Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-in this case, no harm in the business but still considered immoral.
(??)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not sexual intercourse inside company premises
during working hours constitute serious misconduct and which
punishable by dismissal.
HELD:
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent was employed by petitioner as bookkeeper.
Petitioner's Board of Directors (the Board) received a letter from a
certain Napoleon Gao-ay (Napoleon) reporting the alleged
immoral conduct and unbecoming behavior of respondent by
having an illicit relationship with Napoleon sister, Thelma G.
Palma (Thelma). This prompted the Board to conduct a
preliminary investigation. During the preliminary investigation,
the Board received evidence of respondent alleged extramarital
affair.
On appeal, the NLRC set aside the LA decision. The NLRC found
petitioner Personnel Policy to be of questionable existence and
validity because it was unnumbered. It held that even assuming
that respondent had an extra-marital affair with a married
woman, the latter is not his fellow worker in petitioner business
establishment. It, thus, concluded that respondent dismissal was
not founded on any of the just causes for termination of
employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, but it failed to obtain a
favorable decision. Petitioner now comes before the Court in this
petition for review on certiorari insisting on the validity of
respondent dismissal from employment.
HELD:
GRANTED
Lovers' fight outside workplace - serious misconduct? NO.
FACTS:
Petitioner and Ma. Dulcena Lim were lovers and also both
employee Bristol-Myers Squibb.
HELD:
Facts:
ISSUES:
1. WON teacher falling in love with students are immoral.
2. WON Reinstatement is possible.
HELD:
1.
Teacher falling in love with student, not immoral.
Even the labor arbiter conceded that there was no direct evidence
to show that immoral acts were committed. Nonetheless,
indulging in a patently unfair conjecture, he concluded that "it is
however enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and
conclude what transpired during those times." In reversing his
decision, the National Labor Relations Commission observed that
the assertions of immoral acts or conducts are gratuitous and that
there is no direct evidence to support such claim.
With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the
imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of
the Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have
no basis. Private respondent (school) utterly failed to show that
petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. If
the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity of their ages
and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that
the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But,
definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to
be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the
circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern
cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.
It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of the school
in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily bannered
to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy, however, is not at
odds with and should not be capitalized on to defeat the security
of tenure granted by the Constitution to labor. In termination
cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for
dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his
failure to do so would result in a finding that the dismissal is
unjustified.
2.
Reinstatement, not possible.
RULING:
The Court cited Estrada vs. Escritur in the said case, stating the
following relevant explanation;
FACTS:
RULING:
No. Statutory law is replete with legislation protecting labor and
promoting equal opportunity in employment. No less than the
1987 Constitution mandates that 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.
RULING:
On Equal Protection
On Constructive Dismissal
HELD:
DISPOSITIVE:
FACTS:
HELD:
Article 136 of the Labor Code, one of the protective laws for
women, explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of
marriage of a female employee. It is recognized that company is
free to regulate manpower and employment from hiring to firing,
according to their discretion and best business judgment, except
in those cases of unlawful discrimination or those provided by law.
FACTS:
The employer contends that its policy will apply only when one
employee marries a co-employee, but employees remain free to
marry persons other than co-employees.
HELD: NO.
The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the
Labor Code, but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the
disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial
scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the
discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect. The failure of
[the employer] to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing
the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee's right to be
free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of
married persons working together in one company.
FACTS:
The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is
from 147 to 166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as
mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL.
NLRC affirmed.
HELD: YES
NOTES:
The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide
occupational qualification defense. Employment in particular jobs
may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or
national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or
national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job.
The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ). In short, the test of reasonableness of the company
policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid
provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for
satisfactory job performance.
The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has
committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to
achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most
particularly the cabin flight deck crew who are on board the
aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as
imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employees.
The primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight
standards for cabin crew is flight safety.
Separation pay, however, should be awarded in favor of the
employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so
because his dismissal is not for serious misconduct. Neither is it
reflective of his moral character.
G.J.T. Rebuilders rented space in the Far East Asia (FEA) Building
in Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, which served as the site of
its machine shop.
On September 8, 1996, a fire partially destroyed the FEA
Building.6
I
G.J.T. Rebuilders must pay respondents their separation pay for
failure to prove its alleged serious business losses
Article 283 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an
employee due to the cessation of operation or closure of its
establishment or undertaking, thus:
Footnotes
*
Designated acting member per S. 0. No. 1910 dated January 12,
2015.
1
Rollo, pp. 315.
2
Id. at 1824. The Decision dated January 17, 2006 was penned
by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by
Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria and Santiago Javier Ranada of
the Fifth Division.
3
Russell Ambos was also referred to as "Ruzell Ambos." See rollo,
pp. 18, 36, and 44.
4
Rollo, pp. 2122.
5
Id. at 19.
6
Id. at 29.
7
Id.
8
Id. at 8 and 19.
9
Id. at 56 and 20.
10
Id. at 19.
11
Id. at 1920.
12
Id. at 3643.
13
Id. at 3940. This Article was renumbered to Article 297 by Rep.
Act No. 10151, otherwise known as An Act Allowing the
Employment of Night Workers, Thereby Repealing Articles 130
and 131 of Presidential Decree Number Four Hundred Forty-Two,
as amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines; Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc.
Employees Union Olalia, G.R. No. 173154, December 9, 2013, 711
SCRA 618, 624 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
14
Id. at 4142.
15
Id. at 40, citing Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 266 Phil. 770, 780 (1990)
[Per J. Medialdea, First Division] and International Hardware, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), 257 Phil.
261 (1989) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
16
Id. at 44.
17
Id. at 50.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 72.
20
Id. at 4153.
21
Id. at 5455.
22
Id. at 18 and 21.
23
Id. at 2122.
24
Id. at 22.
25
Id. at 1824.
26
Id. at 2628.
27
Id. at 316.
28
Id. at 6066.
29
Id. at 7076.
30
Id. at 9.
31
Id.
32
Id. at 910.
33
Id. at 6364.
34
Id. at 63.
35
Eastridge Golf Club, Inc. v. Eastridge Golf Club, Inc., Labor
Union-Super, et al., 585 Phil. 88, 101 (2008) [Per J. Austria-
Martinez, Third Division].
36
Mac Adams Metal Engineering Workers Union-Independent v.
Mac Adams Metal Engineering, 460 Phil. 583, 590 (2003) [Per J.
Corona, Third Division].
37
Id.
38
460 Phil. 583 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
39
Id. at 590.
40
LABOR CODE, art. 283, now renumbered to art. 297 by Rep. Act
No. 10151.
41
Indino v. NLRC (Second Division), 258 Phil. 792, 800 (1989) [Per
J. Sarmiento, Second Division].
42
Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, G.R.
Nos. 7570001, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 179, 186 [Per J.
Feliciano, Third Division].
43
Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corp. v. NLRC, 360
Phil. 218, 236 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division], citing
Somerville Stainless Steel Corporation v. NLRC, 350 Phil. 859, 869
(1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
44
Id. at 236237, citing Somerville Stainless Steel Corporation v.
NLRC, 350 Phil. 859, 870 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
45
Reahs Corporation v. NLRC, 337 Phil. 698, 705 (1997) [Per J.
Padilla, First Division].
46
325 Phil. 202 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
47
Id. at 205.
48
Id. at 212.
49
571 Phil. 494 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
50
Id. at 501.
51
Id. at 509.
52
146 Phil. 153 (1970) [Per J. Ruiz Castro, En Banc].
53
Id. at 157.
54
Id. at 157 and 166.
55
Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc.
Employees Union-Olalia, G.R. No. 173154, December 9, 2013, 711
SCRA 618, 627629 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
56
Rollo, p. 13.
57
Id. at 35.
58
Id. at 2122 and 40.
59
LABOR CODE, art. 283, now renumbered to art. 297 by Rep. Act
No. 10151.
60
Rollo, p. 42.
61
Id.
62
Id.
63
Id.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc.
Employees Union-Olalia, G.R. No. 173154, December 9, 2013, 711
SCRA 618, 627 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
70
Id.
71
Id.
72
Id. at 628.
73
Id. at 629, citing Abbott Laboratories, Philippines v. Alcaraz, G.R.
No. 192571, July 23, 2013, 701 SCRA 682, 715 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, En Banc].
74
Id.
75
G.R. No. 173154, December 9, 2013, 711 SCRA 618 [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
76
Id. at 629, citing Industrial Timber Corporation v. Ababon, 520
Phil. 522, 527528 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
77
Rollo, p. 5.
78
Id. at 5 and 30.
79
Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc.
Employees Union-Olalia, G.R. No. 173154, December 9, 2013, 711
SCRA 618, 630 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
80
Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corporation, G.R. No.
193494, March 12, 2014,
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/march2014/193494.pdf> 26 [Per J.
Leonen, Third Division].
81
Id.
82
LABOR CODE, art. 111(1) provides: Art. 111. Attorneys fees.
(1) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party
may be assessed attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%)
of the amount of wages recovered; Reahs Corporation v. NLRC,
337 Phil. 698, 709 (1997) [Per J. Padilla, First Division].
83
LABOR CODE, art. 222(2) provides: Art. 222. Appearances and
Fees. - . . . . (2) No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar
charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining
agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the
contracting union: Provided, however, That attorneys fees may
be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon
by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any
sort to the contrary shall be null and void; Reahs Corporation v.
NLRC, 337 Phil. 698, 709 (1997) [Per J. Padilla, First Division].
84
Reahs Corporation v. NLRC, 337 Phil. 698, 709 (1997) [Per J.
Padilla, First Division].
85
Rollo, p. 42.
86
Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corporation, G.R. No.
193494, March 12, 2014,
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/march2014/193494.pdf> 27 [Per J.
Leonen, Third Division].
87
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703
SCRA 439, 458 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
88
Id.
Agabon vs. NLRC / Riviera Home - GR No. 158693 Case
Digest
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of
the justifiable or authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for a
just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
dismissal but the employer should indemnify the employee for the
violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to
discourage the abhorrent practice of dismiss now, pay later
which we sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of
employees rights warrants the payment of nominal damages.