Professional Documents
Culture Documents
035557-03 which reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling that MEMO OF NOTICE OF CHARGES
petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Factual Antecedents
TO:
JHORIZALDY B. UY
Petitioner Jhorizaldy Uy was hired by respondent Centro
RAMONITA Y. SY
Ceramica Corporation as full-time sales executive on March FROM:
21, 1999 under probationary employment for six months. RE:
FAILURE TO MEET QUOTA FOR SALES
He became a regular employee on May 1, 2000 with EXEmonthly salary of P7,000.00 and P1,500.00 transportation
allowance, plus commission.
CUTIVE
On March 18, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal DATE:
February 21, 2002
dismissal against the respondent company, its President
Ramonita Y. Sy (Sy) and Vice-President Milagros Uy- Records show that you have failed to meet the quota for
sales executives, set for the period from 1999 to 2001 in
Garcia (Garcia).
violation of your contract of employment.
Petitioner alleged that his predicament began when former
VP Garcia was rehired by respondent company in the last In view of the foregoing, please explain in writing within
quarter of 2001. Certain incidents involving longtime twenty[-]four (24) hours from receipt hereof, why the
clients led to a strained working relationship between him company should not terminate your contract of
and Garcia. On February 19, 2002 after their weekly sales employment.5
meeting, he was informed by his superior, Sales Supervisor
Richard Agcaoili, that he (petitioner) was to assume a new
position in the marketing department, to which he replied
that he will think it over. His friends had warned him to be
careful saying mainit ka kay Ms. Garcia. That same day,
he was summoned by Sy and Garcia for a closed-door
meeting during which Sy informed him of the termination
of his services due to insubordination and advised him to
turn over his samples and files immediately. Sy even
commented that member ka pa naman ng [S]ingles for
[C]hrist pero napakatigas naman ng ulo mo. On February
21, 2002, he was summoned again by Sy but prior to this he
was already informed by Agcaoili that the spouses Sy will
give him all that is due to him plus goodwill money to settle
everything. However, during his meeting with Sy, he asked
for his termination paper and thereupon Sy told him that If
thats what you want I will give it to you. She added that
JHORIZALDY B. UY
OF
ABSENCE
He referred the above letter to his counsel who sent the For his illegal termination, petitioner asserted that he is
entitled to his unpaid commission, tax refund, back wages
following letter-reply:
and reinstatement.
MS. RAMONITA Y. SY
On the other hand, respondents denied dismissing
Centro Ceramica Corporation
petitioner. They countered that petitioners poor sales
performance did not improve even after he was regularized.
225 EDSA, East Greenhills
On February 18, 2002, management met with the Sales
Group on a per agent basis to discuss sales performance,
Mandaluyong City
possible salary realignment and revamp of the Sales Group.
We are writing you in behalf of Mr. Jhorizaldy B. Uy who Agcaoili relayed to petitioner the poor assessment of his
sales performance and the possibility that he will be
used to be a Sales Executive of your firm.
transferred to another department although there was yet no
On February 19, 2002, you informed him that from Sales official decision on the matter. Petitioner then told Agcaoili
Executive he was to assume a new position in the marketing that he was aware of the problem and his possible
department. He refused and when he later said that pag- termination, prompting the latter to convince the former to
iisipan ko pa you charged him with insubordination. Your consider voluntarily resigning from the company rather
Ms. Nita Garcia even lamented in this wise single (for than be terminated. The next day, February 19, 2002,
Christ) ka pa naman. Right then you terminated his petitioner talked anew to Agcaoili and informed the latter
services and was directed to turn over everything that he that he will just resign from the company and sought an
had which was company owned and it was on February 22, appointment with Sy. When petitioner inquired how much
2002 that the turn over was made.
he will get if he will resign, Sy advised him that he would
get salaries and commissions to which he is legally entitled;
On or about March 6, 2002 an employee of your company
hence, for items sold and already delivered, he will be
saw him in his apartment giving him a memorandum to
receiving the commission in full, but for those sold but yet
explain his alleged failure to meet the quota as Sales
to be delivered, as per company policy, he will receive the
Executive. He admits with c[a]ndor that he did not receive
commissions only upon delivery of the items. Upon hearing
the said memorandum because it was written not on the
this, petitioner suddenly got mad and said that if that is the
company stationary. Just the same the contents of the said
case, the company president should just terminate him and
letter has bec[o]me irrelevant because he has been already
3
CARLOS C. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. LIBERTY his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or
BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. and EDGARDO in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be
QUIOGUE, respondents.
resolved in the formers favor.
Appeals; As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
and can review a Rule 45 petition only on questions of law
but when there are substantial conflicts in the factual
findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court or
government agency concerned, the Court wades into
questions of facts.As a rule, and as recently held in Rudy
A. Palecpec, Jr. v. Hon. Corazon C. Davis, et al. (a 2007
case), 528 SCRA 720 (2007), this Court is not a trier of
facts and can review a Rule 45 petition only on questions of
law. We wade, however, into questions of facts when there
are substantial conflicts in the factual findings of the CA,
on the one hand, and the trial court or government agency
concerned, on the other. This is precisely the situation that
we have before us since the NLRC and the CA have
diametrically opposed factual findings leading to differing
conclusions. Hence, we are left with no option but to
undertake a review of
_______________
reviewed the appeal on the NLRCs instructions.10 It ruled to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction, or when such finding
that Arbiter Pati erred in disregarding the affidavits of the is not supported by the evidence. He argues that the
respondents witnesses.
respondent company failed to raise any jurisdictional
question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion before
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the the CA. What the respondent company effectively sought
NLRC granted in a Resolution promulgated on September from the CA, citing our ruling in Flores v. NLRC,15 was a
20, 2002.11 The NLRC held that the charges against judicial re-evaluation of the adequacy or inadequacy of the
petitioner were never really substantiated other than by the evidence on recordan
bare allegations in the affidavits of witnesses who were
the companys employees and who had altercations with improper exercise of power outside the scope of the
petitioner prior to the execution of their affidavits.
extraordinary writ of certiorari.
The NLRC turned down the motion for reconsideration that
the respondent company subsequently filed.12 The
respondent company thus elevated the case to the CA via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA granted the petition in its Decision promulgated on
May 25, 2004,13 thereby effectively confirming the validity
of the petitioners dismissal. The appellate court found that
the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded
the affidavits of all the respondents witnesses, particularly
those of Balais, Samarita, Niguidula, and Pacaldo who were
one in saying that the petitioner demanded commissions
from the companys job contractors. The CA observed that
it could not have been possible that Balais and Niguidula
(who had previous altercations with the petitioner), and
Samarita (who did not previously know Quiogue) all
committed perjury to execute respondent Quiogues scheme
of removing the petitioner from the company.
The petitioner moved but failed to secure a reconsideration
of the CA Decision; hence, he came to us through the
present petition.
The Petition
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and On the pretext of retrenchment, Peaflors two staff
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
members were dismissed, leaving him as the only member
of Outdoor Clothings HRD and compelling him to perform
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
all personnel-related work. He worked as a one-man
department, carrying out all clerical, administrative and
Vicente S. Pulido for petitioner.
liaison work; he personally went to various government
Kho, Bustos, Malcontento, Argosino Law Offices for offices to process the companys papers.
respondents.
When an Outdoor Clothing employee, Lynn Padilla
(Padilla), suffered injuries in a bombing incident, the
BRION,J.:
company required Peaflor to attend to her hospitalization
Petitioner Manolo A. Peaflor (Peaflor) seeks the reversal needs; he had to work outside office premises to undertake
of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision1 dated December 29, this task. As he was acting on the companys orders,
2006 and its resolution2 dated March 14, 2007, through the Peaflor considered himself to be on official business, but
present petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 was surprised when the company deducted six days salary
of the Rules of Court. The assailed CA decision affirmed corresponding to the time he assisted Padilla. According to
the September 24, 2002 decision3 of the National Labor Finance Manager Medylene Demogena (Demogena), he
Relations Commission (NLRC) that in turn reversed the failed to submit his trip ticket, but Peaflor belied this claim
August 15, 2001 decision4 of the Labor Arbiter.5
as a trip ticket was required only when a company vehicle
was used and he did not use any company vehicle when he
The Factual Antecedents
attended to his off-premises work.6After Peaflor returned
Peaflor was hired on September 2, 1999 as probationary from his field work on March 13, 2000, his officemates
Human Resource Department (HRD) Manager of informed him that while he was away, Syfu had appointed
respondent Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation Nathaniel Buenaobra (Buenaobra) as the new HRD
(Outdoor Clothing or the company). As HRD head, Manager. This information was confirmed by Syfus
Peaflor was expected to (1) secure and maintain the right memorandum of March 10, 2000 to the entire office stating
quality and quantity of people needed by the company; (2) that Buenaobra was the concurrent HRD and Accounting
maintain the harmonious relationship between the Manager.7 Peaflor was surprised by the news; he also felt
employees and management in a role that supports betrayed and discouraged. He tried to talk to Syfu to clarify
organizational goals and individual aspirations; and (3) the matter, but was unable to do so. Peaflor claimed that
represent the company in labor cases or proceedings. Two under these circumstances, he had no option but to resign.
staff members were assigned to work with him to assist him He submitted a letter to Syfu declaring his irrevocable
resignation from his employment with Outdoor Clothing
in undertaking these functions.
effective at the close of office hours on March 15, 2000.8
Peaflor claimed that his relationship with Outdoor
Clothing went well during the first few months of his Peaflor then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
employment; he designed and created the companys Policy labor arbiter, claiming that he had been constructively
Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and dismissed. He included in his complaint a prayer for
Organizational Set-Up during this period. His woes began reinstatement and payment of backwages, illegally
when the companys Vice President for Operations, Edgar deducted salaries, damages, attorneys fees, and other
Lee (Lee), left the company after a big fight between Lee monetary claims.
and Chief Corporate Officer Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu).
Outdoor Clothing denied Peaflors allegation of
Because of his close association with Lee, Peaflor claimed
constructive dismissal. It posited instead that Peaflor had
that he was among those who bore Syfus ire.
voluntarily resigned from his work. Contrary to Peaflors
When Outdoor Clothing began undertaking its alleged statement that he had been dismissed from employment
downsizing program due to negative business returns, upon Syfus appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD
Peaflor alleged that his department had been singled out. Manager on March 10, 2000, Peaflor had in fact continued
14
working for the company until his resignation on March 15, never furnished copies of these. Moreover, he could not be
2000. The company cited as evidence the security report on prolonged absence without official leave, as his
that Peaflor himself prepared and signed on March 13, residence was just a few meters away from the office.
2000.9
The NLRC apparently found Outdoor Clothings submitted
Outdoor Clothing disclaimed liability for any of Peaflors memoranda sufficient to overturn the labor arbiters
monetary claims. Since Peaflor had voluntarily resigned, decision.13 It characterized Peaflors resignation as a
Outdoor Clothing alleged that he was not entitled to any response, not to the allegedly degrading and hostile
backwages and damages. The company likewise denied treatment that he was subjected to by Syfu, but to Outdoor
making any illegal deduction from Peaflors salary; while Clothings downward financial spiral. Buenaobras
deductions were made, they were due to Peaflors failure appointment was made only after Peaflor had submitted
to report for work during the dates the company questioned. his resignation letter, and this was made to cover the
As a probationary employee, he was not yet entitled to any vacancy Peaflors resignation would create. Thus, Peaflor
leave credit that would offset his absences.
was not eased out from his position as HRD manager. No
malice likewise was present in the companys decision to
In his August 15, 2001 decision, the labor arbiter found that dismiss Peaflors two staff members; the company simply
Peaflor had been illegally dismissed.10 Outdoor Clothing exercised its management prerogative to address the
was consequently ordered to reinstate Peaflor to his former financial problems it faced. Peaflor, in fact, drafted the
or to an equivalent position, and to pay him his illegally dismissal letters of his staff members. In the absence of any
deducted salary for six days, proportionate 13th month pay, illegal dismissal, no basis existed for the monetary awards
attorneys fees, moral and exemplary damages.Outdoor the labor arbiter granted.
Clothing appealed the labor arbiters decision with the
NLRC. It insisted that Peaflor had not been constructively Peaflor anchored his certiorari petition with the CA on the
dismissed, claiming that Peaflor tendered his resignation claim that the NLRC decision was tainted with grave abuse
on March 1, 2000 because he saw no future with the of discretion, although he essentially adopted the same
corporation due to its dire financial standing. Syfu alleged arguments he presented before the labor arbiter and the
that he was compelled to appoint Buenaobra as concurrent NLRC.
HRD Manager through a memorandum dated March 1,
2000 to cover the position that Peaflor would soon In a decision dated December 29, 2006,14 the CA affirmed
vacate.11 The appointment was also made to address the the NLRCs decision, stating that Peaflor failed to present
personnel matters that had to be taken cared of while sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he had been
Peaflor was on unauthorized leave. Incidentally, Outdoor constructively dismissed. The CA ruled that Peaflors
Clothing alleged that Peaflor had already been given two resignation was knowingly and voluntarily made.
notices, on March 6 and 11, 2000 (absence without official Accordingly, it dismissed Peaflors certiorari petition. It
leave memoranda or the AWOL memoranda), for his likewise denied the motion for reconsideration that Peaflor
unauthorized absences. In a memorandum dated March 3, subsequently filed.15 Faced with these CA actions, Peaflor
2000 addressed to Syfu, Buenaobra accepted the filed with us the present petition for review on certiorari.
appointment.12
The Parties Arguments
Peaflor contested Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum,
Buenaobras March 3, 2000 memorandum, and the AWOL
memoranda, claiming these pieces of evidence were
fabricated and were never presented before the labor arbiter.
He pointed out that nothing in this resignation letter
indicated that it was submitted to and received by Syfu on
March 1, 2000. He claimed that it was submitted on March
15, 2000, the same date he made his resignation effective.
The AWOL memoranda could not be relied on, as he was
15
the Outdoor Clothing unbearable. He was thus forced to support exists for Peaflors allegation that he had been
resign.
forced to resign due to the prevailing abusive and hostile
working environment. Buenaobras appointment would then
Outdoor Clothing claims that Peaflor voluntarily resigned be simply intended to cover the vacancy created by
from his work and his contrary allegations were all Peaflors resignation. On the other hand, if the resignation
unsubstantiated. The HRD was not singled out for letter was submitted after the appointment of Buenaobra,
retrenchment, but was simply the first to lose its staff then factual basis exists indicating that Peaflor had been
members because the company had to downsize. Thus, all constructively dismissed as his resignation was a response
HRD work had to be performed by Peaflor. Instead of to the unacceptable appointment of another person to a
being grateful that he was not among those immediately position he still occupied.
dismissed due to the companys retrenchment program,
Peaflor unreasonably felt humiliated in performing work The question of when Peaflor submitted his resignation
that logically fell under his department; insisted on having a letter arises because this letterundisputably madewas
full staff complement; absented himself from work without undated. Despite Peaflors claim of having impressive
official leave; and demanded payment for his unauthorized intellectual and academic credentials,19 his resignation
absences.
letter, for some reason, was undated. Thus, the parties have
directly opposing claims on the matter. Peaflor claims that
The Issue and The Courts Ruling
he wrote and filed the letter on the same date he made his
resignation effectiveMarch 15, 2000. Outdoor Clothing,
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
on the other hand, contends that the letter was submitted on
A preliminary contentious issue is Outdoor Clothings March 1, 2000, for which reason Syfu issued a
argument that we should dismiss the petition outright memorandum of the same date appointing Buenaobra as the
because it raises questions of facts, not the legal questions concurrent HRD manager; Syfus memorandum cited
that should be raised in a Rule 45 petition.16We see no Peaflors intention to resign so he could devote his time to
merit in this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition teaching. The company further cites in support of its case
deals only with legal issues is not an absolute rule; it admits Buenaobras March 3, 2000 memorandum accepting his
of exceptions. In the labor law setting, we wade into factual appointment. Another piece of evidence is the Syfu
issues when conflict of factual findings exists among the memorandum of March 10, 2000, which informed the
labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. This is the exact office of the appointment of Buenaobra as the concurrent
situation that obtains in the present case since the labor Head of HRDthe position that Peaflor occupied. Two
arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that there had other memoranda are alleged to exist, namely, the AWOL
been constructive dismissal, while the NLRCs and the memoranda of March 6 and 11, 2000, allegedly sent to
CAs factual findings contradicted the labor arbiters Peaflor.
findings.17 Under this situation, the conflicting factual
findings below are not binding on us, and we retain the Several reasons arising directly from these pieces of
authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw evidence lead us to conclude that Peaflor did indeed
submit his resignation letter on March, 15, 2000, i.e., on the
conclusions therefrom.18
same day that it was submitted.
The petition turns on the question of whether Peaflors
undisputed resignation was a voluntary or a forced one, in First, we regard the Syfu memorandum of March 1, 2000
the latter case making it a constructive dismissal equivalent and the memorandum of Buenaobra of March 3, 2000
to an illegal dismissal. A critical fact necessary in resolving accepting the position of HRD Head to be highly suspect.
this issue is whether Peaflor filed his letter of resignation In our view, these memoranda, while dated, do not
before or after the appointment of Buenaobra as the constitute conclusive evidence of their dates of preparation
new/concurrent HRD manager. This question also gives rise and communication. Surprisingly, Peaflor was never
to the side issue of when Buenaobras appointment was informed about these memoranda when they directly
made. If the resignation letter was submitted before Syfus concerned him, particularly the turnover of responsibilities
appointment of Buenaobra as new HRD manager, little to Buenaobra if indeed Peaflor had resigned on March 1,
16
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Facts
Prior to said issuance, herein parties entered into a Thus, [respondent] argued that long before the passage of
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from Wage Order ROVII-06 on March 10, 1998, and by virtue of
August 1, 1994 to July 31, 1999.
the Memorandum of Agreement it entered with herein
[petitioner], [respondent] was already paying its employees
Sec. 1. Salary Increase.The Company shall grant a a daily wage of P165.00 per day retroactive on August 1,
FIFTEEN (P15.00) PESOS per day increase to all its 1997, while the minimum wage at that time was still
regular or permanent employees effective August 1, 1994. P155.00 per day. On August 1, 1998, [respondent] again
Sec. 2. Minimum Wage Law Amendment.In the event granted an increase from P165.00 per day to P175.00, so
that a law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an across- that at the time of the effectivity of Wage Order No. 06 on
the-board increase shall be granted by the company October 1, 1998 prescribing the new minimum wage of
P165.00 per day, [respondents] employees were already
according to the provisions of the law.
receiving P175.00 per day.
On January 27, 1998, a re-negotiation of the CBA was
terminated and pursuant to which a Memorandum of For failure of the parties to settle this controversy, a
Agreement was forged between the parties. It was therein preventive mediation complaint was filed by herein
stated that petitioner shall grant a salary increase to all [petitioner] before the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, pursuant to which the parties selected public
regular and permanent employees as follows:
respondent Voluntary Arbitrator to decide said controversy.
Ten (10) pesos per day increase effective August 1, 1997;
Submitted for arbitral resolution is the sole issue of
Ten (10) pesos per day increase effective August 1, 1998.
whether or not [respondent] has complied with Wage Order
Pursuant to said Memorandum of Agreement, the No. ROVII-06, in relation to the CBA provision mandating
employees received wage increases of P10.00 per day an across-the-board increase in case of the issuance of a
effective August 1, 1997 and P10.00 per day effective Wage Order.
August 1, 1998. As a result, the agreed P10.00 re-negotiated
salary increase effectively raised the daily wage of the In his decision, public respondent arbitrator found herein
employees to P165.00 retroactive August 1, 1997; and [respondent] not to have complied with the wage order,
another increase of P10.00, effective August 1, 1998, through the following dispositions:
raising the employees[] daily wage to P175.00.
The CBA provision in question (providing for an acrossOn March 10, 1998, the Regional Tripartite Wage
Productivity Board (RTWPB) of Region VII issued Wage
Order ROVII-06 which established the minimum wage of
P165.00, by mandating a wage increase of five (P5.00)
pesos per day beginning April 1, 1998, thereby raising the
daily minimum wage to P160.00 and another increase of
five (P5.00) pesos per day beginning October 1, 1998,
thereby raising the daily minimum wage to P165.00 per
day.
x x x
xxx
x x x 8
opinion, which was attached to respondents Supplemental intended no such creditability; otherwise, they would have
Memorandum submitted to that court on August 30, 2000, expressly stated such intent in the CBA.
beyond the July 17, 2000 extended deadline.
We hold that the issue here is not about creditability, but the
The Courts Ruling
applicability of Wage Order No. ROVII-06 to respondents
employees. The Wage Order was intended to fix a new
The Petition lacks merit.
minimum wage only, not to grant across-the-board wage
increases to all employees in Region VII. The intent of the
Main Issue:
Order is indicated in its title, Establishing New Minimum
Wage Rates, as well as in its preamble: the purpose, reason
Effect of Wage Order No. ROVII-06 on the Parties CBA
or justification for its enactment was to adjust the
Petitioner insists that respondent should have granted to the minimum wage of workers to cushion the impact brought
employees the increase stated in Wage Order No. ROVII- about by the latest economic crisis not only in the
06. In addition to the increases both parties had mutually Philippines but also in the Asian region.
agreed upon, the CBA supposedly imposed upon
respondent the obligation to implement the increases In Cagayan Sugar Milling Company v. Secretary of Labor
mandated by law without any condition or qualification. To and Employment14 and Manila Mandarin Employees
support its claim, petitioner repeatedly invokes Section 2 of Union v. NLRC,15 the Wage Orders that were the subjects
of those cases were substantially and similarly worded as
Article XII of the CBA, which reads:
Wage Order No. ROVII-06. In those cases, this Court
SECTION 2. Minimum Wage Law Amendment.In the construed the Orders along the same line that it follows
event that a law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an now: as providing for an increase in the prevailing statutory
across-the-board increase shall be granted by the Company minimum wage rates of workers. No across-the-board
according to the provisions of the law.
increases were granted.
Interestingly, petitioner disregards altogether in its
argument the qualifying phrase according to the provisions
of the law and merely focuses its attention on the acrossthe-board increase clause. Given the entire sentence, it is
clear that the above-quoted CBA provision does not support
the unyielding view of petitioner that the issuance of Wage
Order No. ROVII-06 entitles its members to an across-theboard increase, absolutely and without any condition.
22
shall be increased by Ten Pesos (P10.00) per day to be VII. In its letter-opinion17 answering respondents queries,
given in the following manner:
the Board gave a similar interpretation of the essence of the
Wage Order: to fix a new floor wage or to upgrade the
i. Five Pesos (P5.00) per day effective April 1, 1998, and
wages of the employees receiving lower than the minimum
ii. Additional Five Pesos (P5.00) per day effective October wage set by the Order.
1, 1998.
Section 3. UNIFORM WAGE RATE PER AREA
CLASSIFICATION.To effect a uniform wage rate
pursuant to Section 1 hereof, the prescribed minimum wage
after full implementation of this Order for each area
classification shall be as follows:
Area Classification
Non-Agriculture Sector
Agriculture Sector
Class A
165.00
150.00
Class B
155.00
140.00
Class C
145.00
130.00
Class D
135.00
120.00
interpret Wage Order No. ROVII-06 to mean that ocean-going vessels. The issue raised of whether petitioner
respondent should grant an across-the-board increase. Such is entitled to death compensation benefits from respondents
interpretation of the Order is not sustained by its text.24
is best resolved by the provisions of their Employment
Contract which incorporated the 2000 Standard Terms and
In the resolution of labor cases, this Court has always been Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution: Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels.
social justice25 and the protection of the working class.26
Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute Same; Same; Death Benefits; To be entitled for death
should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In every compensation benefits from the employer, the death of the
case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed seafarer (1) must be work-related; and (2) must happen
in the light of the established facts and the applicable law during the term of the employment contract.Clearly, to be
and doctrine.27
entitled for death compensation benefits from the employer,
the death of the seafarer (1) must be work-related; and (2)
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed must happen during the term of the employment contract.
Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against Under the Amended POEA Contract, work-relatedness is
petitioner.
now an important requirement. The qualification that death
must be work-related has made it necessary to show a
SO ORDERED.
causal connection between a seafarers work and his death
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and to be compensable.
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Same; Same; Work-Related Injuries; Words and Phrases;
Under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment
G.R. No. 191740.February 11, 2013.*
Administration (POEA) Amended Employment Contract,
SUSANA R. SY, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE work-related injury is defined as an injury(ies) resulting in
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., and/or SSC SHIP disability or death arising out of and in the course of
MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD., respondents.
employment.Under the 2000 POEA Amended
Employment Contract, work-related injury is defined as an
Labor Law; Seafarers; Philippine Overseas Employment
injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of and
Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEAin the course of employment. Thus, there is a need to show
SEC); The terms and conditions of a seafarers employment
that the injury resulting to disability or death must arise (1)
is governed by the provisions of the contract he signs with
out of employment, and (2) in the course of employment.
the employer at the time of his hiring, and deemed
integrated in his contract is a set of standard provisions set Same; Same; Death Benefits; While it is true that the labor
and implemented by the Philippine Overseas Employment contracts are impressed with public interest and the
Administration (POEA), called the Standard Terms and provisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEASeafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which provisions SEC) must be construed logically and liberally in favor of
are considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on
to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in
on board foreign ocean-going vessels.The terms and every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the
conditions of a seafarers employment is governed by the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing
provisions of the contract he signs with the employer at the jurisprudence.While we commiserate with petitioner, we
time of his hiring, and deemed integrated in his contract is a cannot grant her claim for death compensation benefits in
set of standard provisions set and implemented by the the absence of substantial evidence to prove her entitlement
POEA, called the Standard Terms and Conditions thereto, since to do so will cause injustice to the employer.
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are
Ocean-Going Vessels, which provisions are considered to impressed with public interest and the provisions of the
be the minimum requirements acceptable to the government POEA-SEC must be construed logically and liberally in
for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign
24
cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, employment as a seaman. In fact, he was in no different
while the words in the course of refer to the time, place circumstance with other people walking along the riverside
and circumstances under which the accident takes place.
who might also drown if no due
As a matter of general proposition, an injury or accident is
said to arise in the course of employment when it takes
place within the period of the employment, at a place where
the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling
his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental
thereto.19
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 211497.March 18, 2015.*
HOCHENG
PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. ANTONIO M. FARRALES, respondent.
28
REYES,J.:
29
31
On April 29, 2011, the LA ruled in favor of Farrales,14 the Petition for Review to the Supreme Court
fallo of which is as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, all the
respondents Hocheng Phils. Corporation, Inc. Sam Chen[g]
and Judy Geregale are found guilty of illegal dismissal and
ordered jointly and severally to pay complainant the
following:
33
34