USA College of Law

Yap – 1C
Case Name GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP v. CA
Topic Human Relations
Case No. | Date GR No. 81262 | August 25, 1989
Ponente CORTES, J.
The petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the
Doctrine latter the right to recover damage. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment
during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct

RELEVANT FACTS
 Restituto M. Tobias (Tobias) herein private respondent was an employee of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp
(GMCRC) herein petitioner. Herbert Hendry (Hendry) herein petitioner, was the Executive Vice-President and General
Manager of GMCRC.
 Sometime in 1972, GMCRC discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several
thousands of pesos. Thereafter, Hendry ordered Tobias to take a force leave so as to have Tobias investigated. Hendry
declared that Tobias was their number one suspect in the anomaly.
 Thus, criminal complaints for estafa were filed against Tobias. These charges were, however, dismissed for lack of
probable cause. Subsequently, Hendry dismissed Tobias from employment. Claiming that he was illegally dismissed,
Tobias filed a complaint for damages against GMCRC and Hendry with the RTC.
 The RTC decided in favor of Tobias. On appeal, the CA affirmed. Now, GMCRC and Hendry assail the decision of the CA.
It asseverates that the dismissal of Tobias was in lawful exercise of its right. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:  Whether or not GMCRC and Hendry exercised lawfully their right to dismiss Tobias.
RULING: No. An employer who harbors suspicions that an employee has committed dishonesty might be justified in taking
the appropriate action such as ordering an investigation and directing the employee to go on a leave. Firmness and the
resolve to uncover the truth would also be expected from such employer. But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias
by petitioners was certainly uncalled for.
The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the
standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court has already ruled that the right of the
employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects
flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee. Under the
circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss
Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.

RULING
The petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
(optional)

NOTES
(optional)