ERNESTO GALANG AND MA.

OLGA KASMIN CHAN, petitioners,

BOIE TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. AND/OR KAZUHIKO NOMURA, respondents.
G.R. No. 183934. JULY 20, 2016.

FACTS:

Petitioners were Regional Sales Managers in 2000 of respondent pharmaceutical company BTCI. In 2002, when the
National Sales Director position became vacant, petitioners assumed and shared the functions, and directly reported to
the General Manager.

The new General Manager, Kazuhiko Nomura asked petitioners to apply for the position of National Sales Director.
Nomura also asked Edwin Villanueva and Mimi Escarte both Group Product Managers in the marketing department to
apply for the same position. All four employees submitted themselves to interviews with the management.

BTCI promoted Villanueva as National Sales Director. BTCI explained that the appointment was pursuant to its
management prerogative.

The promotion of Villanueva as the National Sales Director caused ill-feelings on petitioners' part. After Villanueva's
promotion, petitioners claimed that Nomura threatened to dismiss them from office if they failed to perform well under
the newly appointed National Sales Director. This prompted petitioners to inquire if they could avail of early retirement
package due to health reasons.

On April 28, 2004, petitioners intimated their intention to retire in a joint written letter of resignation to Nomura, effective
on April 30, 2004. Thereafter, petitioners received their retirement package and other monetary pay from BTCI.

Petitioners filed the complaint for constructive dismissal and money claims before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch.

Petitioners argue that they were constructively dismissed because of the acts of BTCI 's General Manager Nomura. They
claim that they were forced into resigning because instead of promoting them to the position of National Sales Directors,
BTCI hired Villanueva who only had three years of service in the company, who has no background or experience in sales
to speak of and who was allegedly responsible for almost the bankruptcy of the company. They allege that Nomura
threatened to dismiss them if they do not perform well under the newly-appointed National Sales Director.

Petitioners also argue that the retirement package given to them is lower compared to others who were holding the
similar position at the time of their retirement.

BTCI denies having constructively dismissed petitioners. It argues that no constructive dismissal can occur because there
was no movement or transfer of position or diminution of salaries or benefits.

The appointment of Villanueva was within the sphere of management's prerogatives, and was arrived at after careful
consideration. It did not have any adverse effect on petitioners' positions as Regional Sales Managers. According to BTCI,
petitioner's decision to retire was voluntary and of their own volition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not there was constructive dismissal.

2. Whether or not the petitioner are entitled to a higher retirement package.

HELD:
1. No, Constructive dismissal has often been defined as a "dismissal in disguise" or "an act amounting to dismissal
but made to appear as if it were not."

The circumstances which petitioners claim to have forced them into early retirement are not of such character
that rendered their continued employment with BTCI as impossible.

Manager has exclusive prerogatives to determine the qualifications and fitness of workers for hiring and firing,
promotion or reassignment. It is only in instances of unlawful discrimination, limitations imposed by law and
collective bargaining agreement can this prerogative of management be reviewed.

The employer's exercise of management prerogatives, with or without reason, does not per se constitute unjust
discrimination, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

2. No. The entitlement of employees to retirement benefits must specifically be granted under existing laws, a
collective bargaining agreement or employment contract, or an established employer policy.

The burden of proof that the benefit has ripened into company practice, i.e., giving of the benefit is done over a
long period of time, and that it has been made consistently and deliberately, rests with the employee.

We agree with the CA when it ruled that "[t]his concession given to such an employee was not proved (sic) to be
company practice or policy such that petitioners can demand of it over and above what has been specified in the
collective bargaining agreement."
ROWENA A. SANTOS, petitioners,
INTEGRATED PHARMACEUTICAL INC. and KATHERYN TANTIANSU, respondents.
G.R. No. 204620. JULY 11, 2016

FACTS:

On April 6, 2010, petitioner received a memorandum her immediate supervisor and District Manager: of Integrated
Pharma, relative to her failure to remit her collections and to return the CareSens POP demonstration unit to the office, at
a specified time.

On April 19, 2010, Maribel E. Suarez, National Sales Manager for Pharmaceutical Division of Integrated Pharma, called the
petitioner to a meeting.

Suarez informed petitioner that the management discovered that instead of reporting P2.00 as the actual amount of her
travelling expense in going to the Fort Bonifacio Hospital, petitioner charged Integrated Pharma Pl0.00 as and for her
transportation expense.

Then in the morning of April 21, 2010, respondents attempted to serve upon petitioner a memorandum denominated as
Memo on Padding of Expense Report. It charged petitioner with (ii) attempting to coerce her immediate supervisor to pad
her transportation expenses and (ii) insubordination for not following the instructions of her immediate supervisor to
report the true amount of her transportation expenses. In the same memorandum, respondents required petitioner to
submit a written explanation within 24 hours in "aid [of] investigation."

Petitioner, however, refused to accept said memorandum. Subsequently, petitioner received through registered mail
another memorandum likewise dated April 21, 2010 but already denominated as Termination of Employment. It
enumerated five infractions which, allegedly, constrained respondents to terminate petitioner's employment.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent failed to comply the 2 notice requirement since the offences stated in the April 21
memo did not pertain to the same infractions enumerated in the April 6 memo. Likewise the LA ruled that the respondent
failed to establish just cause to terminate the petitioner.

The NLRC sustain the decision. The CA modified the NLRCs resolution and held hat petitioner was not illegally dismissed
however agreed that the respondent failed to comply the 2 notice requirement.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.

2. Whether or not the 2 notice requirement was followed.

HELD:

1. No. There was no illegal dismissal since petitioner was guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty for being
excessively tardy, insubordination, and dishonesty.

Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code, such offense may merit the termination of employment. However, while
the law provides for a just cause to dismiss an employee, the employer still has the discretion whether it would
exercise its right to terminate the employment or not. In this case, petitioner had been forewarned that her
failure to correct her poor behavior would be visited with stiffer penalty.
 However, she remained recalcitrant to her superiors' directives and warnings. Thus, respondents "have come to
a forced conclusion to terminate [her] employment."

2. No. If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as in this case, the employer
must give the employee two written notices and conduct a hearing. The first written notice is intended to
apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the employer seeks her dismissal; while the
second is intended to inform the employee of the employer's decision to terminate him.

The April 6, 2010 memo did not apprise petitioner of an impending termination from employment. It did not
require her to submit within a specified period of time her written explanation controverting the charges against
her. Said memorandum did not also specify the company rules allegedly violated by the petitioner or the cause
of her possible dismissal as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The said memorandum merely
reprimanded petitioner and warned her that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be
visited with stiffer penalty.

With regard to the April 21, 2010 memorandum, respondents claim that they attempted to furnish petitioner
with a copy thereof, but that petitioner refused to receive the same. However, respondents' bare allegation that
they attempted to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the April 21, 2010 memorandum is not sufficient. Proof
of actual service is required. Also, the April 21, 2010 memorandum did not afford petitioner ample opportunity
to intelligently respond to the accusations hurled against her as she was not given a reasonable period of at least
five days to prepare for her defense. Notably, respondents terminated her employment through another
memorandum bearing the same date. Moreover, the April 21, 2010 memorandum did not also state the specific
company rule petitioner violated or the just cause for terminating an employment. Nothing was likewise
mentioned about the effect on petitioner's employment should the charges against her are found to be true.

Lastly, it does not escape our attention that respondents never scheduled a hearing or conference where
petitioner could have responded to the charge a presented her evidence.
MARY JUNE CELIZ, petitioners,
CORD CHEMICALS INC, LEONOR G. SANZ, AND MARIANT ONTANGCO, respondents.
G.R. No. 200352 JULY 20, 2016

FACTS:

Petitioner is the Chief of Sales of Cord Inc. Upon the death of Francisco Sanz, the new management advised her not to
report to work anymore. She was then invited by Leonor and her children to a meeting at a restaurant in Makati City
where the Sanz family came with two lawyers in tow. She was supposedly informed that Leonor was jealous of her
intimate relationship with Francisco. Reeling in protest, Petitioner insisted that her relationship with Francisco was purely
professional. Knowing that fighting Leonor was pointless as she was well connected, Petitioner then asked that she be
allowed to resign. Leonor acceded and told her to claim her separation pay by the end of October 2008.

Petitioner did return to Cord, Inc. to tender her resignation. However, she was informed by the company counsel that she
will be dismissed from work because of her failure to account for numerous unliquidated advances amounting to
P713,471.00.

Thereafter, Cord, Inc. served upon Petitioner the Notice to Explain informing her that being a managerial employee, she
was vested with a high degree of trust and confidence and that her failure to liquidate accounts was tantamount to
dishonest handling of company funds. She was also asked to submit her formal explanation, and to attend the
investigation that would be conducted so she could explain her side of the matter.

She requested that she be given seven working, days to check her documents, vouchers and cash advances so she could
properly respond to the charges leveled against her.

Cord, Inc. granted her three consecutive days to go over all her records in the presence of two other employees. It
reminded her to submit her explanation on the unliquidated cash advances.

In her Letter, petitioner claimed that several entries in the ledger were credited in her name, albeit these were given to
the employees. She could not explain the expenses [reflected] on the company credit-card issued to her as she was not
furnished with the Statement of Account. She again repeated her request for a certified copy of the details of her
supposed unliquidated cash advances.

On 6 December 2008, Cord, Inc. dismissed Petitioner for serious breach of trust and confidence. Left with no other
recourse, she sued Cord, Inc. for Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Benefits before the Labor Arbiter.

Respondent claimed that it was the standing policy of the company not to release the last salary and benefits of a
resigning employee pending the clearance of her accounts. It was during the audit that Cord, Inc. discovered the
unliquidated cash advances of Celiz in the staggering amount of P713,471.00. Petitioner was finally able to liquidate her
advances but her accounting fell short of P445,272.93. For misappropriating company funds, Cord, Inc. dismissed
Petitioner as she was found unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed upon her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.

HELD:
No. The Court found that there was substantial evidence showing that the subject cash advances were properly attributed
to petitioner and that she failed to liquidate the same.

As found by the CA, Petitioners failure to explain and account for unliquidated advances amounting to P445,272.93. As the
employee directly in charge with the use of these funds, petitioner should have been more circumspect in handling them
knowing fully well that her position demands a high degree of trust.

Respondents observed the requirements of procedural due process. In the first notice to explain, petitioner was properly
informed of the charge against her, i.e., failure to liquidate the cash advances. In addition, respondents allowed petitioner
access to company records in order for the latter to thoroughly prepare her explanation and defense. Considering the
circumstances, respondents even generously granted petitioner more time to sift through the company records. However,
petitioner was only able to liquidate a small portion of the cash advances; she failed to explain how and where she spent
the rest. Consequently, respondents have no other recourse but to dismiss petitioner for loss of trust and confidence. It is
on record that respondents notified petitioner of her termination from service.