[ G.R. No.

221411, September 28, 2020 ]

ITALKARAT 18, INC. PETITIONER, VS. JURALDINE N.
GERASMIO, RESPONDENT.
Facts:

Juraldine N. Gerasmo is the Maintenance Head and Die maker in the Italkarat 18 Inc. From June 1, 1990
until his alleged dismissal on November 20, 2008. The respondent claimed that Noel San Pedro the
Officer In charge of the company informed him in November 2008 that the company was planning to
retrench a number of workers in the Respondents department(Maintenance and Tool and Die Section)
and If the respondent choose to retire early, he will be given a sum of P170,000. And San Pedro then
allegedly caution juraldine that if he will not retire early the company would eventually retrench or
terminate him without even receiving anything.

In light of the foregoing, Juraldine executed and signed a resignation letter and quitclaim on November
20, 2008.9 He was then informed to return on November 25, 2008, to get his check worth
P170,000.00.10 However, to his dismay, Juraldine was later informed by San Pedro that he would be
receiving only the amount of P26,901.34.11 Thus, Juraldine, through his lawyer, sent a letter dated
November 25, 2008, essentially demanding the amount of P170,000.00 he was allegedly promised
earlier. Since the Company did not respond, Juraldine filed an instant complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is illegally dismissed by the Company

Decision:

The respondent has been agreed upon by the Labor Arbiter on a rendered Decision on April 3, 2009. The
NLRC Rendered another decision to set aside the Labor arbiter's decision and dismissed Juraldine for
lack of merit. The Court of Appeal then granted the petition of Juraldine for Certiorari and the Later
decided to set aside the ruling of NLRC entitling Juraldine for Separation pay, Moral Damages, and
Attorney's fees.

But after the company filed an instant Petition for Review, the Supreme Court has ruled on the decision
that:

There is no illegal dismissal involved because there is no dismissal in the first place since Juraldine
voluntarily resigned from the company . The investigation also shows that Juraldine has been intending
on resigning and working abroad even before San Pedro talked with him and even before the Company's
supposed announcement made sometime in the last quarter of the year 2008 to retrench some
workers, and so the Decision of NLRC is reinstated and affirmed by the court.

I. What is the action filed

Complaint for Illegal Dismissal

Petition for Review on Certiorari

(Special Civil Action)

II. What is the petition filed

Petition for Certiorari

Petition for Review on Certiorari

III. What are the tribunals involved in the case. Each tribunal provide their respective decision)

Labor Arbiter - Juraldine was Illegally Dismissed

National Labor Relations Commission - Juraldine was not Illegally dismissed

Court of Appeals -Juraldine was Illegally Dismissed

Supreme Court - Juraldine was not Illegally Dismissed

IV. Provide the obiter dictum of the justice/s not in favor of the decision.
[ G.R. No. 98458, July 17, 1996 ]
COCOLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND
JEREMIAS MAGO, RESPONDENTS.
Facts:

Jeremias Mago (Respondent) was Hired by the Cocoland Development Corporation(Petitioner) in early
1980 as Field Supervisor of the company at its plantation in Basilan, on January 1989 the company
discovered that Mago is extending his technical services and advice to small farmers without their
clearance/consent, and on the memorandum issued by Alfredo C. Dela Cruz on January 12, 1989,
accusing him of imparting company technology and coffee propagation techniques to outsiders, which is
a violation of the company policy against unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and is a ground for
termination of his services with the company.

Jeremias then denied the part of the allegation where he is disclosing the said "secrets" of the company
since the technology used by the company is already available to the public. He also stated that he is not
the only one to provide outside consultancy his manager Edgardo M. Seña is also providing outside
consultancy to third parties even before him.

In the letter of January 26, 1989, Dela Cruz refuted his assertions and defended that Edgardo Seña has
been authorized to provide technical assistance as part of after-sales services, and unlike Jeremias
Mago, did not receive any outside compensations. Dela cruz also stated that Jeremias Mago cannot
deny the fact that he learned the particular propagation techniques through his training in Bukidnon
which was funded by the company.

As it appears, Dela Cruz interpreted the explanations of Jeremias as a refusal to comply with the
company policy, so he directed Jeremias "to explain in writing within 48 hours why the company should
not terminate (his) services for cause." On February 14, 1989, Jeremias Mago complied and submitted
his explanation. but still dissatisfied, De la Cruz on the same date advised Jeremias Mago about his
Termination for loss of trust and Confidence effective on March 14, 1989.

Jeremias Mago then filed on March 17, 1989 a complaint against the petitioner/ Alfredo C. Dela Cruz for
Illegal Dismissal with damages, with the Department of Labor and Employment Arbitration Branch No.
14 Zamboanga City.

On October 25, 1989, Labor Arbiter Harun B. Ismael rendered his decision and finds the dismissal illegal,
awarding Jeremias Mago , seperation pay of 15,000 , back wages of 31,200 and attorney's fees of 2,340

On November 13 and 14 1989 the petitioner charges NLRC with grave abuse of discretion because of the
ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not Jeremias Mago was illegally dismissed

Whether or not the respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages

Ruling:

The law requires that the employer must send two (2) written notices before termination of
employment, which the petitioner has failed to do so, and the requirements for due process are not
given to Jeremias Mago since he was not even afforded a formal hearing before the dismissal.

But no evidence was shown that the Company acted in bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in
dismissing Jeremias Mago, therefore the Labor Arbiter did not award moral and exemplary damages in
the decision.

I. What is the action filed

Complaint against Illegal Dismissal with Damages

Charge for grave abuse of discretion

II. What is the petition filed

Petition for Certiorari

III. What are the tribunals involved in the case. Each tribunal provide their respective decision)

Department of Labor and Employment, Arbitration Branch No. 14 – Mago is Illegally dismissed, Moral
and Exemplary Award

Supreme Court – Mago is illegally dismissed, No moral and Exemplary Award

IV. Provide the obiter dictum of the justice/s not in favor of the decision.

Should an employer's determination of a certain "technology" as trade secret be considered binding and
conclusive upon the National Labor Relations Commission? Does the alleged violation of confidentiality
of the employer's "technology" constitute just cause for termination of the erring employee?

-Panganiban J,;