to
prove that Farales’ conduct was induced by a perverse
and wrongful intent to gain
o Dismissed moral and exemplary damages
ISSUES
1) W/N Farrales was illegally dismissed – YES
 Art. 282 enumerates the requirements which the employer
must prove in order to validly dismiss an employee
o Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the
employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the
latter’s representative in onnection with his work
o Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his
dueties
o Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or his duly
authorized representative
o Commission of a crime or offense by the employee
against the person of his empoyer or any immediate
member of his family or his duly authorized
representative; and
o Other causes analogous to the foregoing
 HPC argues that Farrales, being a supervisory employee, is
subject to stricter rules of trust and confidence, and therefore
only substantial proof of guilt is needed to establish just cause
to dismiss him.
o However, Art. 4 of the Labor Code mandates that all
doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its
provisions shall be strictly construed in favor of labor
o Art. III of Labor Code and Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the
1987 Constitution enunciated that it is the state’s
avowed policy to afford protection to labor, in
relation to the worker’s security of tenure
 It was held by the Court that to be lawful,
the cause for termination must be a serious
and grave malfeasance to justify the
deprivation of a means of livelihood
 The penalty imposed on the erring employee
should be proportionate to the offense
 The employer does not invoke any
baseless justification, much less
management prerogative, as a
subterfuge by which to rid himself
of an undesirable worker
 The Court never hesitated to delve into the NLRC’s factual
conclusions where evidence was found insufficient to support
 them, or too much was deduced from bare facts submitted by G.R. No. 175900 | Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the
the parties Rules of Court
 HPC the onus probandi that the taking of the helmet was done
June 10, 2013
with intent to gain
o They failed to do this as shown in the following Perlas-Bernabe, J.
circumstances:
 Farrales sought and obtained the permission
of Eric to borrow his helmet
 Farrales asked another employee to fetch a
yellow helmet, mistakenly thinking it was Doctrines: Termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of Labor
Eric’s Arbiters/NLRC (Labor Code, Article 217). Being exclusive to cases where
 Farrales immediately sought the help of the the employer-employee relationship still exits, the Secretary of Labor or his
company to return the helmet upon learning duly authorized representatives (DOLE) is/are granted with the power to
it was not Eric’s inspect the employer's records to determine and compel compliance with
 Farrales returned the helmet and apologized labor standard laws (LC, Art 218).
 Farrales committed no serious or willful misconduct or
disobedience to warrant his dismissal. He wasted no time to
return the helmet, which shows that he has no intent to gain. There is no forum shopping in cases where the complaint for violation of
 The misconduct, to be serious, must be of such grave and labor standard laws [before the DOLE] preceded the termination of the
aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant employee and the filing of the illegal dismissal case [before the NLRC].
o Such misconduct, however serious, must be
inconnection with the employee’s work to constitute
just cause for his dismissal
FACTS:
2) W/N the CA erred in deleting award for moral and exemplary
damages – NO
 Lacks merit Petitioner Kapisanang Pangkaunlaran ng Kababaihang Potrero, Inc.
(KPKPI) is a non-stock, non-profit, social service oriented corporation. In
RULING: Petition is DENIED November 1997, the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC)
tapped KPKPI to participate in its microlending program and was granted a
loan for microfinance or re-lending for the poor. KPKPI hired the
Kapisanan v. Barrero (Online Digest)
respondents for its KPKPI Mile Program. Barreno, Ametin, Nonay, and
KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG Dionisio were hired in 1997; Casio was hired in 2001.
POTRERO, INC. and MILAGROS H. REYES, Petitioners, vs.
REMEDIOS BARRENO, LILIBETH AMETIN, DRANREV F.
NONAY, FREDERICK D. DIONISIO and MARITES CASIO, September 20, 2001—While still employed, respondents filed a Complaint
Respondents. against KPKPI and Reyes (Program Manager) before the Department of
Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLENCR) for
underpayment of wages, non-payment of labor standard benefits, namely,
legal/special holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay,
and non-coverage with the Social Security System and Home Development
Mutual Fund.
October 2001—During the pendency of the DOLE case, Barreno was
served a memo signed by petitioner Reyes terminating her from
employment effective October 1. Respondents Ametin, Nonay, Dionisio
and Casio were also verbally informed by petitioner Reyes of their
termination effective October 9, but they still reported for work until
disallowed on October 15. Complaints were filed before the NLRC by (1)
Barreno for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of
their money claims on October 1, and (2) the four other respondents on
October 16.
November 29, 2001—In petitioners’ Position Paper, they claimed that
respondents were not employees but mere volunteers who received
allowances and reimbursements for their expenses. Hence, they are not
entitled to recover their money claims. Further, petitioners averred that
respondents committed forum shopping when they filed the NLRC CASE
during the pendency of the DOLE CASE.
December 19, 2001—In the respondents’ reply, they insisted that they were
employees under the control of KPKPI, submitting in support thereof a
copy of an office memorandum issued by petitioner Reyes respecting the
rules on absences of all its employees. Respondents likewise denied having
committed forum shopping, explaining that the DOLE CASE referred only
to money claims and that it had already been withdrawn (Motion to
Withdraw Complaint filed December 18 2001) while the NLRC CASE
involves the complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.
Labor Arbiter: (1) No forum-shopping. Subsequent dismissal
affected the jurisdiction of the DOLE-NCR since illegal dismissal cases are
beyond the latter’s jurisdiction. The case for money claims pending before
the DOLE-NCR had to be consolidated with the illegal dismissal case now
before the NLRC. (2) Respondents were employees of KPKPI and not mere
volunteer members.
Petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay respondents their backwages
reckoned from the date of their dismissal as well as separation pay for one
(1) month for every year of service; also awarded their claim for
underpayment of their salaries limited to a period of three (3) years
reckoned from the filing of their complaints, and attorney’s fees equivalent
to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. The rest of the money
claims were denied for lack of factual and legal bases.
Petitioners filed Memorandum of Appeal13 dated September 5, 2002 with
the NLRC and posted a surety bond in the amount of P559,000.00. In turn,
respondents filed their Opposition with Motion to Dismiss15 dated
November 20, 2002 questioning the sufficiency of the bond posted which,
as required, was not equivalent to the total monetary award of P832,195.00
as computed by the NLRC’s Computation Unit, exclusive of 10% attorney’s
fees.
NLRC: Set aside the LA’s ruling and dismissed respondents’
complaints. Respondents guilty of forum-shopping.
CA: No grave abuse of discretion to have been committed by the
NLRC. Respondents committed forum-shopping. Nonetheless, it declared
that the ends of justice would be better served if respondents would be
given the opportunity to be heard on their complaint for illegal dismissal
and ordered remand of the case to the NLRC for further proceedings on the
matter of illegal dismissal, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Insufficiency of appeal bond not fatal.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in ordering the reinstatement and remand of the

NLRC CASE to the NLRC despite its finding of forum shopping. -- NO

HELD/RATIO:

Respondents are not guilty of forum shopping 1. There is no identity of

causes of action between the cases pending with the DOLE and the NLRC.
The DOLE CASE involved violations of labor standard provisions where an
employer-employee relationship exists. On the other hand, the NLRC
CASE questioned the propriety of respondents' dismissal. No less than the
Labor Code provides for these two separate remedies for distinct causes of
action.

At the time the DOLE CASE was initiated, respondents' only, cause of
action was petitioners' violation of labor standard laws which falls within
the jurisdiction of the DOLE. It was only after the same was filed that
respondents were dismissed from employment, prompting the filing of the
NLRC CASE, which is within the mantle of the NLRC's jurisdiction.
Respondents withdrew the DOLE case after the institution of the NLRC
case.

RULING: CA AFFIRMED, with modification finding respondents not

guilty of committing forum shopping. The National Labor Relations
Commission is directed to resolve the appeal with reasonable dispatch.

1
When one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court. Vexation
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions caused to the courts on the possibility of conflicting decisions is the important
and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same consideration.