Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC), Petitioner vs.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar, Respondents

G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992
Romero, J.:

Doctrine: When the language of the law is clear, it should be given its natural meaning.
Exception: If by the wisdom of the Court, it can no longer apply the provision, such as reinstatement of employee due
to strained relations to his employer / it will not serve the best interests of the parties of involved
Maxim: Verba legis – or plain meaning rule, there is a valid presumption that the words employed by the
legislature in a statue correctly expresses its intent or will and preclude the court from construing it
differently.
Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of the statue there should be no departure

Facts:
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (GMRC), filed a petition assailing the Labor Tribunal from having committed grave
abuse of discretion in holding the suspension and subsequent dismissal of private respondent, "Imelda Salazar”, who was
employed as general systems analyst, were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement with two years backwages amending
the initial decision of Labor Arbiter to remove the payment of Php50,000.00 for moral damages.

The private respondent was allegedly a close friend of Delfin Saldivar, a technical operations support manager of GMRC in
May 1982. Sometime in 1984, petitioner was informed of by Mr. Agustin Maramara, their internal auditor, of missing
company equipment and spare parts worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar, pointing out Saldivar’s acts
who had entered a partnership with Concave Commercial and Industrial Company headed by Richard A. Yambao who
happens to be the owner and manager of Elecon Engineering Services, is in conflict with his position as Technical
Operations Manager. The report also reveal that Saldivar had taken petitioner’s missing Fedders airconditioning unit for his
own personal use without proper authorization, also connived with Yambao to defraud him of his property.

Consequenlty, the report showed that Salazar violated the company regulation by involving herself in transactions
conflicting with company’s interest evidence by her signature as a witness to the articles of partnership, as well as failure to
report to her employer the whereabouts of the air-conditioning units despite her full knowledge.

As a result, petitioner placed Salazar under preventive suspension for one (1) month, effective Oct. 9, 1984, thus giving her
thirty (30) days to explain her side. But instead of submitting an explanation, three (3) days after, she filed a case directly to
Labor Department for illegal suspension, which she eventually amended to include illegal dismissal because she received a
notice from the respondent that effective November 8, 1894, considering her as dismissed because she was unable to
disprove the findings.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the wording of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous
2. Whether or not the respondent is illegally suspended and eventually dismissed and if she is entitled for
reinstatement with 2 years backwages.

Ruling:
Yes, the wording of the Sec. 3 of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous as shown below:

“An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to
his full backwages.”

Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statue is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. The intention of the law for the twin remedies are a) to restore/
reinstate the dismissed employee to her status before she lost her job and b) to give her back the income lost during the
period of unemployment. Both remedies are necessary to make her whole.

In the case at bar, since there is no evidence to show just/legal cause for the dismissal of private respondent as provided in
Sec. 2 of the Labor Code, she had every right, not only to be entitled for reinstatement but also to full backwages as
provided by Sec. 3 of the same code because the report centered principally on Saldivar’s alleged thievery and anomalous
transactions as a Technical Operations Support Manager and only showed that Salazar had direct knowledge of the said
activities.

Wherefore, the Court affirmed the resolution of the public respondent and ruled for the reinstatement of private respondent
and to pay her back wages equivalent to her salary for a period of 2 years only.