Marie Cris Joy S.

Nielo
BSBA HRM 3-2

SEATWORK #2
1. Read Universal Canning Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 215047, November 23, 2016.
 What was the reason of the dismissal of Dante M. Sarosal, Francisco Dumagal. Jr.,
Nelson E. Francisco, Elmer C. Saromines and Samuel D. Coronel. Explain why did the
Supreme Court ruled in that manner.
The cause for dismissing the respondents from employment. While it is true that loss of
trust and confidence could not stand as a ground for dismissal since respondents are
not occupying positions of trust and confidence, such is NOT THE ONLY GROUND
relied upon by the company in terminating the respondents. The Petitioner company
also cited the infraction of company rules and regulations, in addition to loss and trust
of confidence. Infraction of the company rules and regulation which is akin to serious
misconduct is a just cause for termination of employment recognized under Article 282
(a) of the Labor Code which states that: ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. An
employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer
or representative in connection with his work

2. Read EUGENE S. ARABIT v. JARDINE PACIFIC FINANCE, INC, G.R. No. 181719,
April 21, 2014.
 Was there a valid termination of the employees based on redundancy? Explain.
This makes it unreasonable for the employer to fire the petitioners and bring in
contractual workers in their stead. The new position effectively refutes the employer's
assertion that the petitioners' positions were eliminated because they were superfluous.
If the petitioners' tasks were given to other current workers at the organization,
redundancy might have been acceptable.

3. Read Star Paper Corporation vs. Ronaldo Simbol G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006.
 Was the termination of the employee due to his marriage to a co-employee valid?
Explain.
These courts likewise rule that the no-spouse employment ban is unconstitutional since
the employer failed to provide any proof of a business necessity other than the
widespread belief that having spouses work together could be bad for company. They
contend that a regulation barring one spouse from work because the other spouse is
currently employed in the same position renders the rule unconstitutional in the
absence of such a truly fide occupational qualification. As a result, they decide that an
employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on the identity of the
employee's spouse unless the employer can demonstrate that the reasonable demands of
the business require a distinction based on marital status and there is no better
available or acceptable policy which would better accomplish the business purpose.

4. Read Mirant vs. Caro G.R. No. 181490, April 23, 2014.
 Was there a valid termination in this case due to unjustified refusal to comply to company
policy? Explain
The fact that petitioner corporation’s own personnel had to dissect the intended
meaning of "unjustified refusal" is further proof that it is not clear on what context the
term "unjustified refusal" applies to. It is not fair for the Court to allow an ambiguous
policy to prejudice the rights of an employee against illegal dismissal. To hold otherwise
and sustain the stance of petitioner corporation would be to adopt an interpretation
that goes against the very grain of labor protection in this jurisdiction. As correctly
stated by the Labor Arbiter, "when a conflicting interest of labor and capital are
weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter must be
counter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the
underprivileged worker."

5. Read Marina’s Creation Enterprises vs. Ancheta G.R. No. 2118333, December 7, 2016
 Was Acnheta validly dismissed due to disease? Explain.
The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code impose upon the employer the duty not to
terminate an employee until there is a certification by a competent public health
authority that the employee's disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot
be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. In this case,
Marina terminated Ancheta from employment without seeking a prior certification
from a competent public health authority that Ancheta's disease is of such nature or at
such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper
medical treatment. Hence, Ancheta was illegally dismissed by Marina.