consti cases labor

7/21/2019 Consti Cases LABOR

1/37

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004]

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DTAI!"AN#$TG%O &'( $DRO A.TCSON,petitioners, vs.G!A)O %!!CO" $*I!I$$INS,INC.respondent.

R S O ! U T I O N

TINGA, J.+

Confronting the Court in this petition is a novel question, with constitutionalovertones, involving the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohiiting itsemployees from marrying employees of any competitor company!

"his is a Petition for Review on Certiorariassailing the Decision[1]dated #ay $%,&''( and the Resolution dated #arch &), &''* of the Court of +ppeals in C+-!.! S/No! )&*(*![2]

/etitioner /edro +! "ecson 0"ecson1 was hired y respondent -la2o 3ellcome/hilippines, Inc! 0-la2o1 as medical representative on Octoer &*, $%%4, after "ecsonhad undergone training and orientation!

"hereafter, "ecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among

others, that he agrees to study and aide y e2isting company rules5 to disclose tomanagement any e2isting or future relationship y consanguinity or affinity with coemployees or employees of competing drug companies and should management findthat such relationship poses a possile conflict of interest, to resign from the company!

"he Employee Code of Conduct of -la2o similarly provides that an employee ise2pected to inform management of any e2isting or future relationship y consanguinityor affinity with coemployees or employees of competing drug companies! Ifmanagement perceives a conflict of interest or a potential conflict etween suchrelationship and the employee6s employment with the company, the management andthe employee will e2plore the possiility of a 7transfer to another department in a non

counterchec8ing position9 or preparation for employment outside the company after si2months!

"ecson was initially assigned to mar8et -la2o6s products in the Camarines SurCamarines Norte sales area!

Susequently, "ecson entered into a romantic relationship with :ettsy, an employeeof +stra /harmaceuticals[3]0+stra1, a competitor of -la2o! :ettsy was +stra6s :ranchCoordinator in +lay! She supervised the district managers and medical
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn1


2/37

representatives of her company and prepared mar8eting strategies for +stra in thatarea!

Even efore they got married, "ecson received several reminders from his District#anager regarding the conflict of interest which his relationship with :ettsy mightengender! Still, love prevailed, and "ecson married :ettsy in Septemer $%%;!

In


3/37

On #ay $%, &''(, the Court of +ppeals promulgated its Decisiondenyingthe Petition for Review on the ground that the NC#: did not err in renderingits Decision! "he appellate court held that -la2o6s policy prohiiting its employees fromhaving personal relationships with employees of competitor companies is a valide2ercise of its management prerogatives![4]

"ecson filed a Motion for Reconsiderationof the appellate court6s Decision,ut themotion was denied y the appellate court in its Resolutiondated #arch &), &''*![5]

/etitioners filed the instant petition, arguing therein that 0i1 the Court of +ppealserred in affirming the NC#:6s finding that the -la2o6s policy prohiiting its employeesfrom marrying an employee of a competitor company is valid5 and 0ii1 the Court of

+ppeals also erred in not finding that "ecson was constructively dismissed when he wastransferred to a new sales territory, and deprived of the opportunity to attend productsseminars and training sessions![6]

/etitioners contend that -la2o6s policy against employees marrying employees ofcompetitor companies violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution ecause it

creates invalid distinctions among employees on account only of marriage! "hey claimthat the policy restricts the employees6 right to marry![7]

"hey also argue that "ecson was constructively dismissed as shown y thefollowing circumstances 0$1 he was transferred from the Camarines SurCamarinesNorte sales area to the :utuanSurigao+gusan sales area, 0&1 he suffered a diminutionin pay, 0(1 he was e2cluded from attending seminars and training sessions for medicalrepresentatives, and 0*1 he was prohiited from promoting respondent6s products whichwere competing with +stra6s products![8]

In its Commenton the petition, -la2o argues that the company policy prohiiting itsemployees from having a relationship with andor marrying an employee of a competitor

company is a valid e2ercise of its management prerogatives and does not violate theequal protection clause5 and that "ecson6s reassignment from the Camarines NorteCamarines Sur sales area to the :utuan CitySurigao City and +gusan del Sur salesarea does not amount to constructive dismissal![9]

-la2o insists that as a company engaged in the promotion and sale ofpharmaceutical products, it has a genuine interest in ensuring that its employees avoidany activity, relationship or interest that may conflict with their responsiilities to thecompany! "hus, it e2pects its employees to avoid having personal or family interests inany competitor company which may influence their actions and decisions andconsequently deprive -la2o of legitimate profits! "he policy is also aimed at preventing

a competitor company from gaining access to its secrets, procedures and policies![10]

It li8ewise asserts that the policy does not prohiit marriageper seut onlyproscries e2isting or future relationships with employees of competitor companies, andis therefore not violative of the equal protection clause! It maintains that considering thenature of its usiness, the prohiition is ased on valid grounds! [11]

+ccording to -la2o, "ecson6s marriage to :ettsy, an employee of +stra, posed a realand potential conflict of interest! +stra6s products were in direct competition with )A of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn11


4/37

the products sold y -la2o! >ence, -la2o6s enforcement of the foregoing policy in"ecson6s case was a valid e2ercise of its management prerogatives! [12] In any case,"ecson was given several months to remedy the situation, and was even encouragednot to resign ut to as8 his wife to resign from +stra instead![13]

-la2o also points out that "ecson can no longer question the assailed company

policy ecause when he signed his contract of employment, he was aware that suchpolicy was stipulated therein! In said contract, he also agreed to resign from respondentif the management finds that his relationship with an employee of a competitor companywould e detrimental to the interests of -la2o![14]

-la2o li8ewise insists that "ecson6s reassignment to another sales area and hise2clusion from seminars regarding respondent6s new products did not amount toconstructive dismissal!

It claims that in view of "ecson6s refusal to resign, he was relocated from theCamarines SurCamarines Norte sales area to the :utuan CitySurigao City and

+gusan del Sur sales area! -la2o asserts that in effecting the reassignment, it also

considered the welfare of "ecson6s family! Since "ecson6s hometown was in +gusan delSur and his wife traces her roots to:utuan City, -la2o assumed that his transfer fromthe :icol region to the :utuan City sales area would e favorale to him and his familyas he would e relocating to a familiar territory and minimiFing his travel e2penses![15]

In addition, -la2o avers that "ecson6s e2clusion from the seminar concerning thenew antiasthma drug was due to the fact that said product was in direct competitionwith a drug which was soon to e sold y +stra, and hence, would pose a potentialconflict of interest for him! Gastly, the delay in "ecson6s receipt of his salesparaphernalia was due to the mi2up created y his refusal to transfer tothe :utuan City sales area 0his paraphernalia was delivered to his new sales area

instead of Naga City ecause the supplier thought he already transferred to :utuan1![16]

"he Court is tas8ed to resolve the following issues 0$1 3hether the Court of+ppeals erred in ruling that -la2o6s policy against its employees marrying employeesfrom competitor companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equalprotection clause of the Constitution5 0&1 3hether "ecson was constructively dismissed!

"he Court finds no merit in the petition!

"he stipulation in "ecson6s contract of employment with -la2o eing questioned ypetitioners provides

10. You agree to disclose to management any existing or future relationship you may have, eitherby consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug

companies. Should it pose a possible conflict of interest in management discretion, you agree to

resign voluntarily from the ompany as a matter of ompany policy.

[17]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn17


5/37

"he same contract also stipulates that "ecson agrees to aide y the e2istingcompany rules of -la2o, and to study and ecome acquainted with such policies![18]Inthis regard, the Employee >andoo8 of -la2o e2pressly informs its employees of itsrules regarding conflict of interest

1. onflict of !nterest

"mployees should avoid any activity, investment relationship, or interest that may run counter to

the responsibilities which they owe #laxo $ellcome.

Specifically, this means that employees are expected%

a. &o avoid having personal or family interest, financial or otherwise, in any competitor

supplier or other businesses which may consciously or unconsciously influence their

actions or decisions and thus deprive #laxo $ellcome of legitimate profit.

b. &o refrain from using their position in #laxo $ellcome or 'nowledge of ompany plansto advance their outside personal interests, that of their relatives, friends and other

businesses.

c. &o avoid outside employment or other interests for income which would impair their effective

(ob performance.

d. &o consult with )anagement on such activities or relationships that may lead to conflict ofinterest.

1.1. "mployee *elationships

"mployees with existing or future relationships either by consanguinity or affinity with co-

employees of competing drug companies are expected to disclose such relationship to the)anagement. !f management perceives a conflict or potential conflict of interest, every effort

shall be made, together by management and the employee, to arrive at a solution within six +

months, either by transfer to another department in a non-counter chec'ing position, or by careerpreparation toward outside employment after #laxo $ellcome. "mployees must be prepared for

possible resignation within six + months, if no other solution is feasible.[19]

No reversile error can e ascried to the Court of +ppeals when it ruled that-la2o6s policy prohiiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a

competitor company is a valid e2ercise of management prerogative!-la2o has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, mar8eting

strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors, especiallyso that it and +stra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceuticalindustry!

"he prohiition against personal or marital relationships with employees ofcompetitor companies upon -la2o6s employees is reasonale under the circumstances
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn19


6/37

ecause relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company! Inlaying down the assailed company policy, -la2o only aims to protect its interests againstthe possiility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures!

"hat -la2o possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot e denied!No less than the Constitution recogniFes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce

such a policy to protect its right to reasonale returns on investments and to e2pansionand growth![20]Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy onsocial =ustice and the protection of laor, it does not mean that every laor dispute wille decided in favor of the wor8ers! "he law also recogniFes that management hasrights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play! [21]

+s held in a -eorgia, H!S!+case,[22] it is a legitimate usiness practice to guardusiness confidentiality and protect a competitive position y evenhandedlydisqualifying from =os male and female applicants or employees who are married to acompetitor! Consequently, the court ruled than an employer that discharged anemployee who was married to an employee of an active competitor did not violate "itle

VII of the Civil .ights +ct of $%)*![23]

"he Court pointed out that the policy was applied tomen and women equally, and noted that the employer6s usiness was highlycompetitive and that gaining inside information would constitute a competitiveadvantage!

"he challenged company policy does not violate the equal protection clause of theConstitution as petitioners erroneously suggest! It is a settled principle that thecommands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or thoseacting under color of its authority![24]Corollarily, it has een held in a long array of H!S!Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection clause erects no shield againstmerely private conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful![25]"he only e2ceptionoccurs when the state[26]in any of its manifestations or actions has een found to have

ecome entwined or involved in the wrongful private conduct![27]Oviously, however, thee2ception is not present in this case! Significantly, the company actually enforced thepolicy after repeated requests to the employee to comply with the policy! Indeed, theapplication of the policy was made in an impartial and evenhanded manner, with dueregard for the lot of the employee!

In any event, from the wordings of the contractual provision and the policy in itsemployee handoo8, it is clear that -la2o does not impose an asolute prohiitionagainst relationships etween its employees and those of competitor companies! Itsemployees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their ownchoosing! 3hat the company merely see8s to avoid is a conflict of interest etween the

employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships! +s succinctlye2plained y the appellate court, thus

&he policy being uestioned is not a policy against marriage. /n employee of the company

remains free to marry anyone of his or her choosing. &he policy is not aimed at restricting apersonal prerogative that belongs only to the individual. owever, an employees personal

decision does not detract the employer from exercising management prerogatives to ensure

maximum profit and business success. . . [28]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn28


7/37

"he Court of +ppeals also correctly noted that the assailed company policy whichforms part of respondent6s Employee Code of Conduct and of its contracts with itsemployees, such as that signed y "ecson, was made 8nown to him prior to hisemployment! "ecson, therefore, was aware of that restriction when he signed hisemployment contract and when he entered into a relationship with :ettsy! Since "ecson

8nowingly and voluntarily entered into a contract of employment with -la2o, thestipulations therein have the force of law etween them and, thus, should e compliedwith in good faith!9[29]>e is therefore estopped from questioning said policy!

"he Court finds no merit in petitioners6 contention that "ecson was constructivelydismissed when he was transferred from the Camarines NorteCamarines Sur salesarea to the :utuan CitySurigao City+gusan del Sur sales area, and when he wase2cluded from attending the company6s seminar on new products which were directlycompeting with similar products manufactured y +stra! Constructive dismissal isdefined as a quitting, an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employmentecomes impossile, unreasonale, or unli8ely5 when there is a demotion in ran8 ordiminution in pay5 or when a clear discrimination, insensiility or disdain y an employer

ecomes unearale to the employee![30]None of these conditions are present in theinstant case! "he record does not show that "ecson was demoted or undulydiscriminated upon y reason of such transfer! +s found y the appellate court, -la2oproperly e2ercised its management prerogative in reassigning "ecson tothe :utuan City sales area

. . . !n this case, petitioners transfer to another place of assignment was merely in 'eeping with

the policy of the company in avoidance of conflict of interest, and thus valid2ote that3&ecsons4 wife holds a sensitive supervisory position as 5ranch oordinator in her employer-

company which reuires her to wor' in close coordination with 6istrict )anagers and )edical

*epresentatives. er duties include monitoring sales of /stra products, conducting sales drives,

establishing and furthering relationship with customers, collection, monitoring and managing/stras inventoryshe therefore ta'es an active participation in the mar'et war characteri7ed as

it is by stiff competition among pharmaceutical companies. )oreover, and this is significant,

petitioners sales territory covers amarines Sur and amarines 2orte while his wife issupervising a branch of her employer in /lbay. &he proximity of their areas of responsibility, all

in the same 5icol *egion, renders the conflict of interest not only possible, but actual, as learning

by one spouse of the others mar'et strategies in the region would beinevitable. 3)anagements4 appreciation of a conflict of interest is therefore not merely illusory

and wanting in factual basis[31]

InAbbott Laboratories 0Phils.1, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32]which involved a complaint filed y a medical representative against his employerdrug company for illegal dismissal for allegedly terminating his employment when herefused to accept his reassignment to a new area, the Court upheld the right of the drugcompany to transfer or reassign its employee in accordance with its operationaldemands and requirements! "he ruling of the Court therein, quoted hereunder, alsofinds application in the instant case
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn32


8/37

5y the very nature of his employment, a drug salesman or medical representative is expected to

travel. e should anticipate reassignment according to the demands of their business. !t would

be a poor drug corporation which cannot even assign its representatives or detail men to newmar'ets calling for opening or expansion or to areas where the need for pushing its products is

great. )ore so if such reassignments are part of the employment contract.[33]

+s noted earlier, the challenged policy has een implemented y -la2o impartiallyand disinterestedly for a long period of time! In the case at ar, the record shows that-la2o gave "ecson several chances to eliminate the conflict of interest rought aout yhis relationship with :ettsy! 3hen their relationship was still in its initial stage, "ecson6ssupervisors at -la2o constantly reminded him aout its effects on his employment withthe company and on the company6s interests! +fter "ecson married :ettsy, -la2o gavehim time to resolve the conflict y either resigning from the company or as8ing his wifeto resign from +stra! -la2o even e2pressed its desire to retain "ecson in its employecause of his satisfactory performance and suggested that he as8 :ettsy to resignfrom her company instead! -la2o li8ewise acceded to his repeated requests for more

time to resolve the conflict of interest! 3hen the prolem could not e resolved afterseveral years of waiting, -la2o was constrained to reassign "ecson to a sales areadifferent from that handled y his wife for +stra! Notaly, the Court did not terminate"ecson from employment ut only reassigned him to another area where his homeprovince, +gusan del Sur, was included! In effecting "ecson6s transfer, -la2o evenconsidered the welfare of "ecson6s family! Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicionof unfairness and ad faith on the part of -la2o![34]

%*RFOR, the Petitionis DENIED for lac8 of merit! Costs against petitioners!

SO ORDRD.

AustriaMartine! andCalle"o, #r., $$., concur.

Puno %Chairman&, $.,in the result!ChicoNa!ario, $., on leave.

.epulic of the /hilippines

SU$R" COURT

#anila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 9076 September 27, 1991

S$RO SANTOS SAIA%, petitioner

vs!

NATIONA! !A-OR R!ATIONS CO""ISSION, ASSOCIATD -AN AND/ OR OS R.

TNGCO, C&rm&' o3 te -o&r(, RO!!I TUAON, "&'&5er, respondents.

Nicolas R. Rui!, II for petitioner.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/162994.htm#_ftn34


9/37

#oluta, Leonidas, Marifos'ue, $avier ( A)uila Law *ffices for private respondents

SAR"INTO, J.:p

"his is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1rendered in NG.C Case No! *$&A&;4 dated


10/37

NC.*$&A&;4! >e li8ewise sumitted an affidavit recanting his Sworn Statement efore the CIS

0+nne2 L+L1 mentioned earlier!

+fter the proper proceedings, on #arch &%,$%;;, Gaor +riter :enigno C! Villarente, [email protected], premises considered, =udgment is herey rendered declaring the

dismissal of complainant illegal and ordering respondents to reinstate complainant to

his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him his

ac8wages and enefits due an employee of respondent :an8 from the time of illegal

dismissal until actual reinstatement!

"he private respondents appealed the laor ariters decision to the National Gaor .elations

Commission 0NG.C1 which on


11/37

denied that constitutional right when his susequent request refute the allegations

against him was granted and a hearing was set +without counsel or

representative.0See respondent "uaFons letter t respondent dated @eruary &4,

$%;41! 10

"he investigation of petitioner Salaw y the respondent :an8 investigating committee violated hisconstitutional right to due process, in as much as he was not given a chance to defend himself, as

provided in .ule MIV, :oo8 V of the Implementing .ules and .egulations of the Gaor Code

governing the dismissal of employees! Section 4 of the said .ule requires that Lthe employer shall

afford the wor8er ample opportunity to e heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his

representative, if he so desires!L 110Emphasis supplied!1 >ere petition was perfunctorily denied the

assistance of counsel during investigation to e conducted y the /DIC! No reasons preferred which

vitiated the denial with irregularity and unfairness!

It is true that administrative and quasi=udicial odies are not ound y the technical rules of

procedure in the ad=udication cases! >owever, the right to counsel, a very asic requirement of

sustantive due process, has to e oserved! Indeed, rights to counsel and to due process of law

are two of fundamental rights guaranteed y the $%;A Constitution to person under investigation, e

the proceeding administrate civil, or criminal! "hus, Section $&0$1, +rticle III thereof specifically

provides L+ny person under investigation for the commssion of an offense shall have the right to !!!

have compete and independent counsel preferaly of his own choice! If the person cannot afford the

service of counsel, he must e provided with one! "hese rights cannot e waived e2cept in writing in

the presence of counsel!L 12"o underscore the inviolaility this provision, the third paragraph of the same

section e2plicitly states that, Lany confession or admission otained in violatiopn of this or the preceding

section shall e inadmissile evidence against him!L 1

+s aptly oserved y the laor ariter, the respondents premised their action in dismissing the

complainant on his supposed admission of the offense imputed to him y the Criminal Investigation

Service 0CIS1 in its interrogation in Novemer, $%;*! "he said admission was carried in a threepage

Sworn Statement signed y the complainant! +side from this Statement, other evidence was

presented y the respondents to estalish the culpaility of the complainant in the fraudulent sale of

respondents foreclosed properties! Even the minutes of proceeding ta8en during the investigation

conducted y respondents were not presented! !!! "his is a glaring denial of due process! 3e find it

worth reiterating the cardinal primary rights which must e respected even in proceedings of

administrative character as enunciated y this Court in classic landmar8 decision of


12/37

*);,)) S! Ct! %'), Gaw! ed! $&;;1! In the language of this Court in /dwards vs.

McCo-&& /hil! 4%;, the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on

the part of the oard to consider it, is vain! Such right conspicuously futile if the

person or persons to whom the evidence presented thrust it aside without notice or

consideration!

0(1 3hile the duty to delierate does not impose the oligation to decide right, it does

imply a necessity which cannot e disregard namely, that of having something to

support its decision! + decision with asolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a

place when directly attached! 0Edward vs! #cCoy, supra!1 !!!

0*1 Not only must there e some evidence to support a finding or conclusion 0City of

#anila vs! +gustin, -!.! No! *4;**, promulgate Novemer &%, $%(A, MMMVI O!-!

$((41, ut the evidence must e Lsustantial!L03ashington, Virginia #aryland

Coach Co! v! National Gaor .elations :oard, ('$ H!S! $*&,$*A, 4A S! Ct! )*;, )4',

; Gaw! ed! %)4!1 LSustantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla! It means such

relevant evidence as a reasonale mind might accept adequate to support aconclusion!L 0+ppalachian Electric /ower v National Gaor .elations :oard, * Cir!, %(

@! &d %;4, %;%5 Nation Gaor .elations :oard v! "hompson /roducts, ) Cir!, %A @! &d

$(, $4 :allstonStillwater nitting Co! v! National Gaor .elations :oard, & Cir!, %; @!

&d A4;, A)'!1!!!

041 "he decision must e rendered on the evidence presented the hearing, or at least

contained in the record and disclosed to parties affected! 0Interstate Commence

Commission vs! G! N!.! Co &&A H!S! ;;, (( S! Ct! $;4, 4A Gaw! ed!

*($1 !!!

0)1 "he Court of Industrial .elations 0now the National .elations Commission1 or anyof its =udges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the

law and facts of controversy, and not simply accept the views of a suordinate

arriving at a decision !!!!

0A1 "he Court of Industrial .elations 0now NG.C1 should, in controversial questions,

render its decision in such a manner that parties to the proceeding can 8now the

various issues involved, the reasons for the decisions rendered! "he performance of

this duty inseparale from the authority conferred upon it!

222 222 222

Considering further that the admission y the petitioner which was e2tracted from him y the

Criminal Investigate Service of the /hilippine Constaulary 0National Capital .egion1 without the

assistance of counsel and which was made the sole asis for his dismissal, can not e admitted in

evidence against him, then, the finding of guilt of the /DIC, which was affirmed y the pulic

respondent NG.C5 has no more leg stand on! + decision with asolutely nothing to support it is a

nullity!


13/37

Significantly, the dismissal of the petitioner from his employment was characteriFed y undue haste!

"he law is clear that even in the disposition of laor cases, due process must not e suordinated to

e2pediency or dispatch! Otherwise, the dismissal of the employee will e tainted with illegality! On

this point, we have ruled

consistently! 1

3e reiterate the rule laid down in #antos v. NLRC16that normal consequences of a finding that an

employee has een illegally dismissed are, firstly, that the employee ecomes entitled to reinstatement to

his former position without loss of seniority rights and, secondly, the payment of ac8wages

corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement!L "he petitioner is entitled

to no less!

3>[email protected], premises considered, =udgment is herey rendered SE""IN- +SIDE the appealed

decision of the NG.C .EINS"+"IN- the decision of the laor ariter!

SO O.DE.ED!

Melencio0errera %Chairperson&, Paras, Padilla and Re)alado, $$., concur.

Foot'ote8

$ Espero Santos Salaw v! +ssociated :an8, et al!, NG.C NC. *$&A&;4,


14/37

SC.+ 4&;!

$' Salaw v! +ssociated :an8, et al!, supra, note 4, (!

$$ "he Gaor Code of the /hils! and its implementing rules regulations, $%%' ed!

$& Section $&0l1,$%;A Constitution!

$( Section $ &0(1, $ %;A Constitution!

$* +ng "iay v! Court of Industrial .elations, )% /hil! )(4!

$4 See San #iguel Corporation v! NG.C, supra, note ;,*5 @ar East :an8 and

"rust Co!, v! I+C, -!.! Nos! A($($(&, +ugust ($, $%;;, $ SC.+ &$;5 National

Service Corporation v! NG.C, -!.! No! )%; Novemer &%, $%;;, $); SC.+ $&&5

San #iguel v! NG.C, No! A;%


15/37

"he facts are as follows

atolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner $aterous 6rug orporation

+hereafter $/&"*;??.

;n @1 Auly 1>?>, atolico received a memorandum 34from $/&"*;??. Berification was made to YS9,

!nc. to determine the discrepancy and it was found that the cost per bottle was indeed

overpriced. YS9, !nc. /ccounting 6epartment +)s. "stelita *eyes confirmed that the

difference represents refund of (ac'-up price of ten bottles of Boren tablets per salesinvoice no. D as per their chec' voucher no. D>==D +shown to the undersigned,

which was paid to )s. atolico through hina 5an' chec' no. ?>D0? dated

2ovember >, 1>?>....

&he undersigned tal'ed to )s. atolico regarding the chec' but she denied having

received it and that she is unaware of the overprice. owever, upon conversation with
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn9


16/37

)s. Saldana, "6* "spana 9harmacy ler', she confirmed that the chec' amounting

to 9F0.00 was actually received by )s. atolico. /s a matter of fact, )s. atolico

even as'ed )s. Saldana if she opened the envelope containing the chec' but )s.

Saldana answered her 8talagang ganyan, bu'as.: !t appears that the amount in

uestion +9F0.00 had been poc'eted by )s. atolico. 3104

@orthwith, in her memorandum P$$Qdated ($ owever, on & @eruary $%%', she was informed that effective )@eruary $%%' to A #arch $%%', she would e placed on preventive suspension toprotect the interests of the company!P$(Q

In a letter dated & @eruary $%%', Catolico requested access to the file containingSales Invoice No! &)) for her to e ale to ma8e a satisfactory e2planation! In saidletter she protested SaldaRa6s invasion of her privacy when SaldaRa opened an

envelope addressed to Catolico!P$*Q

In a letterP$4Qto Co dated $' @eruary $%%', Catolico, through her counsel, e2plainedthat the chec8 she received from KS/ was a Christmas gift and not a 7refund ofoverprice!9 She also averred that the preventive suspension was illmotivated, as itsprang from an earlier incident etween her and Co6s secretary, Irene Soliven!

On 4 #arch $%%', 3+"E.OHS Supervisor GuFviminda :autro, issued amemorandumP$)Qnotifying Catolico of her termination5 thus

$e received your letter of explanation and your lawyerGs letter dated Heb. D,

1>>0 and Heb. 10, 1>>0 respectively regarding our imposition of preventive

suspension on you for acts of dishonesty. owever, said letters failed to rebutthe evidences 3sic4 in our possession which clearly shows that as a 9harmacist

stationed at "spana 5ranch, you actually made 9urchase ;rders at YS9 9hils.,

!nc. for 10 bottles of Boren tablets at 9@?F.00Ibottle with previous price

of [email protected] only. / chec' which you received in the amount of 9F0.00

actually represents the refund of over price of said medicines and this was

confirmed by )s. "stelita *eyes, YS9 9hils., !nc. /ccounting 6epartment.

Your actuation constitutes an act of dishonesty detrimental to the interest of the

company. /ccordingly, you are hereby terminated effective )arch ?, 1>>0.

On 4 #ay $%%', Catolico filed efore the Office of the Gaor +riter a complaint forunfair laor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension! P$AQ

In his decisionP$;Qof $' #ay $%%(, Gaor +riter +le2 +rcadio GopeF found no proof ofunfair laor practice against petitioners! Nevertheless, he decided in favor of Catolicoecause petitioners failed to 7prove what PtheyQ alleged as complainant6s dishonesty,9and to show that any investigation was conducted! >ence, the dismissal was without

=ust cause and due process! >e thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal utdisallowed reinstatement, as it would not e to the est interest of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn18


17/37

parties! +ccordingly, he awarded separation pay to Catolico computed at onehalfmonth6s pay for every year of service5 ac8 wages for one year5 and the additional sumof /&,'''!'' for illegal suspension 7representing (' days wor8!9 +riter GopeFcomputed the award in favor of Catolico as follows

@0 days 9reventive Suspension 9 D,000.00

5ac'wages D,?=?.=0

1I1D of 9D,?=?.=0 D,D@?.D1

Separation pay +@ years F,@0=.1=

&;&/E /$/*6% 9 @=,F01.?

/etitioners seasonaly appealed from the decision and urged the NG.C to set it

aside ecause the Gaor +riter erred in finding that Catolico was denied due processand that there was no =ust cause to terminate her services!

In its decisionP$%Qof (' Septemer $%%(, the NG.C affirmed the findings of the Gaor+riter on the ground that petitioners were not ale to prove a =ust cause for Catolico6sdismissal from her employment! It found that petitioner6s evidence consisted only of thechec8 of /)*'!'' drawn y KS/ in favor of complainant, which her coemployee sawwhen the latter opened the envelope! :ut, it declared that the chec8 was inadmissilein evidence pursuant to Sections & and (0$ and &1 of +rticle III of the Constitution! P&'QItconcluded

$ith the smo'ing gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible, by

virtue of the constitutional right invo'ed by complainants, respondents case

falls apart as it is bereft of evidence which cannot be used as a legal basis for

complainants dismissal.

"he NG.C then dismissed the appeal for lac8 of merit, ut modified the dispositiveportion of the appealed decision y deleting the award for illegal suspension as thesame was already included in the computation of the aggregate of the awards in theamount of /(4,*'$!;)!

"heir motion for reconsideration having een denied, petitioners filed this specialcivil action for certiorari, which is anchored on the following grounds

!. 9ublic respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in its findings of facts.

!!. 6ue process was duly accorded to private respondent.

!!!. 9ublic respondent gravely erred in applying Section @, /rticle !!! of the

1>?C onstitution.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn20


18/37

+s to the first and second grounds, petitioners insist that Catolico had eenreceiving 7commissions9 from KS/, or proaly from other suppliers, and that the chec8issued to her on % Novemer $%;% was not the first or the last! "hey also maintainedthat Catolico occupied a confidential position and that Catolico6s receipt of KS/6s chec8,aggravated y her 7propensity to violate company rules,9 constituted reach of

confidence! +nd contrary to the findings of NG.C, Catolico was given ampleopportunity to e2plain her side of the controversy!

+nent the third ground, petitioners sumit that, in light of the decision in the Peoplev. Marti,P&$Qthe constitutional protection against unreasonale searches and seiFuresrefers to the immunity of one6s person from interference y government and cannot ee2tended to acts committed y private individuals so as to ring it within the amit ofalleged unlawful intrusion y the government!

In its #anifestation in Gieu of Comment, the Office of the Solicitor -eneral 0OS-1disagreed with the NG.Cs decision, as it was of the persuasion that 0a1 the conclusionsreached y pulic respondent are inconsistent with its findings of fact5 and 01 the

incident involving the opening of envelope addressed to private respondent does notwarrant the application of the constitutional provisions! It oserved that Catolico wasgiven 7several opportunities9 to e2plain her side of the chec8 controversy, andconcluded that the opportunities granted her and her susequent e2planation 7satisfythe requirements of =ust cause and due process!9 "he OS- was also convinced thatCatolico6s dismissal was ased on =ust cause and that Catolico6s admission of thee2istence of the chec8, as well as her 7lame e2cuse9 that it was a Christmas gift fromKS/, constituted sustantial evidence of dishonesty! @inally, the OS- echoedpetitioners6 argument that there was no violation of the right of privacy of communicationin this case,P&&Qadding that petitioner 3+"E.OHS was =ustified in opening an envelopefrom one of its regular suppliers as it could assume that the letter was a usiness

communication in which it had an interest!In its Comment which we required to e filed in view of the adverse stand of the

OS-, the NG.C contends that petitioners miseraly failed to prove their claim that itcommitted grave ause of discretion in its findings of fact! It then prays that we dismissthis petition!

In her Comment, Catolico asserts that petitioners6 evidence is too 7flimsy9 to =ustifyher dismissal! "he chec8 in issue was given to her, and she had no duty to turn it overto her employer! Company rules do not prohiit an employee from accepting gifts fromclients, and there is no indication in the contentious chec8 that it was meant as a refundfor overpriced medicines! :esides, the chec8 was discovered in violation of the

constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication5 hence, as correctlyheld y the NG.C, it was inadmissile in evidence!

Catolico li8ewise disputes petitioners6 claim that the audit report and her initialresponse that she never received a chec8 were sufficient to =ustify her dismissal! 3henshe denied having received a chec8 from KS/, she meant that she did not receive anyrefund of overprice, consistent with her position that what she received was a to8engift! +ll that can e gathered from the audit report is that there was apparently an
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn22


19/37

overcharge, with no asis to conclude that Catolico poc8eted the amount in collusionwith KS/! She thus concluded that her dismissal was ased on a mere suspicion!

@inally, Catolico insists that she could not have reached the trust and confidenceof 3+"E.OHS ecause, eing merely a pharmacist, she did not handle 7confidentialinformation or sensitive properties!9 She was doing the tas8 of a saleslady selling

drugs and ma8ing requisitions when supplies were low!

+ thorough review of the record leads us to no other conclusion than that, e2cept asto the third ground, the instant petition must fail!

Concededly, Catolico was denied due process! /rocedural due process requiresthat an employee e apprised of the charge against him, given reasonale time toanswer the charge, allowed ample opportunity to e heard and defend himself, andassisted y a representative if the employee so desires! P&(Q+mple opportunity connotesevery 8ind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enale him toprepare adequately for his defense, including legal representation! P&*Q

In the case at ar, although Catolico was given an opportunity to e2plain her side,she was dismissed from the service in the memorandum of 4 #arch $%%' issued y herSupervisor after receipt of her letter and that of her counsel! No hearing was everconducted after the issues were =oined through said letters! "he Supervisor6smemorandum spo8e of 7evidences PsicQ in P3+"E.OHSQ possession,9 which were not,however, sumitted! 3hat the 7evidences9 PsicQ other than the sales invoice and thechec8 were, only the Supervisor 8new!

Catolico was also un=ustly dismissed! It is settled that the urden is on theemployer to prove =ust and valid cause for dismissing an employee, and its failure todischarge that urden would result in a finding that the dismissal is un=ustified! P&4Q>ere,3+"E.OHS proved unequal to the tas8!

It is evident from the Supervisor6s memorandum that Catolico was dismissedecause of an alleged anomalous transaction with KS/! Hnfortunately for petitioners,their evidence does not estalish that there was an overcharge! Control Cler8 EugenioC! ValdeF, who claims to have discovered Catolico6s inappropriate transaction, stated inhis affidavitP&)Q

F. )y findings revealed that on or before the month of Auly @1, 1>?>, )s.

atolico in violation of the 3company4 procedure, made an under the table deal

with YS9 9hils. to supply $6* needed medicines li'e Boren tablets at a

(ac'-up price of 9@?F.00 per bottle of =0 mg. which has a previous price of

only [email protected]=. ! verified the matter to YS9 9hils. to determine the discrepancy and ! found

out that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced. &he /ccounting 6epartment

of YS9 9hils. through )s. "stelita *eyes confirmed that there was really an

overprice and she said that the difference was refunded through their chec'

voucher no. D>==D which was shown to me and the payee is )elodia

atolico, through a hina 5an' hec' 2o. ?>D0? dated 2ovember >, 1>?>.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/113271.htm#_edn26


20/37

It clearly appears then that Catolico6s dismissal was ased onhearsay information! Estelita .eyes never testified nor e2ecuted an affidavit relative tothis case5 thus, we have to re=ect the statements attriuted to her y ValdeF! >earsayevidence carries no proative value! P&AQ

:esides, it was never shown that petitioners paid for the Voren talets! 3hile

ValdeF informed Co, through the former6s memorandum P&;Qof &%


21/37

computed the separation pay at onehalf month6s salary for every year of service!Catolico did not oppose or raise an o=ection! +s such, we will uphold the award ofseparation pay as fi2ed y the Gaor +riter!

%*RFOR, the instant petition is herey DIS#ISSED and the challengeddecision and resolution of the National Gaor .elations Commission dated ('

Septemer $%%( and & Decemer $%%(, respectively, in NG.CNC. C+ No! ''4$)'%(are +@@I.#ED, e2cept as to its reason for upholding the Gaor +riter6s decision, vi!!,that the evidence against private respondent was inadmissile for having een otainedin violation of her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and againstunreasonale searches and seiFures which is herey set aside!

Costs against petitioners!

SO ORDRD.

2ellosillo, 3itu), 4apunan, and0ermosisima, $r., $$., concur!

.epulic of the /hilippines

SU$R" COURT

#anila

">I.D DIVISION

G.R. No. 161 &';&r< 1, 1991

$O$! OF T* $*I!I$$INS, plaintiffappelleevs!

ANDR "ARTI, accusedappellant.

he #olicitor 5eneral for plaintiffappellee.

Re-naldo 2. ato- and Abelardo /. Ro)acion for accusedappellant.

-IDIN, J.:p

"his is an appeal from a decision =rendered y the Special Criminal Court of #anila 0.egional "rial

Court, :ranch MGIM1 convicting accusedappellant of violation of Section &$ 01, +rticle IV in relation

to Section *, +rticle $$ and Section & 0e1 0i1, +rticle $ of .epulic +ct )*&4, as amended, otherwise

8nown as the Dangerous Drugs +ct!

"he facts as summariFed in the rief of the prosecution are as follows


22/37

On +ugust $*, $%;A, etween $''' and $$'' a!m!, the appellant and his common

law wife, Shirley .eyes, went to the ooth of the L#anila /ac8ing and E2port

@orwardersL in the /istang /ilipino Comple2, Ermita, #anila, carrying with them four

0*1 gift wrapped pac8ages! +nita .eyes 0the proprietress and no relation to Shirley

.eyes1 attended to them! "he appellant informed +nita .eyes that he was sending

the pac8ages to a friend in ?urich, SwitFerland! +ppellant filled up the contractnecessary for the transaction, writing therein his name, passport numer, the date of

shipment and the name and address of the consignee, namely, L3+G"E. @IE.?,

#attac8etr II, ;'4& ?urich, SwitFerlandL 0Decision, p! )1

+nita .eyes then as8ed the appellant if she could e2amine and inspect the

pac8ages! +ppellant, however, refused, assuring her that the pac8ages simply

contained oo8s, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in ?urich! In view of

appellants representation, +nita .eyes no longer insisted on inspecting the

pac8ages! "he four 0*1 pac8ages were then placed inside a rown corrugated o2

one y two feet in siFe 0$ 2 &1! Styrofoam was placed at the ottom and on top of

the pac8ages efore the o2 was sealed with mas8ing tape, thus ma8ing the o2ready for shipment 0Decision, p! ;1!

:efore delivery of appellants o2 to the :ureau of Customs andor :ureau of

/osts, Mr!$ob Re-es %proprietor& and husband of Anita %Re-es&, followin) standard

operatin) procedure, opened the bo1es for final inspection!6hen he opened

appellant7s bo1, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom!0is curiousit- aroused, he

s'uee!ed one of the bundles alle)edl- containin) )loves and felt dried leaves

inside!*penin) one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protrudin)

from the openin) of one of the )loves!0e made an openin) on one of the cellophane

wrappers and too8 several )rams of the contents thereof0tsn, pp! &%(', Octoer ),

$%;A5 Emphasis supplied1!

e rought the letter and a sample of appellants shipment to the Narcotics Section

of the National :ureau of Investigation 0N:I1, at aout $(' ocloc8 in the afternoon of

that date, i!e!, +ugust $*, $%;A! >e was interviewed y the Chief of Narcotics

Section!


23/37

"he pac8age which allegedly contained oo8s was li8ewise opened y e discovered that the pac8age contained ric8s or ca8eli8e dried mari=uana leaves!

"he pac8age which allegedly contained taacalera cigars was also opened! It turned

out that dried mari=uana leaves were neatly stoc8ed underneath the cigars 0tsn, p!

(%, Octoer ), $%;A1!

"he N:I agents made an inventory and too8 charge of the o2 and of the contents

thereof, after signing a L.eceiptL ac8nowledging custod-of the said effects 0tsn, pp!

&(, Octoer A, $%;A1!

"hereupon, the N:I agents tried to locate appellant ut to no avail! +ppellants stated address in his

passport eing the #anila Central /ost Office, the agents requested assistance from the latters

Chief Security! On +ugust &A, $%;A, appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central /ost Office, was

invited y the N:I to shed light on the attempted shipment of the seiFed dried leaves! On the same

day the Narcotics Section of the N:I sumitted the dried leaves to the @orensic Chemistry Section

for laoratory e2amination! It turned out that the dried leaves were mari=uana flowering tops as

certified y the forensic chemist! 0+ppellees :rief, pp! %$$, Rollo, pp! $(&$(*1!

"hereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of .+ )*&4, otherwise 8nown as

the Dangerous Drugs +ct!

+fter trial, the court a 'uorendered the assailed decision!

In this appeal, accusedappellant assigns the following errors, to wit

">E GO3E. COH." E..ED IN +D#I""IN- IN EVIDENCE ">E IGGE-+GGK

SE+.C>ED +ND SEI?ED O:E GO3E. COH." E..ED IN CONVIC"IN- +//EGG+N" DES/I"E ">E

HNDIS/H"ED @+C" ">+" >IS .I->"S HNDE. ">E CONS"I"H"ION 3>IGE

HNDE. CHS"ODI+G /.OCEEDIN-S 3E.E NO" O:SE.VED!

">E GO3E. COH." E..ED IN NO" -IVIN- C.EDENCE "O ">E

EM/G+N+"ION O@ ">E +//EGG+N" ON >O3 ">E @OH. /+.CEGS C+#E IN"O

>IS /OSSESSION 0+ppellants :rief, p! $5Rollo, p! 441

$! +ppellant contends that the evidence su=ect of the imputed offense had een otained in

violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonale search and seiFure and privacy of

communication 0Sec! & and (, +rt! III, Constitution1 and therefore argues that the same should eheld inadmissile in evidence 0Sec! ( 0&1, +rt! III1!

Sections & and (, +rticle III of the Constitution provide

Sec! &! "he right of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers and

effects against unreasonale searches and seiFures of whatever nature and for any

purpose shall e inviolale, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue


24/37

e2cept upon proale cause to e determined personally y the =udge after

e2amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may

produce, and particularly descriing the place to e searched and the persons or

things to e seiFed!

Sec! (! 0$1 "he privacy of communication and correspondence shall e inviolalee2cept upon lawful order of the court, or when pulic safety or order requires

otherwise as prescried y law!

0&1 +ny evidence otained in violation of this or the preceding section shall e

inadmissile for any purpose in any proceeding!

Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonale search and seiFure had

its origin in the $%(4 Charter which, worded as follows

"he right of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects

against unreasonale searches and seiFures shall not e violated, and no warrantsshall issue ut uponprobablecause, to e determined y the =udge after e2amination

under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and

particularly descriing the place to e searched, and the persons or things to e

seiFed! 0Sec! $ P(Q, +rticle III1

was in turn derived almost veratim from the @ourth +mendment ==to the Hnited States Constitution!

+s such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the Hnited States @ederal Supreme Court

and State +ppellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this =urisdiction!

"hus, following the e2clusionary rule laid down in Mapp v!*hio b- the # 9ederal #upreme

Court 0()A HS )*(, ;$ S!Ct! $);*, ) G!Ed! $';$ P$%)$Q1, this Court, in #tonehill v!Dio8no0&' SC.+(;( P$%)AQ1, declared as inadmissile any evidence otained y virtue of a defective search and

seiFure warrant, aandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado v!People7s

Court 0;' /hil! $ P$%*;Q1 wherein the admissiility of evidence was not affected y the illegality of its

seiFure! "he $%A( Charter 0Sec! * P&Q, +rt! IV1 constitutionaliFed the #tonehillruling and is carried

over up to the present with the advent of the $%;A Constitution!

In a numer of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the e2clusionary rule and has struc8 down the

admissiility of evidence otained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonale

searches and seiFures! 0:ache Co!, 0/hil!1, Inc!, v! .uiF, (A SC.+ ;&( P$%A$Q5 Gim v! /once de

Geon, )) SC.+ &%% P$%A4Q5 /eople v! :urgos, $** SC.+ $ P$%;)Q5 .oan v! -onFales, $*4 SC.+

);A P$%;AQ5 #ee alsoSalaFar v! >on! +chacoso, et al!, -. No! ;$4$', #arch $*, $%%'1!

It must e noted, however, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so otained were

invarialy procured y the State acting through the medium of its law enforcers or other authoriFed

government agencies!

On the other hand, the case at ar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to e

e2cluded was primarily discovered and otained y a private person, acting in a private capacity and


25/37

without the intervention and participation of State authorities! Hnder the circumstances, can

accusedappellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonale searches and

seiFure has een violated Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation

of appellants constitutional rights, e invo8ed against the State

3e hold in the negative! In the asence of governmental interference, the lierties guaranteed ythe Constitution cannot e invo8ed against the State!

+s this Court held in 3illanueva v!:uerubin0*; SC.+ (*4 P$%A&Q

$! his constitutional ri)ht0against unreasonale search and seiFure1 refers to the

immunit- of one7s person, whether citi!en or alien, from interference b- )overnment,

included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions! ! ! !

! ! ! "here the state, however powerful, does not as such have the access e2cept

under the circumstances aove noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house,

however humle, is his castle! hus is outlawed an- unwarranted intrusion b-)overnment, which is called upon to refrain from an- invasion of his dwellin) and to

respect the privacies of his life! ! ! ! 0Cf! Schermerer v! California, (;* HS A4A P$%))Q

and :oyd v! Hnited States, $$) HS )$) P$;;)Q5 Emphasis supplied1!

In 2urdeau v!McDowell 0&4) HS *)4 0$%&$1, *$ S Ct! 4*A5 )4 G!Ed! $'*;1, the Court there in

construing the right against unreasonale searches and seiFures declared that

0t1he @ourth +mendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seiFures,

and as shown in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action! Its

origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities

of sovereign authority, and was not intended to e a limitation upon other thangovernmental agencies5 as against such authority it was the purpose of the @ourth

+mendment to secure the citiFen in the right of unmolested occupation of his

dwelling and the possession of his property, su=ect to the right of seiFure y process

duly served!

"he aove ruling was reiterated in #tate v!2r-an0*4A /!&d ))$ P$%);Q1 where a par8ing attendant

who searched the automoile to ascertain the owner thereof found mari=uana instead, without the

8nowledge and participation of police authorities, was declared admissile in prosecution for illegal

possession of narcotics!

+nd again in the $%)% case of 6al8er v!#tate 0*&% S!3!&d $&$1, it was held that the search andseiFure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals

0citin)/eople v! /otter, &*' Cal! +pp!&d )&$, *% Cap! .ptr, ;%& 0$%))15 State v! :rown, #o!, (%$

S!3!&d %'( 0$%)415 State v! Olsen, Or!, ($A /!&d %(; 0$%4A1!

Gi8ewise appropos is the case of 2ernas v!# 0(A( @!&d 4$A 0$%)A1! "he Court there said


26/37

"he search of which appellant complains, however, was made y a private citiFen J

the owner of a motel in which appellant stayed overnight and in which he left ehind

a travel case containing the evidence===complained of! "he search was made on the motel owners owninitiative! :ecause of it, he ecame suspicious, called the local police, informed them of the ags contents, and made it

availale to the authorities!

"he fourth amendment and the case law applying it do not require e2clusion ofevidence otained through a search y a private citiFen! .ather, the amendment only

proscries governmental action!L

"he contraand in the case at ar having come into possession of the -overnment without the latter

transgressing appellants rights against unreasonale search and seiFure, the Court sees no cogent

reason why the same should not e admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged!

+ppellant, however, would li8e this court to elieve that N:I agents made an illegal search and

seiFure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case which resulted in his conviction!

"he postulate advanced y accusedappellant needs to e clarified in two days! In oth instances,the argument stands to fall on its own weight, or the lac8 of it!

@irst, the factual considerations of the case at ar readily foreclose the proposition that N:I agents

conducted an illegal search and seiFure of the prohiited merchandise! .ecords of the case clearly

indicate that it was #r! aving oserved that which is open, where no

trespass has een committed in aid thereof, is not search 0Chadwic8 v! State, *&% S3&d $(41!

3here the contraand articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer,

there is not the search that is prohiited y the constitution 0HS v! Gee &A* HS 44%, A$ G!Ed! $&'&P$%&AQ5 er v! State of California (A* HS &(, $' G!Ed!&d! A&) P$%)(Q5 #oore v! State, *&% S3&d $&&

P$%);Q1!

In 5and- v!6at8ins0&(A @! Supp! &)) P$%)*Q1, it was li8ewise held that where the property was

ta8en into custody of the police at the specific request of the manager and where the search was

initially made y the owner there is no unreasonale search and seiFure within the constitutional

meaning of the term!


27/37

"hat the :ill of .ights emodied in the Constitution is not meant to e invo8ed against acts of private

individuals finds support in the delierations of the Constitutional Commission! "rue, the lierties

guaranteed y the fundamental law of the land must always e su=ect to protection! :ut protection

against whom Commissioner :ernas in his sponsorship speech in the :ill of .ights answers the

query which he himself posed, as follows

@irst, the general reflections! "he protection of fundamental lierties in the essence

of constitutional democracy! /rotection against whom Protection a)ainst the

state!he 2ill of Ri)hts )overns the relationship between the individual and the

state!Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual

and other individuals!6hat the 2ill of Ri)hts does is to declare some forbidden

!ones in the private sphere inaccessible to an- power holder! 0Sponsorship Speech

of Commissioner :ernas , .ecord of the Constitutional Commission, Vol! $, p! )A*5

owever, if the search is made at the ehest or initiative of

the proprietor of a private estalishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at ar, and

without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonale search and seiFure

cannot e invo8ed for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved! In sum, the

protection against unreasonale searches and seiFures cannot e e2tended to acts committed y

private individuals so as to ring it within the amit of alleged unlawful intrusion y the government!

+ppellant argues, however, that since the provisions of the $%(4 Constitution has een modified y

the present phraseology found in the $%;A Charter, e2pressly declaring as inadmissile any

evidence otained in violation of the constitutional prohiition against illegal search and seiFure, it

matters not whether the evidence was procured y police authorities or private individuals

0+ppellants :rief, p! ;, Rollo, p! )&1!

"he argument is untenale! @or one thing, the constitution, in laying down the principles of the

government and fundamental lierties of the people, does not govern relationships etween

individuals! #oreover, it must e emphasiFed that the modifications introduced in the $%;A

Constitution 0re Sec! &, +rt! III1 relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of

arrest visavisthe responsiility of the =udge in the issuance thereof 0#eeSoliven v! #a8asiar, $)ASC.+ (%( P$%;;Q5 Circular No! $( POctoer $, $%;4Q and Circular No! $& P


28/37

appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the :ill of .ights should also e construed

as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an asurd interpretation of the

constitution!

Similarly, the admissiility of the evidence procured y an individual effected through private seiFure

equally applies, inpari passu, to the alleged violation, nongovernmental as it is, of appellantsconstitutional rights to privacy and communication!

&! In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court erred in convicting him

despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution while under custodial investigation

were not oserved!

+gain, the contention is without merit, 3e have carefully e2amined the records of the case and

found nothing to indicate, as an Lundisputed factL, that appellant was not informed of his

constitutional rights or that he gave statements without the assistance of counsel! "he law enforcers

testified that accusedappellant was informed of his constitutional rights! It is presumed that they

have regularly performed their duties 0#ee! 40m1, .ule $($1 and their testimonies should e given fullfaith and credence, there eing no evidence to the contrary! 3hat is clear from the records, on the

other hand, is that appellant refused to give any written statement while under investigation as

testified y +tty! Gastimoso of the N:I, "hus

@iscal @ormoso

Kou said that you investigated #r! and #rs!


29/37

.ather than give the appearance of veracity, we find appellants disclaimer as incredulous, self

serving and contrary to human e2perience! It can easily e faricated! +n acquaintance with a

complete stranger struc8 in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four

0*1 parcels and shell out /&,'''!'' for the purpose and for appellant to readily accede to comply

with the underta8ing without first ascertaining its contents! +s stated y the trial court, L0a1 person

would not simply entrust contraand and of considerale value at that as the mari=uana floweringtops, and the cash amount of /&,'''!'' to a complete stranger li8e the +ccused! "he +ccused, on

the other hand, would not simply accept such underta8ing to ta8e custody of the pac8ages and ship

the same from a complete stranger on his mere saysoL 0Decision, p! $%, Rollo, p! %$1! +s to why he

readily agreed to do the errand, appellant failed to e2plain! Denials, if unsustantiated y clear and

convincing evidence, are negative selfserving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot

e given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of credile witnesses who testify on

affirmative matters 0/eople v! Esquillo, $A$ SC.+ 4A$ P$%;%Q5 /eople vs! Sariol, $A* SC.+ &(A

P$%;%Q1!

+ppellants are denial is even made more suspect considering that, as per records of the Interpol,

he was previously convicted of possession of hashish y the leve Court in the @ederal .epulic of-ermany on


30/37

Foot'ote8

T /enned y TT It reads L"he right of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers and

effects, against unreasonale searches and seiFures, shall not e violated, and nowarrants shall issue, ut upon proale cause, supported y oath or affirmation, and

particularly descriing the place to e searched, and the persons or things to e

seiFed!L

TTT @orged chec8s!

THIRD DIVISION

CLARISSA U. MATA, doing businessunder the firm nme !"SSAN# $ASS

S"CURIT% A#"NC%,

9etitioner,

- versus -

AL"&AND"R M. A#RAVANT", "DDI"

". SANTILLAN, $ATRICIO A.

ARMODIA, AL"'ANDRO A. ALMAD"Nnd H"RM"N"#ILDO #. SALDO,

*espondents.

#.R. No. ()*+*

9resent%

Y2/*"S-S/2&!/#;,J.,

Chairperson,

/


31/37

5efore us is a petition for review on certiorariassailing the decision314of the

ourt of /ppeals +/ which dismissed petitioners complaint for damages filed

against the respondents.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn1


32/37

&he antecedent facts are as follows%

*espondents "ddie ". Santillan, 9atricio /. /rmodia, /le(andro /. /lmaden

and ermenegildo #. Saldo were former security guards of the 5essang 9ass

Security /gency, owned by herein petitioner larissa )ata.

;n ;ctober DC, 1>>@, the respondents, assisted by their counsel, /tty.

/lexander /gravante, filed a complaint with the 2ational Eabor *elations

ommission +2E* inebu ity for non-payment of salariesIwages and other

benefits.3D4 Subseuently, they filed an affidavit-complaint with the 9hilippine

2ational 9olice +929 in ramp rame,Lue7on ity reuesting an investigation of

the 5essang 9ass Security /gency and cancellation of its license to operate as

security agency for violation of labor laws. opies of this affidavit-complaint wereli'ewise sent to the following offices% +1 ;ffice of the 9resident, +D ;ffice of the

Secretary of 9ublic $or's and ighways, +@ ;ffice of the 929 6irector #eneral,

+F 929 hief Superintendent $arlito apitan, += ;ffice of the 6!E# Secretary,

+ ;mbudsman onrado Basue7 and +C ;ffice of the Bice-9resident.

;n Aanuary , 1>>F, petitioner instituted an action for damages against the

respondents averring that respondents filed unfounded, baseless complaints before

the 2E* for alleged violation of the labor laws and with the 929 for cancellation

of its license to operate. She further alleged that by furnishing the governmentoffices copies of these complaints, especially the 6epartment of 9ublic $or's and

ighways which was its biggest client, the agencys reputation was besmirched,

resulting in the loss of contractsIpro(ects and income in the amount of at

least 9=,000,000.00. 9etitioner then declared that respondents deliberate and

concerted campaign of hate and vilification against the 5essang 9ass Security

/gency violated the provisions of /rticles 1>, D0, and D1 of the ivil ode, and

thus, prayed that the respondents be held (ointly and severally liable to pay her the

sum of 91,000,000.00 as moral damages, attorneys fees in the amountof 9D00,000.00 and other reliefs.

;n /ugust F, 1>>>, the trial court rendered (udgment, the dispositive portion

of which reads, as follows%


33/37

$"*"H;*", premises considered, (udgment is hereby rendered in

favor of plaintiff and against defendants ordering the latter to pay plaintiff the

sum of ;2" )!EE!;2 +91,000,000.00 9"S;S as moral damages.3@4

;n the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner ex parte, the trialcourt found preponderant evidence enough to (ustify petitioners cause of action. !t

gave credence to the petitioners contentions that the respondents had no other

motive in sending the letter to the seven +C government offices except to unduly

pre(udice her good name and reputation. &he trial court, however, did not award

the sum of 9=,000,000.00 as petitioners estimated loss of income for being

speculative.

;n appeal, the / reversed and set aside the trial courts decision.

!t dismissed the complaint for lac' of merit.

ence, this petition anchored on the following grounds%

$!& /EE 6


34/37

9etitioner contends that the respondents were so driven by unrestrained

hatred and revenge that they not only succeeded in disseminating the letter-

complaint to the C government offices but to the 69$, her biggest client, with

the intention to destroy her reputation and, more importantly, her business. She

posits that this would mean a loss of employment for numerous employeesthroughout the country who solely depend on the security agency for their

existence, and that respondents obviously failed to see this fact. She claims that the

respondents have abused their rights, to her pre(udice, and that of the security

agency which has tried very hard to protect its name and hard-earned

reputation. 9etitioner then concludes that the respondents have violated /rticles 1>

and D1 of the ivil ode and should be held liable for damages.3=4

$e are not impressed. $e are more in accord with the findings andconclusions of the respondent court that petitioner is not entitled to any award of

damages. $e agree with the respondent courts explanation, viz.%

!n filing the letter-complaint +"xhibit 86: with the 9hilippine 2ational

9olice and furnishing copies thereof to seven +C other executive offices of the

national government, the defendants-appellants may not be said to be motivated

simply by the desire to 8unduly pre(udice the good name and reputation: ofplaintiff-appellee. Such act was consistent with and a rational conseuence of

see'ing (ustice through legal means for the alleged abuses defendants-appellants

suffered in the course of their employment with plaintiff-appellee, which startedwith the case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of bac'wages and benefits

earlier filed with the 2E* *egional /rbitration 5ranch in ebu ity. !n

exhausting the legal avenues to air their legitimate grievances, the paramount andoverriding concern of the defendants-appellants M who had already suffered from

retaliatory acts of their employer when they manifested their desire to ta'e formal

action on the violations of labor laws committed by employer M is to secure

government intervention or action to correct or punish their employer, plaintiff-appellee, in accordance with the provisions of existing laws or rules and

regulations which may be applicable to their situation. /nd in this process, the

intervention of the 9hilippine 2ational 9olice was sought in view of its mandatedrole of administrative supervision over security agencies li'e plaintiff-appellee.

Section ? of *epublic /ct 2o. =F?C, otherwise 'nown as the 89rivateSecurity /gency Eaw,: empowered the hief of the former 9hilippine

onstabulary +9 at any time 8to suspend or cancel the licenses of private

watchman or security guard agency found violating any of the provisions of this

/ct or of the rules and regulations promulgated by the hief of onstabularypursuant thereto.: $ith the enactment of *epublic /ct 2o. >C= +86epartment of

the !nterior and Eocal #overnment /ct of 1>>0:, the 9-!29 was abolished and


35/37

in its place, a new police force was established, the 9hilippine 2ational 9olice

+929. /mong the administrative support units of the 929 under the new law is

the ivil Security and D1 is that the

act complained of must be intentional,3>4and attended with malice or bad faith.

&here is no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn9


36/37

principle of abuse of rights may be invo'ed. &he uestion of whether or not this

principle has been violated, resulting in damages under /rticles D0 and D1, 3104or

other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. 3114!n

the case before us, as correctly pointed out by the /, the circumstances do not

warrant an award of damages. &hus, the award of 91,000,000.00 as moraldamages is uite preposterous. $e agree with the appellate court that in the action

of the respondents, there was no malicious intent to in(ure petitioners good name

and reputation. &he respondents merely wanted to call the attention of responsible

government agencies in order to secure appropriate action upon an erring private

security agency and obtain redress for their grievances. So, we reiterate the basic

postulate that in the absence of proof that there was malice or bad faith on the part

of the respondents, no damages can be awarded.

H"R"/OR", the petition is D"NI"D. &he 6ecision of the ourt of

/ppeals is A//IRM"D.

SO ORD"R"D.

ANTONIO "DUARDO !. NACHURA

/ssociate Austice

" CONCUR-

CONSU"LO %NAR"S0SANTIA#O

/ssociate Austice

hairperson
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/147597.htm#_ftn11


37/37

consti cases labor

Documents