i.

Student Name:
Michelle C. Llaneta-Villamora

ii. Complete Case Title Citation:

Manila Trading and Supply Co. v. Zulueta, GR No. L-46853, January 30, 1940

iii. Statement of the Issue:

Whether or not the CIR can order a readmission of a laborer who had been found
derelict in the performance of his duties towards his employer.

iv. Complainant’s Arguments:

The petitioner suspended one of his employees for a breach of duty when as a
gatekeeper of the petitioner that employee permitted, contrary to instructions one of the
customers to pass thru the exit gate without paying for the work done on the car. Before
this, same employee refused to work in the setting up department of the company when
ordered by his superior.

v. Respondent’s Argument:
The CIR decided that despite having found that the laborer was guilty of breach
imputated against him, his suspension from June 30 to July 28, 1939 was sufficient
punishment and ordered his immediate reinstatement.

vi. Instruction Learned:

The Court of Industrial Relations cannot just enter an order reinstating a derelict
employee towards his employer. Despite that, the constitution guarantees full
protection to labor it cannot as well deny the employer the right to freely select or
discharge his employees who committed malfeasance or misfeasance, which would be
detrimental to the interest of his person and his business.

Decision of the Court:

The writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the Court of Industrial Relations
appealed from is reversed.

vii. Ratio:
The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees, is subject to
regulation by the State basically as we should expend beyond economic orthodoxy, we
hold that an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of
a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance who admittedly was
guilty of misfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service of
the latter is patently inimical to his interest. The law, in protecting the rights of the
laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. There may,
of course, be cases where the suspension or dismissal of an employee is whimsical or
unjustified or otherwise illegal scrutinized carefully and the proper authorities will go
to the core of the controversy and not close their eyes to the real situation.