MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION v. JOSELITO A.

CARO
G.R. No. 181490 : April 23, 2014
Petition for review of the decision and resolution of the CA
FACTS:
Caro was hired by Mirant in 1994 as its Logistics Officer
In 2002, Southern Company was sold to Mirant and during this time respondent was
already a supervisor of the Logistics and Purchasing Department
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims for 13th and 14th
month pay, bonuses, and other benefits, as well as payment of moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees
At the time of the filing of the complaint, respondent was already a supervisor at the
Logistics and Purchasing Department
Nov. 3, 2004 petitioner conducted a random drug test and respondent was randomly
chosen to be tested
Respondent was duly notified that he was scheduled to be tested after lunch on the
same day receipt of notice is evidenced by his signature on the correspondence
Respondent alleges that:
o On the same day of the drug test, he received a phone call from one of his
wifes colleagues informing him of a bombing incident near the workplace of
his wife that immediately, he proceeded to the Israeli Embassy to confirm
the news
o Before he left the office, he first informed the secretary of his department,
Irene Torres, that he will prioritize the emergency phone call and that he
would be back as soon as he resolved the problem
o He tried to contact his wife but never reached her
o 6 pm of the same day he went back to the office
o He received a text message from Cecilia, a member of the Drug Watch
Committee, informing him to participate in the said test
o He immediately called up Cecilia to explain his failure to submit to the test
and that he would submit to the test the following day
Nov. 8, 2004 - Respondent received a Show Cause Notice from Petitioner requiring him
to explain in writing why he should not be charged with unjust refusal to submit to
random drug testing
Mirants Investigating Panel found respondent guilty of unjustified refusal to submit
to random drug testing, recommending a penalty of 4 working weeks suspension
without pay, and recommended petitioner to review its policy on random drug testing,
especially on the ambiguities of the use of unjustified refusal
Mirants assistant vice president recommended that respondent be terminated from
employment instead of being suspended even if respondent did not out rightly
refused to submit to test, he avoided the same and avoidance is synonymous to
refusal
Petitioner corporation alleges that:
o They have already fully settled the claim of respondent as evidenced by a
quitclaim which respondent duly executed
o They are not guilty of unfair labor practice as respondents dismissal was not
intended to curtail his right to self-organization

 Labor Arbiter found respondent to have been illegally dismissed and that the quitclaim
is a clear attempt of the petitioner to mislead respondents cause of action
Petitioners appealed to National Labor Relations Committee (NLRC)
NLRC granted appeal and ruled that respondents termination is in order
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration CA disagreed with NLRC

ISSUE: W/N respondent was illegally dismissed

HELD: YES
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
o Liberal stance towards the construction of the rules of procedure in order to
serve ends of substantial justice
o The workingmans welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration
o Mirant corp.s Anti-Drugs Policy were unfair and unreasonable it is
not clear on what constitutes unjustified refusal
o Unjust refusal could not possibly cover all forms of refusal as the
employees resistance, to be punishable with termination, must be
unjustified
LABOR LAW
o In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore
ensure that the policies, rules, and regulations on work-related activities of
the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding
penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and
to the degree of infraction
o The subject policy is not clear creating doubt that respondents dismissal was
a result of petitioners valid exercise of its management prerogative
REMEDIAL LAW
o General Rule: ALL DOUBTS SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR
o Section 4, Labor Code all doubts I the implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
o Article 1702, New Civil Code in case of doubt, all labor legislation and
all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living
for the laborer.
o Labor Arbiter stated that, 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.
The unreasonableness of the penalty of termination as imposed in this case is further
highlighted by a fact admitted by the petitioner corporation itself: that for the 10-yr.
period that respondent had been employed by petitioner corporation, he did not
have any record of a violation of its company policies
Quitclaims ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of their legal rights, especially
in this case where the evidence corresponds to the amount claimed as unpaid wages
the amount paid under the subject quitclaim presented the salaries of the

respondent that REMAINED UNPAID at the time of his termination and NOT THE
AMOUNTS BEING CLAIMED