G.R. No.

82511, March 3, 1992

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION(GMCR)

VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(NLRC) and IMELDA SALAZAR (private respondent)
FACTS OF THE CASE
Parties Involved/Characters:
• Imelda Salazar – General System Analyst of GMCR
• Delfin Saldivar – Manager for Technical Operations’ support of GMCR
• Agustin Maramara – Company’s Internal Auditor
• Richard Yambao – Owner and Manager of Elecon Engineering
which is a supplier of GMCR
It is alleged that Ms. Salazar and Mr. Saldivar are very close friends, as they
mentioned having a shared apartment.

In 1984, reports showed that the company equipment and spare parts
worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar went missing. A
report prepared by Maramara, the Internal Auditor, indicated that:
● Mr. Saldivar entered into a partnership with Yambao
● Saldivar recommended Elecon Engineering Services
● The missing aircon was used by Saldivar for personal use, which was
eventually recovered
● Respondent Salazar was involved because she is a signed witness of the
Articles of Partnership between Saldivar and Yambao
● Ms. Salazar knew where the missing aircon unit was located, but failed to
report it.
 Due to this, Salazar was suspended and was given time to explain
herself (for 30 days/one month). After 3 days, she filed a complaint against
GMCR for illegal dismissal.
In 1985, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Imelda Salazar, awarded her
reinstatement, backwages and other benefits plus moral damages.
In 1987, the NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications,
reducing the awarding of backwages to 2 years only; no moral damages
Which leads to the petition by GMCR before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE

Was Ms. Salazar illegally dismissed according to the Labor Code and
The Constitution?
LAW
Art. 279 - Labor Code - Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall
be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis
supplied)
LAW
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code
Sec. 2. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employments, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause as
provided in the Labor Code or when authorized by existing laws.
Sec. 3. Reinstatement. — An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall by entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to
backwages."7 (Emphasis supplied)
 LAW - ART. XIII 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of
all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may
be provided by law.
Section 3.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility

between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary
modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce
their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
investments, and to expansion and growth.
CANON/ CASE HISTORY
RULING
Yes. She was illegally dismissed.

The Court cited Art 279 of the Labor Code, which talks about the
Security of tenure for regular employees which states that:

“An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work

shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent”.
 Supplementary to this are the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code (IRR) stating that:
Employers cannot terminate regular employees without just
cause, and if said employees are illegally dismissed, he or she will be
entitled to return to his/her position without a loss of seniority rights
and an awarding of backwages.
The priority is clearly leaned towards the employee. Similar to the
1987 Constitution, the Court pointed out the opening paragraph on
Labor in the 1973 Constitution on Article 2 which also enshrines “full
protection” to labor. In the 1986 Constitution Commission, they have
designed Social Justice and Human rights to reduce social, economic
and political inequalities.
The court also held held that the Labor Code is clear and
unambiguous, and stated that if the law is clear, plain and free from
ambiguity, it must be applied literally.
OPINION
The presenter wholeheartedly agrees with the decision of the Supreme
Court and shares the applying the law in cases like this clearly and
unambiguously, adopting the principle of Verba Legis. It is also worth
noting that respondent Salazar was not in a fiduciary position, thus
eliminating the implications of “strained relationships” on the possibility of
her reinstatement.
It also bodes well with the presenter that the Supreme Court did not
adopt the stance and evidence of the petitioners as their claims against
Respondent Salazar were based solely on the reports of Mr. Maramara, the
Auditor, and the imagined implications of the special relationship between
Salazar and Saldivar.