Professional Documents
Culture Documents
670
FIRST DIVISION.
671
671
failure of which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and
the employee is entitled to reinstatement.
Same; Same; Abandonment; For abandonment to arise, there
must be concurrence of two things: 1) lack of intention to work; and
2) the presence of overt acts signifying the employees intention not
to work.From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the
circumstances upon which private respondent anchored his claim
that petitioner abandoned her job were not enough to constitute
just cause to sanction the termination of her services under
Article 283 of the Labor Code. For abandonment to arise, there
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/23
4/20/2016
672
2/23
4/20/2016
3/23
4/20/2016
673
673
1991, and handed him her application for leave. It took private
respondents 52 days or up to July 4, 1991 before finally deciding
to file a criminal complaint against petitioner, in an obvious
attempt to build a case against her.
Same; Same; Unfair Labor Practices; The act of compelling
employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer
observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have
not, together with the act of terminating or coercing those who
refuse to cooperate with the employers scheme, constitutes unfair
labor practice.The pivotal question in any case where unfair
labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or
not the employer has exerted pressure, in the form of restraint,
interference or coercion, against his employees right to institute
concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment.
Without doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an
instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standards
provisions of law when he might have not, together with the act of
terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the
employers scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act
clearly preempts the right of the hotels workers to seek better
terms and conditions of employment through concerted action.
Same; Same; Administrative Law; The Supreme Court does
not normally overturn findings and conclusions of quasijudicial
agencies when the same are ably supported by the evidence on
record. The blatant onesidedness of the decision of the Arbiter
simply raises the suspicion that something more than the facts, the
law and jurisprudence may have influenced it.This Court does
not normally overturn findings and conclusions of quasijudicial
agencies when the same are ably supported by the evidence on
record. However, where such conclusions are based on a
misperception of facts or where they patently fly in the face of
reason and logic, we will not hesitate to set aside those
conclusions. Going into the issue of petitioners money claims, we
find one more salient reason in this case to set things right: the
labor arbiters evaluation of the money claims in this case
incredibly ignores existing law and jurisprudence on the matter.
Its blatant onesidedness simply raises the suspicion that
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/23
4/20/2016
something more than the facts, the law and jurisprudence may
have influenced the decision at the level of the Arbiter.
Same; Same; Hotels; Meals and Lodging; Granting that meals
and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such
facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying
first with certain legal requirements, viz, a) proof must be shown
that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade, b) the
provision of deducti
674
674
5/23
4/20/2016
675
6/23
4/20/2016
676
7/23
4/20/2016
illustrative.
Petitioner Norma Mabeza contends that around the first
week of May, 1991, she and her coemployees at the Hotel
Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotels
management to sign an instrument attesting to the latters
compliance with minimum
wage and other 2labor standard
1
provisions of law. The instrument provides:
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
We, SYLVIA IGANA, HERMINIGILDO AQUINO, EVELYN
OGOY, MACARIA JUGUETA, ADELAIDA NONOG, NORMA
MABEZA, JONATHAN PICART and JOSE DIZON, all of legal
ages (sic), Filipinos and residents of Baguio City, under oath,
depose and say:
1. That we are employees of Mr. Peter L. Ng of his Hotel
Supreme situated at No. 416 Magsaysay Ave., Baguio
City;
2. That the said Hotel is separately operated from the Ivys
Grill and Restaurant;
3. That we are all (8) employees in the hotel and assigned in
each respective shifts;
4. That we have no complaints against the management of
the Hotel Supreme as we are paid accordingly and that we
are treated well;
5. That we are executing this affidavit voluntarily without
any force or intimidation and for the purpose of informing
the authorities concerned and to dispute the alleged report
of the Labor Inspector of the Department of Labor and
Employment conducted on the said establishment on
February 2, 1991.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands
this 7th day of May, 1991 at Baguio City, Philippines.
_________________
1
originally at his Belfront Hotel but was later pulled out for work at the
Hotel Supreme, owned by the former.
2
Id., at 6.
677
677
8/23
4/20/2016
(Sgd.)
SYLVIA IGAMA
HERMINIGILDO
AQUINO
(Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
MACARIA
JUGUETA
ADELAIDA NONOG
(Sgd.)
JONATHAN PICART
(Sgd.)
EVELYN OGOY
(Sgd.)
NORMA
MABEZA
(Sgd.)
JOSE DIZON
Rollo, p. 6.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/23
4/20/2016
Id., at 24.
Rollo, p. 7.
678
678
10/23
4/20/2016
per
_________________
6
Id., at 31.
Id., at 2324.
Rollo, p. 22.
679
679
11/23
4/20/2016
Id., at 24.
10
Id., at 3036.
11
Ibid.
12
Rollo, p. 4.
680
680
12/23
4/20/2016
Id., at 6483.
14
Polymedic General Hospital vs. NLRC, 134 SCRA 420, 424 (1985);
Molave Tours Corporation vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 325, 329 (1995).
15
Rollo, p. 32.
681
681
13/23
4/20/2016
with the hotel, to no avail. It was only after she had been
repeatedly rebuffed that she filed a case for illegal
dismissal. These acts militate against the private
respondents claim that petitioner abandoned her job. As
the Solicitor General in his manifestation observed:
Petitioners absence on that day should not be construed as
abandonment of her job. She did not report because the cashier
told her not to report anymore, and that private respondent Ng
did not want to see her in the hotel premises. But two days later
or on the 10th of May, after realizing that she had to clarify her
employment status, she again reported for work. However, she
19
was prevented from working by private respondents.
Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328 (1990).
17
Asphalt and Cement Pavers, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr., 162 SCRA 312
(1988).
18
19
Rollo, p. 72.
682
682
14/23
4/20/2016
683
683
15/23
4/20/2016
Ibid.
22
General Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 569, 578 (1985).
684
684
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
countenanced.
16/23
4/20/2016
23
countenanced.
Rollo, p. 73.
24
Rollo, p. 78.
25
685
17/23
4/20/2016
Rollo, p. 26.
686
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
18/23
4/20/2016
686
28
Rollo, p. 80.
29
Ibid.
30
Rollo, p. 80.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/23
4/20/2016
687
20/23
4/20/2016
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VII, Rule II, sec.
33
1.
688
688
21/23
4/20/2016
Ibid.
689
689
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo and Vitug, JJ.,
concur
Hermosisima, Jr., J., On leave.
Resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.Loss of confidence constitutes a just cause for
terminating an employeremployee relationship. (Anderson
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 116
[1996])
Employees illegally dismissed before 21 March 1989
shall be awarded back wages limited to three (3) years
without deduction or qualification, while those dismissed
after shall be entitled to full back wages and other benefits
for the entire period that they were out of work and until
actual reinstatement. (Tan vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 271 SCRA 216 [1997])
o0o
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
22/23
4/20/2016
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015432d5a53d46556c17003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
23/23