FERNANDO GOSOSO (Plaintiff)

vs.

LEYTE LUMBER YARD (Respondent)

G.R. no. 205257, January 13, 2021

Facts:

Leyte Lumber (respondent), a construction supply and hardware store, hired

Gososo (petitioner) as a sales representative. Gososo worked from Mondays to
Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. and received a daily salary of 220 pesos.

Leyte Lumber implemented a company policy to which Gososo failed to course

the orders through authorized checkers before the items are released and left his work
area without the supervisor’s consent.

When he returned to work on October 11, 2008, Yu (Leyte Lumber’s general

manager) allegedly told Gososo to sign a prepared document. Gososo declined since the
document contained admissions of offenses that he did not commit irked by Gososo’s
refusal, Yu informed him of his termination from work. Yu allegedly even threw a pair
of scissors at Gososo but missed. Respondent confirmed that Gososo was reprimanded
on October 10, 2008 for violating standard operating procedures and established
company policies. On even date, respondent claimed that Gososo filed a leave of
absence for October 11, 2008 purportedly to attend his son’s graduation, in disregard of
the rule that leaves of absence must be filed and approved days before the actual date of
leave.

According to respondent Gososo did go on approved leave on October 11, 2008

and even allegedly extended his absence. These prompted respondent to issue Gososo
another Memorandum on October 13, 2008 wherein they request him to report back to
work, otherwise he will be considered to have abandoned his work. Gososo, however,
did not report back to work aggrieved, Gososo filed a complaint for illegal constructive
dismissal against respondents, non-payment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for
holiday and rest day allowance, vacation and sick leave pay, separation pay, moral
damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner Gososo abandoned his work and was legally
dismissed by respondent Leyte Lumber and Yu.

RULING:

No, Gososo was not legally dismissed.

In illegal dismissed cases, the employee must first establish by substantial

evidence the fact of dismissal before the employer is charged with the burden of
proving its legality.
 Petitioner never proved that he was dismissed in the first place. He simply
alleged that on October 11, 2008 upon his refusal to sign a document prepared by
respondent Yu, the latter “flared up with his usual hot temper and told (the former) that
he is terminated from work on that very day,” and “even threw sharp scissors towards
(him, which) almost hit by a narrow margin.” This barely measured up to the minimum
evidential requirement from petitioner. Mere acts of hostility, however, grave
committed by the employer towards the employee cannot on their lonesome be
construed as an overt directive of dismissal from work.

In Fine, the Court finds no working basis to declare that petitioner had been
dismissed, whether legally, illegally, or constructively.
 COLLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN-BACOLOD

vs.

MELINDA M. MONTANO

(G.R. no. 212333, March 28, 2022)

FACTS:

Respondent was a CSA- Bacolod employer as a chemistry instructor in 1973. In

2003, she was appointed school registrar; her appointment was renewed several times.

Respondent alleged that in her reappointment letter for the 2009-2011 term, there
was a diminution of her salary; she wrote a letter to seek an explanation. The school
president responded and stated that her total gross pay did not change as the school
merely opted to break down the amount of honorarium. Respondent claimed that this
was the time when the president started to show his bias against her. Thereafter,
respondent was suspended and her employment was eventually terminated due to
complaints from two faculty member alleging that she allowed some students to attend
the graduation ceremony despite not meeting the requirements.

Respondent admitted that she allowed certain students to join graduation due to
humanitarian reasons and merely continued the practice of previous registrars. Further,
she cited the student’s manual, which provides that the inclusion of student’s name in
the list of candidates for graduation, their picture in the yearbook, and their
participation in the commencement exercise do not make them full-fledged graduates
unless all requirements were complied with and a special order number has been issued
by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).

A notice of charges was issued to respondent for gross misconduct, tampering of

school records, and willful breach of trust and confidence or gross negligence. At the
same time, she was placed under preventive suspension for 30 days. Although,
respondent submitted her response to the notice, she refused to attend the hearing of
the Ad hoc committee. Another hearing was held and respondent attended this time.

The Ad Hoc Committee deliberated and thereafter recommended the

termination of respondent’s employment, and the president issued a notice of
termination dated Feb. 2010.

ISSUE: Whether respondent was illegally dismissed from service.

RULING:

No, respondent was validly dismissed from employment.

For the dismissal from employment to be valid, substantive and procedural due
process must be observed. Substantive due process must be observed. Substantive due
process provides that the employee must not be dismissed without just or authorized
cause as provided by law. Procedural due process on the other hand provides for the
employer’s compliance with procedure set out by the Labor code and related rules. In
the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to procedural due process; the court
thus focuses on substantive due process.

The Court agree with the NLRC that respondent committed serious misconduct
in allowing ineligible students to march. She violated an established school policy as
espoused in a memorandum states that “no students will be allowed to march for
graduation unless he/she has fully complied with all the academic requirements of
hi/her course. Circumstances show that respondent’s act is clearly a conscious and
willful transgression of the university’s established rule regarding graduation rites.
Considering these, the court holds that respondent committed serious misconduct that
constitutes just cause for valid dismissal from employment. The court also finds that
respondent’s act constitutes a breach of trust and confidence, when an employee
fraudulently and willfully committed acts or omission in breach of the trust reposed by
the employer. Two requisites must be complied with to justify this ground for
termination. First, the employee must be holding a position of trust; and second, the
employer shall sufficiently establish the employee’s act that would justify loss of trust
and confidence.