Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NLRC
G.R. No. 75662
September 15,1989
Facts:
Cesar Ladisla was employed by petitioner, Mercury Drug Corporation as Stock Analyst. On
Aug. 15, 1977, he was apprehended by representatives of Mercury Drug Corporation while in the act of
pilfering company property. He admitted the guilt to the investigating representatives. Mercury drug
filed an application for the termination of Ladislas employment.
Respondent opposed the aforesaid application for clearance to terminate his services alleging
among others, that his suspension and proposed dismissal were unfounded and baseless being premised
on the machinations and incriminatory acts of Ms. Leonora Suarez and Edgardo Imperial, Manager and
Retail Supervisor, respectively, of petitioner's Claro M. Recto Branch; and that he was not given the
opportunity to be heard nor allowed to explain his side before he was summarily suspended.
Issue: Whether or not Cesar Ladisla should be dismissed on the grounds of dishonesty and breach of
contract
Ruling:
Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of management but also of
labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company has the right to
dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue in employment an
employee guilty of acts inimical to its interest, justifying loss of confidence in him. The law does not
impose unjust situations on either labor or management.
While the constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of laborers,
it should not be supposed that labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.
Management has also its own rights which are the enforcement of interest of simple fair play.
San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Ople and San Miguel Corp.
G.R. No. L-53515 February 8, 1989
Facts:
A provision in the CBA entered into by petitioner and respondent provides that employees
within the appropriate bargaining unit shall be entitled to a basic monthly compensation plus
commission based on their respective sales. While the CBA was in force, the company introduced a
marketing scheme known as the "Complementary Distribution System" whereby wholesalers can
directly get beer products from any SMC offices. It would then reduce the take-home pay of the sales
force. The Union also sued the company for unfair labor practice on the ground that the CDS was
contrary to the existing marketing scheme and was violative of the CBA.
Issue: Whether or not the Complementary Distribution System is a valid exercise of management
prerogative.
Ruling:
Yes. Every business enterprise may adopt or devise means designed towards its goal of
increasing its profits. So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for
the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, they will be upheld.
San Miguel Corporation's offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be
adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so-called "back adjustment
commission" to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the
company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.
LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests