ar Nancu Chire Glis vy. Bonk Makati = ae GR No. 25077 June 15, 2022. FACTS : a Fetitioner Noncy Clic, an Administrative Opgicer of fhe ___leoa|_and External Agency Degartment oj -the bork _o Makatis Pasay Cty branch, wac dismissed por violating the Bank of _Makati's Code of Conduct and Diccigline gor “Knowingly giving fale of misleading ingormotion "in opplicatvons for employment as ow result of which employment is secured” following reyork shot Celis was previously employed 0 she Rom an of Placer in Surigao fel Norke ond ules involved in a Case Concerning, embezzlement of funds 4 Celic’ employment was also terminated, after investigation _and_ hearing on the grow of “ serious misconduct, crud or will pul breach ef Ask and lass a confidence" onder she Labor Code - UGE + Whether respondent, volidty dismissed petitioner fvorn employme ok = RULING = “the Gupreme Cout revesed the cling of the CA ond ruled that considering chat che did nck _achvally state any falie_inpormation in her 0 application bet merely omitted Ao reple ct her gash employment with jhe Bonk of Placer, he cold not (have eat Me alleged Wfraction Of allege diy yigloting the Yanks Code of Conduct foc concealing her greviouc employment - uoOnTE “he. Supreme Court. pucther held. Mot Celis’ case is_merely a case of an omission to disclose former Employment, M_a Joo application, a fault which doer not Sustigy getitionecs suspension ond eventual tennination from employment - rhe Cour _purther discossed that fhe _yero\y, must be commensvrate +p the atfense involved and 40 “We _dearce af he ‘ingraction- To dismics a yetition on accoont oy Wer omission 4o_dis chose former employment is Sct Avo Waasin_o penalhy Under re Lalor Code, ‘St causes yee cco refer to serious misconduct, willpul disobedicnce or snsdaordinatvon oxoss of habitwal neglect of duties, pravd or willgal loreach of -trvst , lose a congidence, commission of a Crime pe Offence , and other analoasv< cawses -—Celestoo Junio v. foc cecloelaael aaa GR No. tou Se Peas = —_Celestino worl ee soca p Monniog Tne. gor _ ~ On Jamon. 24, 2011, ne entered into a pine month —_contract with OMT 4o scene as a Fitter onload MCT Monte Pasa. before his deployment Celestina underwent o. Pre = medical employment examination ond war foutd git 40 work «Thus on Janvary 30, Zoi he boarded MC1 Mek Pos. On Jone 15, oll Celestine was performing an overhav) ia Ye caginc and fixing the hydeaulic machine when -the hose accidentally detached and \nit his tect eye. lle resorted the, incident, 40 the Chies Engineer, but his requect gor a medical examination was denied because Ye vessel wac aout 40 leave for tre next port. On September 1O\ Celeskag collapsed while changing the puel isyeetoe. Caestine _ondecwent a magnete resonance maaing CMR) and it. sshowect ” Assymettical Mild Exophittalmas oy the cye. Ye also did blood and urine tects and was later diagnored with » (© posterior retinac. partial tear 4 (2) sinusitis (3) hypetlipidenia and (4) acute gastroduodenitic. Des Jenkin indicated in the health tasurmnce claim form that Celestino’s ilineses were not work - reloted - | Cdeshno was cepattiated and he eeported to POMI 4wo days pon accival = Ne requested for medical Areatment out Was nok referred 400 company physician. He again asked for medical Artatment but was ignored. This prompted trim 4p gile_o complaint for payment Pe geemanent vial ae Venesits - Yaulaneome ASSVE + Whether or not Celechno ic entitled Ay disability 5. = bene sits - SUNG 3 aN In ove Jeridicton, a sea gover May claim Artaloility benegits arts) 99 fom 0 _an injory or Wess that mani fect OF 1S discoversd during the term oj Yhe seatacec!s conbeack which is vsvally while the seafarer 16 chl\_on board the _vessel_or (2) gn iNness that manigects or is discovered i acter She contract, which is when tne seaparec has disenfoarieeh fon the vessel. Ay Me ‘Mness or injury salle onder he crust scenario, as in Wis case, the procedvre on how the Seafarer call legally demand and claim disability bene itt rom —Hre employer | manning agency is sound in Section 10 (A) a the 2010 fotA - sec. C zi In geveral instances, the Couch has ruled that wnenesfer Ap conganted Ae positive assection eon, sre Seafarer shat 4 he was able +> comply with the tree (3) - day obligation Av_regord te the manning agency lt was not referred tp company - designated physician and _a plain denial ot the manning agency, he seagarere gocition « entitled more weight. This 1s becavse the requirements under the fOrA = SEc. are reciprocal in nature — the vaafarer is doliged tv be present for the post employment medical evamination withia 3 working days upon rem, while the employer is required 40 conduct @ meaning fil and cimely examination | the seaparer.