labor cases - illegal dismissal

8/20/2019 Labor Cases - Illegal Dismissal

1/117

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 179001 August 28, 2013

MZR INDUSTRIES, MARILOU R. UIROZ AND LEA

TIM!AL, PETITIONERS,

vs.

MA"EN COLAM!OT, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This is a Petition fo Revie! on Cetioai un"e Rule #$ of the Rules of Cout

see%in& the evesal of the Decision' "ate" Ma( '), *++) an"

Resolution* "ate" ul( *$, *++) of the Cout of -ppeals in C-/.R. SP No.

01##$, evesin& the Decision "ate" Octobe 2', *++32 an"

Resolution# "ate" Dece4be *', *++3 of the National 5abo Relations

Co44ission 6N5RC7 !hich set asi"e the Decision$ "ate" -pil *1, *++3 of the

5abo -bite.

The facts ae as follo!s8

On 9ebua( 1, *+++, petitione Mailou :uio;, O!ne an" VicePesi"ent fo

9inance an" Ma%etin& of Ms "uties an" esponsibilities inclu"e" ?el",

4essen&eial an" othe liaison !o%.

Ho!eve, be&innin& *++*, Cola4bot>s !o% pefo4ance state" to

"eteioate. Petitiones issue" seveal 4e4oan"a to Cola4bot fo habitual

ta"iness, ne&li&ence, an" violations of o@ce policies.3

He !as also &iven!itten !anin&s fo insubo"ination co44itte" on -u&ust *), *++2 an"

Septe4be '''*, *++2A) on Septe4be '3, *++2 fo ne&li&ence cause" b(

caeless han"lin& of con?"ential o@ce "ocu4entsA1 on Septe4be **, *++#

fo leavin& his post !ithout pope tunoveA0 an", on Octobe #, *++# fo

insubo"ination.'+

Elsa M. CaBete1 # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt1


2/117

Petitiones clai4e" that "espite !itten !anin&s fo epeate" ta"iness an"

insubo"ination, Cola4bot faile" to 4en" his !a(s. Hence, in a

Me4oan"u4'' "ate" Octobe *$, *++# issue" b( petitione 5ea Ti4bal

6Ti4bal7, Ms -"4inistative Mana&e, Cola4bot !as &iven a notice of

suspension fo insubo"ination an" ne&li&ence.

-&ain, in a Me4oan"u4'* "ate" Nove4be *$, *++#, Cola4bot !as

suspen"e" fo4 Nove4be *3, *++# until Dece4be 3, *++# fo

insubo"ination. -lle&e"l(, Cola4bot "isobe(e" an" left the o@ce "espite

clea instuctions to sta( in the o@ce because thee !as an i4potant

4eetin& in pepaation fo a ve( i4potant activit( the follo!in& "a(.

Petitiones clai4e" the( !aite" fo Cola4bot to epot bac% fo !o% on

Dece4be ), *++#, but the( neve hea" fo4 hi4 an(4oe. 5ate,

petitiones !ee supise" to ?n" out that Cola4bot ha" ?le" a co4plaint foille&al suspension, un"epa(4ent of salaies, oveti4e pa(, holi"a( pa(, est

"a(, sevice incentive leave an" '2th 4onth pa(. On Dece4be '3, *++#, the

co4plaint !as a4en"e" to ille&al "is4issal, ille&al suspension,

un"epa(4ent of salaies, holi"a( pa(, sevice incentive pa(, '2th 4onth

pa( an" sepaation pa(.'2

9o his pat, Cola4bot naate" that he !o%e" as a 4essen&e fo

petitiones since 9ebua( *+++. That on Nove4be *++#, he !as "iecte" to

ta%e cae of the pocessin& of a "ocu4ent in Roas ouleva", Pasa( Cit(.

Fhen he aive" at the o@ce aoun" 3 to ) o>cloc% in the evenin&, he loo%e"fo petitione :uio; to &ive the "ocu4ents. The latte tol" hi4 to !ait fo

he fo a !hile. Fhen espon"ent ?nall( ha" the chance to tal% to :uio;, she

alle&e"l( tol" hi4 that she is "issatis?e" alea"( !ith his !o% pefo4ance.

-fte!a"s, Cola4bot clai4e" that he !as 4a"e to choose bet!een

esi&nin& fo4 the co4pan( o the co4pan( !ill be the one to te4inate his

sevices. He sai" he efuse" to esi&n. Cola4bot alle&e" that :uio; 4a"e

hi4 si&n a 4e4oan"u4 fo his suspension, fo4 Nove4be *3 to Dece4be

3, *++#. -fte a@in& his si&natue, :uio; tol" hi4 that eGective Dece4be

), *++#, he is alea"( "ee4e" te4inate". 5ate, on Dece4be *, *++#,

espon"ent !ent bac% to the co4pan( to loo% fo Ti4bal to &et his sala(. He

clai4e" that Ti4bal as%e" hi4 to tun ove his co4pan( I.D.'#

Petitiones, ho!eve, insiste" that !hile Cola4bot !as suspen"e" "ue to

insubo"ination an" ne&li&ence, the( 4aintaine" that the( neve te4inate"

Cola4bot>s e4plo(4ent. The( a""e" that Cola4bot>s failue to epot fo


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt14


3/117

!o% since Dece4be ), *++# !ithout an( appove" vacation o sic% leave

constitute" aban"on4ent of his !o%, but the( neve te4inate" his

e4plo(4ent. Petitiones futhe e4phasi;e" that even !ith Cola4bot>s ?lin&

of the co4plaint a&ainst the4, his e4plo(4ent !ith M


4/117

The N5RC pointe" out that Cola4bot>s co4plaint !as unsuppote" b( an(

evi"ence an" !as not even 4a"e un"e oath, thus, lac%in& in ce"ibilit( an"

pobative value. The N5RC futhe believe" that Cola4bot aban"one" his

!o% "ue to his efusal to epot fo !o% afte his suspension. The failue of

M


5/117

Petitiones a&ue that the( "i" not te4inate the e4plo(ee4plo(ee

elationship !ith Cola4bot. Othe than Cola4bot>s selfsevin& an"

unvei?e" naation of facts, he faile" to pesent an( "ocu4ent sho!in& that

he !as te4inate" fo4 !o%. Petitiones asset that Cola4bot aban"one"

his !o% !hen he faile" to epot bac% to !o% !ithout an appove" vacation

o sic% leave, thus, he is not entitle" to an a!a" of sepaation pa( an"

bac%!a&es.

RK5IN/

Fhile !e eco∋e the ule that in ille&al "is4issal cases, the e4plo(e

beas the bu"en of povin& that the te4ination !as fo a vali" o

authoi;e" cause, in the pesent case, ho!eve, the facts an" the evi"ence

"o not establish a pi4a facie case that the e4plo(ee !as "is4isse" fo4

e4plo(4ent. efoe the e4plo(e 4ust bea the bu"en of povin& that the"is4issal !as le&al, the e4plo(ee 4ust ?st establish b( substantial

evi"ence the fact of his "is4issal fo4 sevice. If thee is no "is4issal, then

thee can be no Juestion as to the le&alit( o ille&alit( theeof.*'

In the pesent case, othe than Cola4bot>s unsubstantiate" alle&ation of

havin& been veball( te4inate" fo4 his !o%, thee !as no evi"ence

pesente" to sho! that he !as in"ee" "is4isse" fo4 !o% o !as pevente"

fo4 etunin& to his !o%. In the absence of an( sho!in& of an ovet o

positive act povin& that petitiones ha" "is4isse" espon"ent, the latte>s

clai4 of ille&al "is4issal cannot be sustaine"** as the sa4e !oul" be selfsevin&, con=ectual an" of no pobative value.

- evie! of the Notice of Suspension*2 "ate" Nove4be *$, *++# sho!s that

espon"ent !as 4eel( suspen"e" fo4 !o% fo 3 "a(s, thee !as,

ho!eve, no evi"ence that Cola4bot !as te4inate" fo4 !o%. 9o

clai?cation, !e Juote8

TO 8 M-EN CO5-MOT

M


6/117

Cases of insubo"ination an" violations have been ?le" a&ainst (ou 4an(

ti4es. Fe %ept on e4in"in& that (ou shoul" have chan&e" an" i4pove"

(ou !o%in& attitu"es because it &eatl( aGects not onl( (ou !o%in&

pefo4ance but the co4pan(>s po"uctivit( as !ell.

Lou attitu"e onl( sho!s H-RD HE-DEDNESS -ND 5-C O9 RESPECT TO

LOKR SKPERIORS !hich in an( co4pan( cannot toleate.

Fith these, (ou ae suspen"e" fo 3 !o%in& "a(s eGective Nove4be *3,

*++#, (ou !ill onl( epot on Dece4be ), *++#.

THIS IS OKR 5-ST F-RNIN/ 9OR LOK TO IMPROVE, 9-I5KRE TO DO SO M-L

ME-N TERMIN-TION O9 LOKR EMP5OLMENT CONTR-CT.

Fhile the sa4e appeae" to contain a !anin& of te4ination shoul"

Cola4bot fail to i4pove his behavio, it is li%e!ise appaent that thee !as

also a speci?c instuction fo hi4 to epot bac% to !o%, on Dece4be ),

*++#, upon sevin& his suspension. The sub=ect of the 5ette, i.e.,

Suspension "ue to Insubo"ination, the !o"in&s an" content of the lette

is a cleacut notice of suspension, an" not a notice of te4ination. The

notice of suspension 4a( have containe" !anin&s of te4ination, but it4ust be note" that such !as con"itione" on the &oun" that Cola4bot

!oul" fail to i4pove his attitu"ebehavio. Thee !ee no !o"in&s

!hatsoeve i4pl(in& actual o constuctive "is4issal. Thus, Cola4bot>s

&eneal alle&ation of havin& been oall( "is4isse" fo4 the sevice as

a&ainst the clea !o"in&s an" intent of the notice of suspension !hich he

si&ne", !e ae then incline" to believe that thee !as no "is4issal.

In Machica v. Roosevelt Sevices Cente, Inc.,*$ this Cout sustaine" the

e4plo(e>s "enial as a&ainst the e4plo(ees> cate&oical assetion of ille&al

"is4issal. In so ulin&, this Cout hel" that8

The ule is that one !ho alle&es a fact has the bu"en of povin& itA thus,

petitiones !ee bu"ene" to pove thei alle&ation that espon"ents

"is4isse" the4 fo4 thei e4plo(4ent. It 4ust be stesse" that the

evi"ence to pove this fact 4ust be clea, positive an" convincin&. The ule

that the e4plo(e beas the bu"en of poof in ille&al "is4issal cases ?n"s

Elsa M. CaBete& # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt25


7/117

no application hee because the espon"ents "en( havin& "is4isse" the

petitiones.*3

Hence, as bet!een espon"ents &eneal alle&ation of havin& been oall(

"is4isse" fo4 the sevice visavis those of petitiones !hich !ee foun" to

be substantiate" b( the s!on state4ent of foe4an Fenife"o, !e aepesua"e" b( the latte. -bsent an( sho!in& of an ovet o positive act

povin& that petitiones ha" "is4isse" espon"ents, the lattes clai4 of

ille&al "is4issal cannot be sustaine". In"ee", a cuso( ea4ination of the

eco"s eveal no ille&al "is4issal to spea% of.*)

Moeove, in -ba" v. Roselle Cine4a,*1 !e ule" that the substantial evi"ence

poGee" b( the e4plo(e that it ha" not te4inate" the e4plo(ee shoul"

not be i&noe" on the petet that the e4plo(ee !oul" not have ?le" the

co4plaint fo ille&al "is4issal if he ha" not eall( been "is4isse". Fe hel"that such non seJuitu easonin& cannot ta%e the place of the evi"ence of

both the e4plo(e an" the e4plo(ee.

Neithe coul" the petitiones be bla4e" fo failin& to o"e espon"ent to

etun bac% to !o%.1âwphi1 Reco"s sho! that Cola4bot i44e"iatel( ?le"

the co4plaint fo ille&al "is4issal on Dece4be '3, *++#,*0 o =ust a fe! "a(s

!hen he !as suppose" to epot bac% to !o% on Dece4be ), *++#. 9o

petitiones to o"e espon"ent to epot bac% to !o%, afte the latte ha"

alea"( ?le" a case fo ille&al "is4issal, !oul" be unsoun".

Ho!eve, !hile the Cout concus !ith the conclusion of the N5RC that thee

!as no ille&al "is4issal, no "is4issal havin& actuall( ta%en place, the Cout

"oes not a&ee !ith its ?n"in&s that Cola4bot co44itte" aban"on4ent of

!o%.

In a nu4be of cases,2+ this Cout consistentl( hel" that to constitute

aban"on4ent of !o%, t!o ele4ents 4ust be pesent8 ?st, the e4plo(ee

4ust have faile" to epot fo !o% o 4ust have been absent !ithout vali"

o =usti?able easonA an" secon", thee 4ust have been a clea intention on

the pat of the e4plo(ee to seve the e4plo(ee4plo(ee elationship4anifeste" b( so4e ovet act.

In the instant case, othe than Cola4bot>s failue to epot bac% to !o% afte

suspension, petitiones faile" to pesent an( evi"ence !hich ten" to sho! his

intent to aban"on his !o%. It is a settle" ule that 4ee absence o failue to

epot fo !o% is not enou&h to a4ount to aban"on4ent of !o%. Thee


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt30


8/117

4ust be a concuence of the intention to aban"on an" so4e ovet acts fo4

!hich an e4plo(ee 4a( be "e"uce" as havin& no 4oe intention to

!o%.2' On this point, the C- !as coect !hen it hel" that8

Mee absence o failue to epot fo !o%, even afte notice to etun, is not

tanta4ount to aban"on4ent. The bu"en of poof to sho! that thee !asun=usti?e" efusal to &o bac% to !o% ests on the e4plo(e. -ban"on4ent is

a 4atte of intention an" cannot li&htl( be pesu4e" fo4 cetain eJuivocal

acts. To constitute aban"on4ent, thee 4ust be clea poof of "elibeate an"

un=usti?e" intent to seve the e4plo(ee4plo(ee elationship. Cleal(, the

opeative act is still the e4plo(ees ulti4ate act of puttin& an en" to his

e4plo(4ent. 9uthe4oe, it is a settle" "octine that the ?lin& of a

co4plaint fo ille&al "is4issal is inconsistent !ith aban"on4ent of

e4plo(4ent. -n e4plo(ee !ho ta%es steps to potest his "is4issal cannot

lo&icall( be sai" to have aban"one" his !o%. the ?lin& of such co4plaint ispoof enou&h of his "esie to etun to !o%, thus ne&atin& an( su&&estion of

aban"on4ent.2*

Su@ce it to sa( that, it is the e4plo(e !ho has the bu"en of poof to sho!

a "elibeate an" un=usti?e" efusal of the e4plo(ee to esu4e his

e4plo(4ent !ithout an( intention of etunin&. It is theefoe incu4bent

upon petitiones to ascetain the espon"ents inteest o noninteest in the

continuance of thei e4plo(4ent. This, petitiones faile" to "o so.

These cicu4stances, ta%en to&ethe, the lac% of evi"ence of "is4issal an"the lac% of intent on the pat of the espon"ent to aban"on his !o%, the

e4e"( is einstate4ent but !ithout bac%!a&es.22 Ho!eve, consi"ein& that

einstate4ent is no lon&e applicable "ue to the staine" elationship

bet!een the paties an" that Cola4bot alea"( foun" anothe e4plo(4ent,

each pat( 4ust bea his o he o!n loss, thus, placin& the4 on eJual

footin&.

Veil(, in a case !hee the e4plo(ee>s failue to !o% !as occasione" neithe

b( his aban"on4ent no b( a te4ination, the bu"en of econo4ic loss is not

i&htfull( shifte" to the e4plo(eA each pat( 4ust bea his o!n loss.2#

FHERE9ORE, pe4ises consi"ee" an" sub=ect to the above "isJuisitions, the

Decision "ate" Ma( ' ), *++) of the Cout of -ppeals is heeb( REVERSED

an" SET -SIDE. The Resolution "ate" Octobe 2', *++3 of the National 5abo

Relations Co44ission in N5RC NCR C-SE No. ++'''*'10+# C- No.

+#0$22+3 is heeb( REINST-TED.


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_179001_2013.html#fnt34


9/117

SO ORDERED.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 201701 "u'( 3, 2013

UNILE)ER P*ILIPPINES, INC., Petitione,vs.

MARIA RU!+ M. RI)ERA, Respon"ent.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

Sub=ect of this "isposition is the petition fo evie! on cetioai' un"e Rule

#$ of the Rules of Cout ?le" b( petitione Knileve Philippines, Inc. 6Knileve7

Juestionin& the une **, *+'' Decision* an" the -pil *$, *+'* Resolution2 of

the Cout of -ppeals 6C-7Ca&a(an "e Oo Cit(, in C- /.R. SP No. +*032MIN,

an Ille&al Dis4issal case ?le" b( espon"ent Maia Rub( M. Rivea 6Rivea7.

The C- a@4e" !ith 4o"i?cation the Mach 2', *++0 Resolution of the

National 5abo Relations Co44ission 6N5RC7 ?n"in& Rivea>s "is4issal fo4

!o% to be vali" as it !as fo a =ust cause an" "eclain& that she !as not

entitle" to an( etie4ent bene?t. The C-, ho!eve, a!a"e" sepaation pa(

in he favo as a 4easue of social =ustice.

The 9acts

Knileve is a co4pan( en&a&e" in the po"uction, 4anufactue, sale, an"

"istibution of vaious foo", ho4e an" pesonal cae po"ucts, !hile Rivea

!as e4plo(e" as its -ea -ctivation Eecutive fo -ea 0 South in the cities

of Cotabato an" Davao. She !as pi4ail( tas%e" !ith 4ana&in& the sales,

"istibution an" po4otional activities in he aea an" supevisin&


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt3


10/117

Ventueslin% Intenational, Inc. 6Ventueslin%7, a thi" pat( sevice povi"e

fo the co4pan(s activation po=ects. Knileve enfoces a stict polic( that

eve( ta"e activit( 4ust be acco4panie" b( a Ta"e Develop4ent Po&a4

6TDP7 an" that the allocate" bu"&et fo a speci?c activit( 4ust be use" fo

such activit( onl(.#

So4eti4e in *++), Knileves intenal au"ito con"ucte" a an"o4 au"it an"

foun" out that thee !ee ?ctitious billin&s an" fabicate" eceipts

suppose"l( fo4 Ventueslin% a4ountin& to P'',*++,+++.++. It !as also

"iscovee" that so4e fun"s !ee "ivete" fo4 the oi&inal inten"e"

po=ects. Kpon futhe vei?cation, Ventueslin% epote" that the fun"

"eviations !ee upon the instuction of Rivea.

On ul( '3, *++), Knileve issue" a sho!cause notice to Rivea as%in& he to

eplain the follo!in& cha&es, to !it8 a7 Convesion an" Misappopiation ofResoucesA b7 each of 9i"ucia( TustA c7 Polic( eachesA an" "7 Inte&it(

Issues.

Respon"in& thou&h an e4ail, "ate" ul( '3, *++), Rivea a"4itte" the fun"

"ivesions, but eplaine" that such actions !ee 4ee esouceful utili;ation

of bu"&et because of the "i@cult( of pocuin& fun"s fo4 the hea"

o@ce.$ She insiste" that the "ivete" fun"s !ee all utili;e" in the co4pan(s

po4otional ventues in he aea of covea&e.

Thou&h a lette, "ate" -u&ust *2, *++), Knileve foun" Rivea &uilt( ofseious beach of the co4pan(s Co"e of usiness Pinciples co4pellin& it to

seve thei pofessional elations. In a lette, "ate" Septe4be *+, *++),

Rivea as%e" fo econsi"eation an" eJueste" Knileve to allo! he to

eceive etie4ent bene?ts havin& seve" the co4pan( fo fouteen 6'#7

(eas alea"(. Knileve "enie" he eJuest, easonin& that the fofeitue of

etie4ent bene?ts !as a le&al conseJuence of he "is4issal fo4 !o%.

On Octobe '0, *++), Rivea ?le" a co4plaint fo Ille&al Dis4issal an" othe

4oneta( clai4s a&ainst Knileve.

On -pil *1, *++1, the 5abo -bite 65-7 "is4isse" he co4plaint fo lac% of

4eit an" "enie" he clai4 fo etie4ent bene?ts, but o"ee" Knileve to

pa( a popotionate '2th 4onth pa( an" the coespon"in& cash eJuivalent

of he unuse" leave ce"its. The "ecetal potion of the 5- "ecision ea"s8


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt5


11/117

FHERE9ORE, pe4ises consi"ee", =u"&4ent is heeb( en"ee" "is4issin&

fo lac% of 4eit the ille&al "is4issal co4plaint. Ho!eve, KNI5EVER

PHI5IPPINES, INC. is heeb( o"ee" to pa( co4plainant the total a4ount of

PESOS8 9I9TL SEVEN THOKS-ND EI/HTL TFO 0+'++ ON5L 6P$),+1*.0+7

epesentin& popotionate '2th 4onth pa( an" unuse" leave ce"its.

The co4plaint a&ainst in"ivi"ual espon"ents Recto Sa4pan& an" -le=an"o

Concha ae li%e!ise "is4isse" fo it !as not sho!n that the( acte" in ba"

faith in the "is4issal of co4plainant. Moeove, thei le&al pesonalit( is

sepaate an" "istinct fo4 that of the copoation.

-ll othe 4one( clai4s ae "is4isse" fo lac% of basis.3

On appeal, the N5RC patiall( &ante" Riveas pa(e. In its Resolution,

"ate" Nove4be *1, *++1, the N5RC hel" that althou&h she !as le&all(

"is4isse" fo4 the sevice fo a =ust cause, Knileve !as &uilt( of violatin&

the t!in notice eJuie4ent in labo cases. Thus, Knileve !as o"ee" to pa(

he P2+,+++.++ as no4inal "a4a&es, etie4ent bene?ts an" sepaation pa(.

The "ispositive potion ea"s8

FHERE9ORE, foe&oin& pe4ises consi"ee", the appeal is P-RTI-55L

/R-NTED. The assaile" Decision "ate" *1 -pil *++1 is heeb( MODI9IED in

the sense that espon"ent KNI5EVER PHI5IPPINES, INC. is heeb( o"ee" to

pa( the follo!in& su4s8

'. The a4ount of P2+,+++.++ epesentin& no4inal "a4a&es fo

violation of co4plainants i&ht to poce"ual "ue pocessA

*. Retie4ent bene?ts un"e the co4pan(s applicable etie4ent

polic( o !itten a&ee4ent, an" in the absence of !hich, to pa(

co4plainant he etie4ent pa( eJuivalent to at least onehalf 6'*7

4onth sala( fo eve( (ea of sevice, a faction of at least si 637

4onths bein& consi"ee" as one !hole (eaA

2. Sepaation pa( un"e the co4pan(s applicable polic( o !ittena&ee4ent, an" in the absence of !hich, to pa( sepaation pa(

eJuivalent to at least onehalf 6'*7 4onth sala( fo eve( (ea of

sevice, a faction of at least si 637 4onths bein& consi"ee" as one

!hole (ea.

The est of the Decision is heeb( -99IRMED.


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt6


12/117

SO ORDERED.)

Knileve as%e" fo a econsi"eation of the N5RC "ecision. In its Resolution,

"ate" Mach 2', *++0, the N5RC 4o"i?e" its ealie ulin& b( "eletin& the

a!a" of sepaation pa( an" e"ucin& the no4inal "a4a&es fo4P2+,+++.++

to P*+,+++.++, but a@4e" the a!a" of etie4ent bene?ts to Rivea. Thefallo ea"s8

FHERE9ORE, foe&oin& pe4ises consi"ee", the instant Motion fo Patial

Reconsi"eation is P-RT5L /R-NTED. The Resolution "ate" *1 Nove4be

*++1 of the Co44ission is heeb(

RECONSIDERED as follo!s8

6'7The a!a" of sepaation pa( is heeb( "elete" fo lac% of factual

an" le&al basisA an"

6*7The a!a" of no4inal "a4a&es is heeb( te4pee" an" e"uce" to

the a4ount of P*+,+++.++.

The est of the a!a" fo etie4ent bene?ts is a@4e" in toto.

SO ORDERED.1

Knsatis?e" !ith the ulin&, Knileve elevate" the case to C-Ca&a(an "e Oo

Cit( via a petition fo cetioai un"e Rule 3$ of the Rules of Cout.

On une **, *+'', the C- a@4e" !ith 4o"i?cation the N5RC esolution.

ustif(in& the "eletion of the a!a" of etie4ent bene?ts, the C- eplaine"

that, in"ee", un"e Knileves Retie4ent Plan, a vali"l( "is4isse" e4plo(ee

cannot clai4 an( etie4ent bene?t e&a"less of the len&th of sevice. Thus,

Rivea is not entitle" to an( etie4ent bene?t. It state", ho!eve, that thee

!as no poof that she pesonall( &aine" an( pecunia( bene?t fo4 he

infactions, as he instuctions !ee ai4e" at inceasin& the sales e@cienc(

of the co4pan( an" co4petin& in the local 4a%et. 9o sai" eason, the C-a!a"e" sepaation pa( in he favo as a 4easue of social =ustice.0 The

"ecetal potion of the C- "ecision ea"s8

FHERE9ORE, the assaile" Resolution "ate" Mach 2', *++0 of the N5RC

6anch $7, Ca&a(an De Oo Cit( is heeb( -99IRMED !ith MODI9IC-TION.




13/117

ConseJuentl(, KNI5EVER is "iecte" to pa( M-RI- RKL M. RIVER- the

follo!in&8

a7 Sepaation pa(, to be co4pute" base" on the co4pan(s applicable

polic( o !itten a&ee4ent, o in the absence theeof, the eJuivalent

of at least onehalf 6'*7 4onth sala( fo eve( (ea of sevice, afaction of at least si 637 4onths bein& consi"ee" as one !hole (eaA

b7 P*+,+++.++ as no4inal "a4a&esA an"

c7 Popotionate '2th 4onth pa( an" unuse" leave ce"its, to be

co4pute" base" on he sala( "uin& the peio" elevant to the case.

The a!a" of etie4ent bene?ts is heeb( DE5ETED.

SO ORDERED.'+

Knileve ?le" a 4otion fo patial econsi"eation,'' but it !as "enie" in a

Resolution, "ate" -pil *$, *+'*.

Hence, this petition.'*

In suppot of its position, Knileve sub4its fo consi"eation the follo!in&

/ R O K N D S

I.

THE COKRT O9 -PPE-5S SERIOKS5L ERRED -ND /R-VE5L -KSED ITS

DISCRETION IN /R-NTIN/ -99IRM-TIVE RE5IE9S IN 9-VOR O9 RIVER- EVEN

I9 SHE DID NOT 9I5E -NL PETITION 9OR CERTIOR-RI TO CH-55EN/E THE

N5RC RESO5KTIONS.

II.

THE COKRT O9 -PPE-5S SERIOKS5L ERRED -ND /R-VE5L -KSED ITSDISCRETION IN -F-RDIN/ SEP-R-TION P-L IN 9-VOR O9 RIVER-

CONSIDERIN/ TH-T THE 5-TTER F-S V-5ID5L DISMISSED 9ROM

EMP5OLMENT -SED ON KST C-KSES KNDER THE 5-F.

III.




14/117

THE COKRT O9 -PPE-5S SERIOKS5L ERRED -ND /R-VE5L -KSED ITS

DISCRETION IN RK5IN/ TH-T THE COMP-NL VIO5-TED RIVER-S RI/HT TO

PROCEDKR-5 DKE PROCESS E9ORE TERMIN-TIN/ HER EMP5OLMENT, -ND

CONSE:KENT5L, IN -F-RDIN/ NOMIN-5 D-M-/ES.'2

Knileve a&ues that Rivea "i" not ?le an( sepaate petition fo cetioaibefoe the C-. Neithe "i" she ?le an( co44ent on its petition. Hence, it !as

eoneous fo the C- to &ant an a@4ative elief because it !as

inconsistent !ith the "octine that a pat( !ho has not appeale" cannot

obtain fo4 the appellate cout an( a@4ative elief othe than the ones

&ante" in the appeale" "ecision. The petitione stesses that Rivea

4isappopiate" co4pan( fun"s a4ountin& to 4illions of pesos an" that

&antin& he sepaation pa( un"e4ines the seious 4is"ee"s she

co44itte" a&ainst the co4pan(. Moeove, the len&th of he sevice !ith

Knileve "oes not 4iti&ate he oGense, but even a&&avates the "epavit( ofhe acts.'#

The petition is patl( 4eitoious.

The pivotal issue in the case at bench is !hethe o not a vali"l( "is4isse"

e4plo(ee, li%e Rivea, is entitle" to an a!a" of sepaation pa(.

-s a &eneal ule, an e4plo(ee !ho has been "is4isse" fo an( of the =ust

causes enu4eate" un"e -ticle *1*'$of the 5abo Co"e is not entitle" to a

sepaation pa(.'3

Section ), Rule I, oo% VI of the O4nibus RulesI4ple4entin& the 5abo Co"e povi"es8

Sec. ). Te4ination of e4plo(4ent b( e4plo(e. Q The =ust causes fo

te4inatin& the sevices of an e4plo(ee shall be those povi"e" in -ticle

*1* of the Co"e. The sepaation fo4 !o% of an e4plo(ee fo a =ust cause

"oes not entitle hi4 to the te4ination pa( povi"e" in the Co"e, !ithout

pe=u"ice, ho!eve, to !hateve i&hts, bene?ts an" pivile&es he 4a( have

un"e the applicable in"ivi"ual o collective a&ee4ent !ith the e4plo(e o

volunta( e4plo(e polic( o pactice.

In eceptional cases, ho!eve, the Cout has &ante" sepaation pa( to a

le&all( "is4isse" e4plo(ee as an act of social =ustice o on eJuitable

&oun"s. In both instances, it is eJuie" that the "is4issal 6'7 !as not fo

seious 4iscon"uctA an" 6*7 "i" not eect on the 4oal chaacte of the

e4plo(ee.') The lea"in& case of Philippine 5on& Distance Telephone Co. vs.

N5RC'1 is instuctive on this point8

Elsa M. CaBete1$ # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt18


15/117

Fe hol" that hencefoth sepaation pa( shall be allo!e" as a 4easue of

social =ustice onl( in those instances !hee the e4plo(ee is vali"l( "is4isse"

fo causes othe than seious 4iscon"uct o those eectin& on his 4oal

chaacte. Fhee the eason fo the vali" "is4issal is, fo ea4ple, habitual

intoication o an oGense involvin& 4oal tupitu"e, li%e theft o illicit seual

elations !ith a fello! !o%e, the e4plo(e 4a( not be eJuie" to &ive the

"is4isse" e4plo(ee sepaation pa(, o ?nancial assistance, o !hateve

othe na4e it is calle", on the &oun" of social =ustice.

- conta( ule !oul", as the petitione coectl( a&ues, have the eGect, of

e!a"in& athe than punishin& the ein& e4plo(ee fo his oGense. -n" !e

"o not a&ee that the punish4ent is his "is4issal onl( an" the sepaation

pa( has nothin& to "o !ith the !on& he has co44itte". Of couse it has.

In"ee", if the e4plo(ee !ho steals fo4 the co4pan( is &ante" sepaation

pa( even as he is vali"l( "is4isse", it is not unli%el( that he !ill co44it asi4ila oGense in his net e4plo(4ent because he thin%s he can epect a

li%e lenienc( if he is a&ain foun" out.1âwphi1 This %in" of 4isplace"

co4passion is not &oin& to "o labo in &eneal an( &oo" as it !ill encoua&e

the in?ltation of its an%s b( those !ho "o not "eseve the potection an"

concen of the Constitution.

The polic( of social =ustice is not inten"e" to countenance !on&"oin& si4pl(

because it is co44itte" b( the un"epivile&e". -t best, it 4a( 4iti&ate the

penalt( but it cetainl( !ill not con"one the oGense. Co4passion fo the poo

is an i4peative of eve( hu4ane societ( but onl( !hen the ecipient is not aascal clai4in& an un"eseve" pivile&e. Social =ustice cannot be pe4itte"

to be efu&e of scoun"els an( 4oe than can eJuit( be an i4pe"i4ent to

the punish4ent of the &uilt(. Those !ho invo%e social =ustice 4a( "o so onl(

if thei han"s ae clean an" thei 4otives bla4eless an" not si4pl( because

the( happen to be poo. This &eat polic( of ou Constitution is not 4eant fo

the potection of those !ho have pove" the( ae not !oth( of it, li%e the

!o%es !ho have tainte" the cause of labo !ith the ble4ishes of thei o!n

chaacte.'0

In the subseJuent case of To(ota Moto Philippines Copoation Fo%es

-ssociation 6TMPCF-7 v. National 5abo Relations Co44ission,*+ it !as

futhe eluci"ate" that in a""ition to seious 4iscon"uct, in "is4issals

base" on othe &oun"s un"e -t. *1* li%e !illful "isobe"ience, &oss an"

habitual ne&lect of "ut(, fau" o !illful beach of tust, an" co44ission of a

ci4e a&ainst the e4plo(e o his fa4il(, sepaation pa( shoul" not be

Elsa M. CaBete1% # P a & e5-OR C-SES



16/117

conce"e" to the "is4isse" e4plo(ee.*' In Reno 9oo"s, Inc, v. Na&%a%aisan&

5a%as n& Man&&a&a!a 6N5M7atipunan,** the Cout !ote that sepaation

pa( is onl( !aante" !hen the cause fo te4ination is not attibutable to

the e4plo(ees fault, such as those povi"e" in -ticles *12 an" *1# of the

5abo Co"e, as !ell as in cases of ille&al "is4issal in !hich einstate4ent is

no lon&e feasible. It is not allo!e" !hen an e4plo(ee is "is4isse" fo =ust

cause.*2

In this case, Rivea !as "is4isse" fo4 !o% because she intentionall(

cicu4vente" a stict co4pan( polic(, 4anipulate" anothe entit( to ca(

out he instuctions !ithout the co4pan(s %no!le"&e an" appoval, an"

"iecte" the "ivesion of fun"s, !hich she even a"4itte" "oin& un"e the

&uise of shotenin& the laboious pocess of secuin& fun"s fo po4otional

activities fo4 the hea" o@ce. These tans&essions !ee seious oGenses

that !aante" he "is4issal fo4 e4plo(4ent an" pove" that hete4ination fo4 !o% !as fo a =ust cause. Hence, she is not entitle" to a

sepaation pa(.

Moe i4potantl(, Rivea "i" not appeal the Mach 2', *++0 ulin& of the

N5RC "isallo!in& the a!a" of sepaation pa( to he. It !as Knileve !ho

elevate" the case to the C-. It is aio4atic that a pat( !ho "oes not appeal,

o ?le a petition fo cetioai, is not entitle" to an( a@4ative elief.*# Due

pocess pevents the &ant of a""itional a!a"s to paties !ho "i" not

appeal.*$ -n appellee !ho is not an appellant 4a( assi&n eos in his bief

!hee his pupose is to 4aintain the =u"&4ent, but he cannot see%4o"i?cation o evesal of the =u"&4ent o clai4 a@4ative elief unless he

has also appeale".*3 It !as, theefoe, eoneous fo the C- to &ant an

a@4ative elief to Rivea !ho "i" not as% fo it.

5astl(, Knileve Juestions the &ant of no4inal "a4a&es in favo of Rivea

fo its alle&e" nonobsevance of the eJuie4ents of poce"ual "ue

pocess. It insists that she !as &iven a4ple oppotunit( to eplain he si"e,

intepose an intelli&ent "efense an" a""uce evi"ence on he behalf. *)

The Cout is not pesua"e". Section *, Rule III, oo% V of the Rules

I4ple4entin& the 5abo Co"e epessl( states8

Section *. Stan"a" of "ue pocess8 eJuie4ents of notice.

Q In all cases of te4ination of e4plo(4ent, the follo!in& stan"a"s of "ue

pocess shall be substantiall( obseve".

Elsa M. CaBete1& # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt27


17/117

I. 9o te4ination of e4plo(4ent base" on =ust causes as "e?ne" in -ticle

*1* of the Co"e8

6a7 - !itten notice seve" on the e4plo(ee specif(in& the &oun" o

&oun"s fo te4ination, an" &ivin& to sai" e4plo(ee easonable

oppotunit( !ithin !hich to eplain his si"eA

6b7 - heain& o confeence "uin& !hich the e4plo(ee concene",

!ith the assistance of counsel if the e4plo(ee so "esies, is &iven

oppotunit( to espon" to the cha&e, pesent his evi"ence o ebut the

evi"ence pesente" a&ainst hi4A an"

6c7 - !itten notice of te4ination seve" on the e4plo(ee in"icatin&

that upon "ue consi"eation of all the cicu4stance, &oun"s have

been establishe" to =ustif( his te4ination.

In case of te4ination, the foe&oin& notices shall be seve" on the

e4plo(ees last %no!n a""ess.

in& of in&s Tanspot, Inc. v. Ma4ac*1 "etaile" the steps on ho! poce"ual

"ue pocess can be satisfactoil( co4plie" !ith. Thus8

To claif(, the follo!in& shoul" be consi"ee" in te4inatin& the sevices of

e4plo(ees8

6'7 The ?st !itten notice to be seve" on the e4plo(ees shoul"

contain the speci?c causes o &oun"s fo te4ination a&ainst the4,

an" a "iective that the e4plo(ees ae &iven the oppotunit( to sub4it

thei !itten eplanation !ithin a easonable peio". Reasonable

oppotunit( un"e the O4nibus Rules 4eans eve( %in" of assistance

that 4ana&e4ent 4ust acco" to the e4plo(ees to enable the4 to

pepae a"eJuatel( fo thei "efense. This shoul" be constue" as a

peio" of at least ?ve 6$7 calen"a "a(s fo4 eceipt of the notice to

&ive the e4plo(ees an oppotunit( to stu"( the accusation a&ainst

the4, consult a union o@cial o la!(e, &athe "ata an" evi"ence, an""eci"e on the "efenses the( !ill aise a&ainst the co4plaint. Moeove,

in o"e to enable the e4plo(ees to intelli&entl( pepae thei

eplanation an" "efenses, the notice shoul" contain a "etaile"

naation of the facts an" cicu4stances that !ill seve as basis fo the

cha&e a&ainst the e4plo(ees. - &eneal "esciption of the cha&e !ill

not su@ce. 5astl(, the notice shoul" speci?call( 4ention !hich


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_201701_2013.html#fnt28


18/117

co4pan( ules, if an(, ae violate" an"o !hich a4on& the &oun"s

un"e -t. *1* is bein& cha&e" a&ainst the e4plo(ees.

6*7 -fte sevin& the ?st notice, the e4plo(es shoul" sche"ule an"

con"uct a heain& o confeence !heein the e4plo(ees !ill be &iven

the oppotunit( to8 6'7 eplain an" claif( thei "efenses to the cha&ea&ainst the4A 6*7 pesent evi"ence in suppot of thei "efensesA an"

627 ebut the evi"ence pesente" a&ainst the4 b( the 4ana&e4ent.

Duin& the heain& o confeence, the e4plo(ees ae &iven the chance

to "efen" the4selves pesonall(, !ith the assistance of a

epesentative o counsel of thei choice. Moeove, this confeence o

heain& coul" be use" b( the paties as an oppotunit( to co4e to an

a4icable settle4ent.

627 -fte "ete4inin& that te4ination of e4plo(4ent is =usti?e", thee4plo(es shall seve the e4plo(ees a !itten notice of te4ination

in"icatin& that8 6'7 all cicu4stances involvin& the cha&e a&ainst the

e4plo(ees have been consi"ee"A an" 6*7 &oun"s have been

establishe" to =ustif( the seveance of thei e4plo(4ent.*0

In this case, Knileve !as not "iect an" speci?c in its ?st notice to Rivea.

The !o"s it use" !ee couche" in &eneal te4s an" !ee in no !a(

info4ative of the cha&es a&ainst he that 4a( esult in he "is4issal fo4

e4plo(4ent. Evi"entl(, thee !as a violation of he i&ht to statuto( "ue

pocess !aantin& the pa(4ent of in"e4nit( in the fo4 of no4inal"a4a&es. Hence, the Cout ?n"s no co4pellin& eason to evese the a!a"

of no4inal "a4a&es in he favo. The Cout, ho!eve, "ee4s it pope to

incease the a!a" of no4inal "a4a&es fo4 P*+,+++.++ to P2+,+++.++, as

initiall( a!a"e" b( the N5RC, in acco"ance !ith eistin& =uispu"ence.2+

FHERE9ORE, the petition is heeb( P-RTI-55L /R-NTED.1âwphi1 The une

**, *+'' Decision an" the -pil *$, *+'* Resolution of the Cout of -ppeals

6C-7Ca&a(an "e Oo Cit( in C-/.R. SP No. +*032MIN ae -99IRMED !ith

MODI9IC-TION. The "ispositive potion shoul" ea" as follo!s8

FHERE9ORE, the Mach 2', *++0 Resolution of the N5RC 6anch $7,

Ca&a(an "e Oo Cit(, is heeb( -99IRMED !ith MODI9IC-TION. KNI5EVER

PHI5IPPINES, INC., is heeb( "iecte" to pa( M-RI- RKL M. RIVER- the

follo!in&8

a7 P2+,+++.++ as no4inal "a4a&esA an"




19/117

b7 Popotionate '2th 4onth pa( an" unuse" leave ce"its, to be

co4pute" base" on he sala( "uin& the peio" elevant to the case.

The a!a" of etie4ent bene?t is DE5ETED.

SO ORDERED.


SUPREME COURT

a&uio Cit(

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 18%829 A-/ 2%, 2012

ARMANDO ALILING, Petitione,

vs.

"OSE !. ELICIANO, MANUEL . SAN MATEO III, "OSEP* R. LARIOSA,

' IDE IDE ORLD E4PRESS CORPORATION, Respon"ents.

D E C I S I O N

)ELASCO, "R., J.:

The Case



20/117

This Petition fo Revie! on Cetioai un"e Rule #$ assails an" see%s to set

asi"e the ul( 2, *++1 Decision' an" Dece4be '$, *++1 Resolution* of the

Cout of -ppeals 6C-7, in C-/.R. SP No. '+'2+0, entitle" -4an"o -lilin& v.

National 5abo Relations Co44ission, Fi"e Fi"e Fol" Epess Copoation,

ose . 9eliciano, Manuel 9. San Mateo III an" oseph R. 5aiosa. The assaile"

issuances 4o"i?e" the Resolutions "ate" Ma( 2', *++)2 an" -u&ust 2',

*++)# en"ee" b( the National 5abo Relations Co44ission 6N5RC7 in N5RC

NCR Case No. ++'+'''33*++#, a@4in& the Decision "ate" -pil *$,

*++3$ of the 5abo -bite.

The 9acts

Via a lette "ate" une *, *++#,3 espon"ent Fi"e Fi"e Fol" Epess

Copoation 6FFFEC7 oGee" to e4plo( petitione -4an"o -lilin& 6-lilin&7

as -ccount Eecutive 6Seafei&ht Sales7, !ith the follo!in& co4pensationpac%a&e8 a 4onthl( sala( of PhP '2,+++, tanspotation allo!ance of PhP

2,+++, clothin& allo!ance of PhP 1++, cost of livin& allo!ance of PhP $++,

each pa(able on a pe 4onth basis an" a '#th 4onth pa( "epen"in& on the

po?tabilit( an" availabilit( of ?nancial esouces of the co4pan(. The oGe

ca4e !ith a si 6374onth pobation peio" con"ition !ith this epess

caveat8 Pefo4ance "uin& sicU pobationa( peio" shall be 4a"e as basis

fo con?4ation to Re&ula o Pe4anent Status.

On une '', *++#, -lilin& an" FFFEC in%e" an E4plo(4ent Contact) un"e

the follo!in& te4s, a4on& othes8

• Convesion to e&ula status shall be "ete4ine" on the basis of !o%pefo4anceA an"

• E4plo(4ent sevices 4a(, at an( ti4e, be te4inate" fo =ust cause oin acco"ance !ith the stan"a"s "e?ne" at the ti4e of en&a&e4ent.1

Tainin& then state". Ho!eve, instea" of a Seafei&ht Sale assi&n4ent,

FFFEC as%e" -lilin& to han"le /oun" Epess 6/7, a ne! co4pan(

po"uct launche" on une '1, *++# involvin& "o4estic ca&o fo!a"in&sevice fo 5u;on. Ma%etin& this po"uct an" ?n"in& "ail( contacts fo it

fo4e" the coe of -lilin&s ne! assi&n4ent.

ael( a 4onth afte, Manuel 9. San Mateo III 6San Mateo7, FFFEC Sales an"

Ma%etin& Diecto, e4aile" -lilin&0 to epess "issatisfaction !ith the lattes

pefo4ance, thus8


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt9


21/117

-4an",

M( epectations is sicU that / Shuttles shoul" be 1+ full b( the 2" !ee%

6-u&ust $7 afte launch 6ul( '$7. Pls. 4a%e that happen. It has been 4oe

than a 4onth since (ou ca4e in. I a4 epectin& sales to be pu4pin& in b(

no!. Than%s.

Nonon&

Theeafte, in a lette of Septe4be *$, *++#,'+ oseph R. 5aiosa 65aiosa7,

Hu4an Resouces Mana&e of FFFEC, as%e" -lilin& to epot to the Hu4an

Resouces Depat4ent to eplain his absence ta%en !ithout leave fo4

Septe4be *+, *++#.

-lilin& espon"e" t!o "a(s late. He "enie" bein& absent on the "a(s in

Juestion, attachin& to his epl(lette'' a cop( of his ti4esheet'* !hich

sho!e" that he !o%e" fo4 Septe4be *+ to *#, *++#. -lilin&s eplanation

ca4e !ith a Jue( e&a"in& the !ithhol"in& of his sala( coespon"in& to

Septe4be '' to *$, *++#.

In a sepaate lette "ate" Septe4be *), *++#,'2 -lilin& !ote San Mateo

statin&8 Pusuant to (ou instuction on Septe4be *+, *++#, I heeb(

ten"e 4( esi&nation eGective Octobe '$, *++#. Fhile FFFEC too% no

action on his ten"e, -lilin& nonetheless "e4an"e" einstate4ent an" a

!itten apolo&(, clai4in& in a subseJuent lette "ate" Octobe ', *++#'#

to4ana&e4ent that San Mateo ha" foce" hi4 to esi&n.

5aiosas esponselette of Octobe ', *++#,'$ info4e" -lilin& that his case

!as still in the pocess of bein& evaluate". On Octobe 3, *++#,'3 5aiosa

a&ain !ote, this ti4e to a"vise -lilin& of the te4ination of his sevices

eGective as of that "ate o!in& to his nonsatisfacto( pefo4ance "uin&

his pobationa( peio". Reco"s sho! that -lilin&, fo the peio" in"icate",

!as pai" his outstan"in& sala( !hich consiste" of8

PhP #,011.'1 6sala( fo the Septe4be *$, *++# pa(oll7

',01).*1 6sala( fo # "a(s in Octobe *++#7

PhP 3,0)$.#3 Total


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt16


22/117

Ealie, ho!eve, o on Octobe #, *++#, -lilin& ?le" a Co4plaint') fo ille&al

"is4issal "ue to foce" esi&nation, nonpa(4ent of salaies as !ell as

"a4a&es !ith the N5RC a&ainst FFFEC. -ppen"e" to the co4plaint !as

-lilin&s -@"avit "ate" Nove4be '*, *++#,'1 in !hich he state"8 $. -t the

ti4e of 4( en&a&e4ent, espon"ents "i" not 4a%e %no!n to 4e the

stan"a"s un"e !hich I !ill Jualif( as a e&ula e4plo(ee.

Refutin& -lilin&s basic postue, FFFEC state" in its Position Pape "ate"

Nove4be **, *++#'0 that, in a""ition to the letteoGe an" e4plo(4ent

contact a"vete" to, FFFEC an" -lilin& have si&ne" a lette of

appoint4ent*+ on une '', *++# containin& the follo!in& te4s of

en&a&e4ent8

-""itionall(, upon the eGectivit( of (ou pobation, (ou an" (ou i44e"iate

supeio ae eJuie" to =ointl( "e?ne (ou ob=ectives co4pae" !ith the =obeJuie4ents of the position. ase" on the pea&ee" ob=ectives, (ou

pefo4ance shall be evie!e" on the 2" 4onth to assess (ou co4petence

an" !o% attitu"e. The $th 4onth Pefo4ance -ppaisal shall be the basis in

elevatin& o con?4in& (ou e4plo(4ent status fo4 Pobationa( to

Re&ula.

9ailue to 4eet the =ob eJuie4ents "uin& the pobation sta&e 4eans that

(ou sevices 4a( be te4inate" !ithout pio notice an" !ithout ecouse

to sepaation pa(.

FFFEC also attache" to its Position Pape a 4e4o "ate" Septe4be *+,

*++#*' in !hich San Mateo as%e" -lilin& to eplain !h( he shoul" not be

te4inate" fo failue to 4eet the epecte" =ob pefo4ance, consi"ein&

that the loa" facto fo the / Shuttles fo the peio" ul( to Septe4be !as

onl( +.'1 as oppose" to the alle&e"l( a&ee" upon loa" of 1+ ta&ete"

fo -u&ust $, *++#. -cco"in& to FFFEC, -lilin&, instea" of eplainin&

hi4self, si4pl( sub4itte" a esi&nation lette.

In a Repl(-@"avit "ate" Dece4be '2, *++#,** -lilin& "enie" havin&

eceive" a cop( of San Mateos Septe4be *+, *++# lette.

Issues havin& been =oine", the 5abo -bite issue" on -pil *$, *++3*2 a

Decision "eclain& -lilin&s te4ination as un=usti?e". In its petinent pats,

the "ecision ea"s8


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt23


23/117

The &oun"s upon !hich co4plainants "is4issal !as base" "i" not confo4

not onl( the stan"a" but also the co4pliance eJuie" un"e -ticle *1' of

the 5abo Co"e, Necessail(, co4plainants te4ination is not =usti?e" fo

failue to co4pl( !ith the 4an"ate the la! eJuies. Respon"ents shoul" be

o"ee" to pa( salaies coespon"in& to the unepie" potion of the

contact of e4plo(4ent an" all othe bene?ts a4ountin& to a total of THIRTL

9IVE THOKS-ND EI/HT HKNDRED E5EVEN PESOS 6P2$,1''.++7 covein& the

peio" fo4 Octobe 3 to Dece4be ), *++#, co4pute" as follo!s8

Knepie" Potion of the Contact8

asic Sala( P'2,+++.++

Tanspotation 2,+++.++

Clothin& -llo!ance 1++.++

ECO5- $++.++

P'),2++.++

'++3+# '*+)+#

P'),2++.++ *.) 4os. W P2$,1''.++

Co4plainants '2th 4onth pa( popotionatel( fo *++# !as not sho!n to

have been pai" to co4plainant, espon"ent be 4a"e liable to hi4 theefoe

co4pute" at SI THOKS-ND 9IVE HKNDRED THIRTL TFO PESOS -ND $+'++

6P3,$2*.$+7.

9o en&a&in& the sevices of counsel to potect his inteest, co4plainant is

li%e!ise entitle" to a '+ attone(s fees of the =u"&4ent a4ount. Such

othe clai4s fo lac% of basis su@cient to suppot fo thei &ant ae

un!aante".

FHERE9ORE, =u"&4ent is heeb( en"ee" o"ein& espon"ent co4pan( to

pa( co4plainant -4an"o -lilin& the su4 of THIRTL 9IVE THOKS-ND EI/HT

HKNDRED E5EVEN PESOS 6P2$,1''.++7 epesentin& his salaies an" othe

bene?ts as "iscusse" above.



24/117

Respon"ent co4pan( is li%e!ise o"ee" to pa( sai" co4plainant the a4ount

of TEN THOKS-ND SEVEN HKNDRED SITL SI PESOS -ND 1$'++ ON5L

6'+.)33.1$7 epesentin& his popotionate '2th 4onth pa( fo *++# plus

'+ of the total =u"&4ent as an" b( !a( of attone(s fees.

Othe clai4s ae heeb( "enie" fo lac% of 4eit. 6E4phasis supplie".7

The labo abite &ave ce"ence to -lilin&s alle&ation about not eceivin&

an", theefoe, not boun" b(, San Mateos pupote" Septe4be *+, *++#

4e4o. The 4e4o, to eiteate, suppose"l( appise" -lilin& of the sales

Juota he !as, but faile", to 4eet. Pushin& the point, the labo abite

eplaine" that -lilin& cannot be vali"l( te4inate" fo nonco4pliance !ith

the Juota theshol" absent a pio a"viso( of the easonable stan"a"s upon

!hich his pefo4ance !oul" be evaluate".

oth paties appeale" the above "ecision to the N5RC, !hich a@4e" the

Decision in toto in its Resolution "ate" Ma( 2', *++). The sepaate 4otions

fo econsi"eation !ee also "enie" b( the N5RC in its Resolution "ate"

-u&ust 2', *++).

Theefo4, -lilin& !ent on cetioai to the C-, !hich eventuall( en"ee"

the assaile" Decision, the "ispositive potion of !hich ea"s8

FHERE9ORE, the petition is P-RT5L /R-NTED. The assaile" Resolutions of

espon"ent 6Thi" Division7 National 5abo Relations Co44ission ae-99IRMED, !ith the follo!in& MODI9IC-TIONC5-RI9IC-TION8 Respon"ents

Fi"e Fi"e Fol" Epess Cop. an" its o@ces, ose . 9eliciano, Manuel 9.

San Mateo III an" oseph R. 5aiosa, ae =ointl( an" seveall( liable to pa(

petitione -4an"o -lilin&8 6-7 the su4 of 9ot( T!o Thousan" Thee Hun"e"

Thit( Thee $+'++ 6P#*,222.$+7 as the total 4one( =u"&4ent, 67 the

su4 of 9ou Thousan" T!o Hun"e" Thit( Thee 2$'++ 6P#,*22.2$7 as

attone(s fees, an" 6C7 the a""itional su4 eJuivalent to onehalf 6'*7

4onth of petitiones sala( as sepaation pa(.

SO ORDERED.*# 6E4phasis supplie".7

The C- anchoe" its assaile" action on the sten&th of the follo!in&

pe4ises8 6a7 espon"ents faile" to pove that -lilin&s "is4al pefo4ance

constitute" &oss an" habitual ne&lect necessa( to =ustif( his "is4issalA 6b7

not havin& been info4e" at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent of the easonable

stan"a"s un"e !hich he !ill Jualif( as a e&ula e4plo(ee, -lilin& !as


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt24


25/117

"ee4e" to have been hie" fo4 "a( one as a e&ula e4plo(eeA an" 6c7 the

staine" elationship eistin& bet!een the paties a&ues a&ainst the

popiet( of einstate4ent.

-lilin&s 4otion fo econsi"eation !as e=ecte" b( the C- thou&h the

assaile" Resolution "ate" Dece4be '$, *++1.

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issues

-lilin& aises the follo!in& issues fo consi"eation8

-. The failue of the Cout of -ppeals to o"e einstate4ent 6"espite

its ?n"in& that petitione !as ille&all( "is4isse" fo4 e4plo(4ent7 is

conta( to la! an" applicable =uispu"ence.

. The failue of the Cout of -ppeals to a!a" bac%!a&es 6even if it

"i" not o"e einstate4ent7 is conta( to la! an" applicable

=uispu"ence.

C. The failue of the Cout of -ppeals to a!a" 4oal an" ee4pla(

"a4a&es 6"espite its ?n"in& that petitione !as "is4isse" to pevent

the acJuisition of his e&ula status7 is conta( to la! an" applicable

=uispu"ence.*$

In thei Co44ent,*3 espon"ents eiteate" thei position that FFFEC hie"

petitione on a pobationa( basis an" ?e" hi4 befoe he beca4e a e&ula

e4plo(ee.

The Couts Rulin&

The petition is patl( 4eitoious.

Petitione is a e&ula e4plo(ee

On a poce"ual 4atte, petitione -lilin& a&ues that FFFEC, not havin&

appeale" fo4 the =u"&4ent of C- !hich "eclae" -lilin& as a e&ula

e4plo(ee fo4 the ti4e he si&ne" the e4plo(4ent contact, is no!

peclu"e" fo4 Juestionin& the appellate couts "ete4ination as to the

natue of his e4plo(4ent.

Elsa M. CaBete2% # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt26


26/117

Petitione es. The Cout has, !hen a case is on appeal, the authoit( to

evie! 4attes not speci?call( aise" o assi&ne" as eo if thei

consi"eation is necessa( in eachin& a =ust conclusion of the case. Fe sai"

as 4uch in Socie"a" Euopea "e 9inanciacion, S- v. Cout of -ppeals,*) It is

aio4atic that an appeal, once accepte" b( this Cout, tho!s the entie

case open to evie!, an" that this Cout has the authoit( to evie! 4attes

not speci?call( aise" o assi&ne" as eo b( the paties, if thei

consi"eation is necessa( in aivin& at a =ust esolution of the case.

The issue of !hethe o not petitione !as, "uin& the peio" 4ateial, a

pobationa( o e&ula e4plo(ee is of pivotal i4pot. Its esolution is

"oubtless necessa( at aivin& at a fai an" =ust "isposition of the

contoves(.

The 5abo -bite c(pticall( hel" in his "ecision "ate" -pil *$, *++3 that8

e that as it 4a(, thee appeas no sho!in& that in"ee" the sai" Septe4be

*+, *++# Me4oan"u4 a""esse" to co4plainant !as eceive" b( hi4.

Moeove, co4plainants tas%e" !hee he !as assi&ne" !as a ne!

"evelope" sevice. In this e&a", it is note"8

Due pocess "ictates that an e4plo(ee be appise" befoehan" of the

con"itions of his e4plo(4ent an" of the te4s of a"vance4ent theein.

Pecisel(, i4plicit in -ticle *1' of the 5abo Co"e is the eJuie4ent that

easonable stan"a"s be peviousl( 4a"e %no!n b( the e4plo(e to thee4plo(ee at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent 6Ibi", citin& Sa4ee Oveseas

Place4ent -&enc(, Inc. vs. N5RC, /.R. No. '2*$3#, Octobe *+, '0007.*1

9o4 ou evie!, it appeas that the labo abite, an" late the N5RC,

consi"ee" -lilin& a pobationa( e4plo(ee "espite ?n"in& that he !as not

info4e" of the easonable stan"a"s b( !hich his pobationa( e4plo(4ent

!as to be =u"&e".

The C-, on the othe han", citin& Cielo v. National 5abo Relations

Co44ission,*0 ule" that petitione !as a e&ula e4plo(ee fo4 the outsetinas4uch as he !as not info4e" of the stan"a"s b( !hich his pobationa(

e4plo(4ent !oul" be 4easue". The C- !ote8

Petitione !as e&ulai;e" fo4 the ti4e of the eecution of the e4plo(4ent

contact on une '', *++#, althou&h espon"ent co4pan( ha" abitail(

shotene" his tenue. -s pointe" out, espon"ent co4pan( "i" not 4a%e

Elsa M. CaBete2& # P a & e5-OR C-SES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt29


27/117

%no!n the easonable stan"a"s un"e !hich he !ill Jualif( as a e&ula

e4plo(ee at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. Hence, he !as "ee4e" to have

been hie" fo4 "a( one as a e&ula e4plo(ee.2+ 6E4phasis supplie".7

FFFEC, ho!eve, ecepts on the a&u4ent that it put -lilin& on notice that

he !oul" be evaluate" on the 2" an" $th 4onths of his pobationa(e4plo(4ent. To FFFEC, its eGots tanslate to su@cient co4pliance !ith

the eJuie4ent that a pobationa( !o%e be appise" of the easonable

stan"a"s fo his e&ulai;ation. FFFEC invo%es the ensuin& hol"in& in

-lcia v. National 5abo Relations Co44ission2' to suppot its case8

Convesel(, an e4plo(e is "ee4e" to substantiall( co4pl( !ith the ule on

noti?cation of stan"a"s if he appises the e4plo(ee that he !ill be

sub=ecte" to a pefo4ance evaluation on a paticula "ate afte his hiin&.

Fe a&ee !ith the labo abite !hen he ule" that8

In the instant case, petitione cannot successfull( sa( that he !as neve

info4e" b( pivate espon"ent of the stan"a"s that he 4ust satisf( in o"e

to be convete" into e&ula status. This ans 6sic7 counte to the a&ee4ent

bet!een the paties that afte ?ve 4onths of sevice the petitiones

pefo4ance !oul" be evaluate". It is onl( but natual that the evaluation

shoul" be 4a"e visXvis the pefo4ance stan"a"s fo the

=ob.1âwphi1 Pivate espon"ent Tifona Ma4aa"lo spea%s of such stan"a"

in he a@"avit efein& to the fact that petitione "i" not pefo4 !ell in his

assi&ne" !o% an" his attitu"e !as belo! pa co4pae" to the co4pan(sstan"a" eJuie" of hi4. 6E4phasis supplie".7

FFFECs contention is untenable.

-lcia is cast un"e a "iGeent factual settin&. Thee, the labo abite, the

N5RC, the C-, an" even ?nall( this Cout !ee one in thei ?n"in&s that the

e4plo(ee concene" %ne!, havin& been "ul( info4e" "uin& his

en&a&e4ent, of the stan"a"s fo beco4in& a e&ula e4plo(ee. This is in

sta% contast to the instant case !hee the ele4ent of bein& info4e" of the

e&ulai;in& stan"a"s "oes not obtain. -s such, -lcia cannot be 4a"e toappl( to the instant case.

To note, the une *, *++# letteoGe itself states that the e&ulai;ation

stan"a"s o the pefo4ance no4s to be use" ae still to be a&ee" upon

b( -lilin& an" his supeviso. FFFEC has faile" to pove that an a&ee4ent

as e&a"s theeto has been eache". Cleal( then, thee !ee actuall( no




28/117

pefo4ance stan"a"s to spea% of. -n" lest it be oveloo%e", -lilin& !as

assi&ne" to / tuc%in& sales, an activit( entiel( "iGeent to the Seafei&ht

Sales he !as oi&inall( hie" an" taine" fo. Thus, at the ti4e of his

en&a&e4ent, the stan"a"s elative to his assi&n4ent !ith / sales coul"

not have plausibl( been co44unicate" to hi4 as he !as un"e Seafei&ht

Sales. Even fo this eason alone, the conclusion eache" in -lcia is of little

elevant to the instant case.

ase" on the facts establishe" in this case in li&ht of etant =uispu"ence,

the C-s hol"in& as to the %in" of e4plo(4ent petitione en=o(e" is coect.

So !as the N5RC ulin&, a@4ato( of that of the labo abite. In the ?nal

anal(sis, one co44on thea" uns thou&h the hol"in& of the labo abite,

the N5RC an" the C-, i.e., petitione -lilin&, albeit hie" fo4 4ana&e4ents

stan"point as a pobationa( e4plo(ee, !as "ee4e" a e&ula e4plo(ee b(

foce of the follo!in& selfeplanato( povisions8

-ticle *1' of the 5abo Co"e

-RT. *1'. Pobationa( e4plo(4ent. Pobationa( e4plo(4ent shall not

ecee" si 637 4onths fo4 the "ate the e4plo(ee state" !o%in&, unless it

is covee" b( an appenticeship a&ee4ent stipulatin& a lon&e peio". The

sevices of an e4plo(ee !ho has been en&a&e" on a pobationa( basis 4a(

be te4inate" fo a =ust cause o !hen he fails to Jualif( as a e&ula

e4plo(ee in acco"ance !ith easonable stan"a"s 4a"e %no!n b( the

e4plo(e to the e4plo(ee at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. -n e4plo(ee !hois allo!e" to !o% afte a pobationa( peio" shall be consi"ee" a e&ula

e4plo(ee. 6E4phasis supplie".7

Section 36"7 of the I4ple4entin& Rules of oo% VI, Rule VIII- of the 5abo

Co"e

Sec. 3. Pobationa( e4plo(4ent. Thee is pobationa( e4plo(4ent !hee

the e4plo(ee, upon his en&a&e4ent, is 4a"e to un"e&o a tial peio" !hee

the e4plo(ee "ete4ines his ?tness to Jualif( fo e&ula e4plo(4ent,

base" on easonable stan"a"s 4a"e %no!n to hi4 at the ti4e ofen&a&e4ent.

Pobationa( e4plo(4ent shall be &ovene" b( the follo!in& ules8



29/117

6"7 In all cases of pobationa( e4plo(4ent, the e4plo(e shall 4a%e %no!n

to the e4plo(ee the stan"a"s un"e !hich he !ill Jualif( as a e&ula

e4plo(ee at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. Fhee no stan"a"s ae 4a"e

%no!n to the e4plo(ee at that ti4e, he shall be "ee4e" a e&ula e4plo(ee.

6E4phasis supplie".7

To epeat, the labo abite, N5RC an" the C- ae a&ee", on the basis of

"ocu4enta( evi"ence a""uce", that espon"ent FFFEC "i" not info4

petitione -lilin& of the easonable stan"a"s b( !hich his pobation !oul"

be 4easue" a&ainst at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. The Cout is loathe" to

intefee !ith this factual "ete4ination. -s Fe have hel"8

Settle" is the ule that the ?n"in&s of the 5abo -bite, !hen a@4e" b( the

N5RC an" the Cout of -ppeals, ae bin"in& on the Supe4e Cout, unless

patentl( eoneous. It is not the function of the Supe4e Cout to anal(;e o!ei&h all ove a&ain the evi"ence alea"( consi"ee" in the pocee"in&s

belo!. The =uis"iction of this Cout in a petition fo evie! on cetioai is

li4ite" to evie!in& onl( eos of la!, not of fact, unless the factual ?n"in&s

bein& assaile" ae not suppote" b( evi"ence on eco" o the i4pu&ne"

=u"&4ent is base" on a 4isappehension of facts.2*

The 4oe ecent PeBafancia Tous an" Tavel Tanspot, Inc., v.

Sa4iento22 has ea@4e" the above ulin&, to !it8

9inall(, the C- a@4e" the ulin& of the N5RC an" a"opte" as its o!n thelatte>s factual ?n"in&s. 5on&establishe" is the "octine that ?n"in&s of fact

of Juasi=u"icial bo"ies ae acco"e" espect, even ?nalit(, if suppote"

b( substantial evi"ence. Fhen passe" upon an" uphel" b( the C-, the( ae

bin"in& an" conclusive upon this Cout an" !ill not no4all( be "istube".

Thou&h this "octine is not !ithout eceptions, the Cout ?n"s that none ae

applicable to the pesent case.

FFFEC also cannot vali"l( a&ue that the factual ?n"in&s bein& assaile"

ae not suppote" b( evi"ence on eco" o the i4pu&ne" =u"&4ent is base"

on a 4isappehension of facts. Its ve( o!n letteoGe of e4plo(4enta&ues a&ainst its above postue. Ecepts of the letteoGe8

-""itionall(, upon the eGectivit( of (ou pobation, (ou an" (ou i44e"iate

supeio ae eJuie" to =ointl( "e?ne (ou ob=ectives co4pae" !ith the =ob

eJuie4ents of the position. ase" on the pea&ee" ob=ectives, (ou

pefo4ance shall be evie!e" on the 2" 4onth to assess (ou co4petence




30/117

an" !o% attitu"e. The $th 4onth Pefo4ance -ppaisal shall be the basis in

elevatin& o con?4in& (ou e4plo(4ent status fo4 Pobationa( to

Re&ula.

9ailue to 4eet the =ob eJuie4ents "uin& the pobation sta&e 4eans that

(ou sevices 4a( be te4inate" !ithout pio notice an" !ithout ecouseto sepaation pa(. 6E4phasis supplie".7

Respon"ents futhe alle&e that San Mateos e4ail "ate" ul( '3, *++# sho!s

that the stan"a"s fo his e&ulai;ation !ee 4a"e %no!n to petitione

-lilin& at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. To ecall, in that e4ail 4essa&e, San

Mateo e4in"e" -lilin& of the sales Juota he ou&ht to 4eet as a con"ition fo

his continue" e4plo(4ent, i.e., that the / tuc%s shoul" alea"( be 1+

full b( -u&ust $, *++#. Conta( to espon"ents contention, San Mateos

e4ail cannot suppot thei alle&ation on -lilin& bein& info4e" of thestan"a"s fo his continue" e4plo(4ent, such as the sales Juota, at the ti4e

of his en&a&e4ent. -s it !ee, the e4ail 4essa&e !as sent to -lilin& 4oe

than a 4onth afte he si&ne" his e4plo(4ent contact !ith FFFEC. The

afoeJuote" Section 3 of the I4ple4entin& Rules of oo% VI, Rule VIII- of the

Co"e speci?call( eJuies the e4plo(e to info4 the pobationa( e4plo(ee

of such easonable stan"a"s at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent, not at an( ti4e

lateA else, the latte shall be consi"ee" a e&ula e4plo(ee. Thus, pusuant

to the eplicit povision of -ticle *1' of the 5abo Co"e, Section 36"7 of the

I4ple4entin& Rules of oo% VI, Rule VIII- of the 5abo Co"e an" settle"

=uispu"ence, petitione -lilin& is "ee4e" a e&ula e4plo(ee as of une '',*++#, the "ate of his e4plo(4ent contact.

Petitione !as ille&all( "is4isse"

To =ustif( full( the "is4issal of an e4plo(ee, the e4plo(e 4ust, as a ule,

pove that the "is4issal !as fo a =ust cause an" that the e4plo(ee !as

aGo"e" "ue pocess pio to "is4issal. -s a co4ple4enta( pinciple, the

e4plo(e has the onus of povin& !ith clea, accuate, consistent, an"

convincin& evi"ence the vali"it( of the "is4issal.2#

FFFEC ha" faile" to "ischa&e its t!in bu"en in the instant case.

9ist oG, the atten"ant cicu4stances in the instant case aptl( sho! that the

issue of petitiones alle&e" failue to achieve his Juota, as a &oun" fo

te4inatin& e4plo(4ent, sti%es the Cout as a 4ee aftethou&ht on the

pat of FFFEC. Consi"e8 5aiosas lette of Septe4be *$, *++# alea"(




31/117

beta(e" 4ana&e4ents intention to "is4iss the petitione fo alle&e"

unauthoi;e" absences. -lilin& !as in fact 4a"e to eplain an" he "i" so

satisfactoil(. ut, lo an" behol", FFFEC nonetheless pocee"e" !ith its

plan to "is4iss the petitione fo nonsatisfacto( pefo4ance, althou&h the

coespon"in& te4ination lette "ate" Octobe 3, *++# "i" not even

speci?call( state -lilin&s nonsatisfacto( pefo4ance, o that -lilin&s

te4ination !as b( eason of his failue to achieve his set Juota.

Fhat FFFEC consi"ee" as the evi"ence pupote"l( sho!in& it &ave

-lilin& the chance to eplain his inabilit( to each his Juota !as a pupote"

Septe4be *+, *++# 4e4o of San Mateo a""esse" to the latte. Ho!eve,

-lilin& "enies havin& eceive" such lette an" FFFEC has faile" to efute

his contention of noneceipt. In net eGect, FFFEC !as at a loss to eplain

the eact =ust eason fo "is4issin& -lilin&.

-t an( event, assu4in& fo a&u4ent that the petitione in"ee" faile" to

achieve his sales Juota, his te4ination fo4 e4plo(4ent on that &oun"

!oul" still be un=usti?e".

-ticle *1* of the 5abo Co"e consi"es an( of the follo!in& acts o o4ission

on the pat of the e4plo(ee as =ust cause o &oun" fo te4inatin&

e4plo(4ent8

6a7 Seious 4iscon"uct o !illful "isobe"ience b( the e4plo(ee of the

la!ful o"es of his e4plo(e o epesentative in connection !ith his!o%A

6b7 /oss an" habitual ne&lect b( the e4plo(ee of his "utiesA

6c7 9au" o !illful beach b( the e4plo(ee of the tust epose" in hi4

b( his e4plo(e o "ul( authoi;e" epesentativeA

6"7 Co44ission of a ci4e o oGense b( the e4plo(ee a&ainst the

peson of his e4plo(e o an( i44e"iate 4e4be of his fa4il( o his

"ul( authoi;e" epesentativesA an"

6e7 Othe causes analo&ous to the foe&oin&. 6E4phasis supplie"7

In 5i4 v. National 5abo Relations Co44ission,2$ the Cout consi"ee"

ine@cienc( as an analo&ous =ust cause fo te4ination of e4plo(4ent un"e

-ticle *1* of the 5abo Co"e8




32/117

Fe cannot but a&ee !ith PEPSI that &oss ine@cienc( falls !ithin the

puvie! of othe causes analo&ous to the foe&oin&, this constitutes,

theefoe, =ust cause to te4inate an e4plo(ee un"e -ticle *1* of the

5abo Co"e. One is analo&ous to anothe if it is susceptible of co4paison

!ith the latte eithe in &eneal o in so4e speci?c "etailA o has a close

elationship !ith the latte. /oss ine@cienc( is closel( elate" to &oss

ne&lect, fo both involve speci?c acts of o4ission on the pat of the

e4plo(ee esultin& in "a4a&e to the e4plo(e o to his business. In uise

vs. 5eo&a"o, this Cout ule" that failue to obseve" pescibe" stan"a"s

to ine@cienc( 4a( constitute =ust cause fo "is4issal. 6E4phasis supplie".7

It "i" so ane! in 5eona"o v. National 5abo Relations Co44ission23 on the

follo!in& ationale8

-n e4plo(e is entitle" to i4pose po"uctivit( stan"a"s fo its !o%es, an"in fact, nonco4pliance 4a( be visite" !ith a penalt( even 4oe sevee than

"e4otion. Thus,

tUhe pactice of a co4pan( in la(in& oG !o%es because the( faile" to 4a%e

the !o% Juota has been eco∋e" in this =uis"iction. 6Philippine -4eican

E4boi"eies vs. E4boi"e( an" /a4ent Fo%es, *3 SCR- 32#, 3207. In

the case at ba, the petitiones> failue to 4eet the sales Juota assi&ne" to

each of the4 constitute a =ust cause of thei "is4issal, e&a"less of the

pe4anent o pobationa( status of thei e4plo(4ent. 9ailue to obseve

pescibe" stan"a"s of !o%, o to ful?ll easonable !o% assi&n4ents "ueto ine@cienc( 4a( constitute =ust cause fo "is4issal. Such ine@cienc( is

un"estoo" to 4ean failue to attain !o% &oals o !o% Juotas, eithe b(

failin& to co4plete the sa4e !ithin the allotte" easonable peio", o b(

po"ucin& unsatisfacto( esults. This 4ana&e4ent peo&ative of eJuiin&

stan"a"s 4a( be availe" of so lon& as the( ae eecise" in &oo" faith fo

the a"vance4ent of the e4plo(e>s inteest. 6E4phasis supplie".7

In ?ne, an e4plo(ees failue to 4eet sales o !o% Juotas falls un"e the

concept of &oss ine@cienc(, !hich in tun is analo&ous to &oss ne&lect of

"ut( that is a =ust cause fo "is4issal un"e -ticle *1* of the Co"e.

Ho!eve, in o"e fo the Juota i4pose" to be consi"ee" a vali"

po"uctivit( stan"a" an" theeb( vali"ate a "is4issal, 4ana&e4ents

peo&ative of ?in& the Juota 4ust be eecise" in &oo" faith fo the

a"vance4ent of its inteest. The "ut( to pove &oo" faith, ho!eve, ests

!ith FFFEC as pat of its bu"en to sho! that the "is4issal !as fo a =ust




33/117

cause. FFFEC 4ust sho! that such Juota !as i4pose" in &oo" faith. This

FFFEC faile" to "o, peceptibl( because it coul" not. The fact of the 4atte

is that the alle&e" i4position of the Juota !as a "espeate atte4pt to len" a

se4blance of vali"it( to -lilin&s ille&al "is4issal. It 4ust be stesse" that

even FFFECs sales 4ana&e, Eve -4a"o 6-4a"o7, in an intenal e4ail

to San Mateo, he"&e" on !hethe petitione pefo4e" belo! o above

epectation8

Coul" not Juantif( level of pefo4ance as he as !as tas%e" to han"le a ne!

po"uct 6/7. Revenue epot is not (et a"4inistee" b( IT on a 4onthto

4onth basis. Moeove, this in a !a( is an epei4ental activit(. Pacticall(

(ou have a close 4onitoin& !ith -4an" !ith e&a"s to his pefo4ance.

Lou assess4ent of hi4 !oul" be 4oe accuate.

ein& an epei4ental activit( an" havin& been launche" fo the ?st ti4e,the sales of / sevices coul" not be easonabl( Juanti?e". This !oul"

eplain !h( -4a"o i4plie" in he e4ail that othe bases besi"es sales

?&ues !ill be use" to "ete4ine -lilin&s pefo4ance. -n" (et, "espite such

a neutal obsevation, -lilin& !as still "is4isse" fo his "is4al sales of /

sevices. In an( event, FFFEC faile" to "e4onstate the easonableness

an" the bona ?"es on the Juota i4position.

E4plo(ees 4ust be e4in"e" that !hile pobationa( e4plo(ees "o not

en=o( pe4anent status, the( en=o( the constitutional potection of secuit(

of tenue. The( can onl( be te4inate" fo cause o !hen the( othe!ise failto 4eet the easonable stan"a"s 4a"e %no!n to the4 b( the e4plo(e at

the ti4e of thei en&a&e4ent.2)Respon"ent FFFEC 4iseabl( faile" to

pove the te4ination of petitione !as fo a =ust cause no !as thee

substantial evi"ence to "e4onstate the stan"a"s !ee 4a"e %no!n to the

latte at the ti4e of his en&a&e4ent. Hence, petitiones i&ht to secuit( of

tenue !as beache".

-lilin&s i&ht to poce"ual "ue pocess !as violate"

-s ealie state", to eGect a le&al "is4issal, the e4plo(e 4ust sho! notonl( a vali" &oun" theefo, but also that poce"ual "ue pocess has

popel( been obseve". Fhen the 5abo Co"e spea%s of poce"ual "ue

pocess, the efeence is usuall( to the t!o 6*7!itten notice ule envisa&e"

in Section * 6III7, Rule III, oo% V of the O4nibus Rules I4ple4entin& the

5abo Co"e, !hich povi"es8




34/117

Section *. Stan"a" of "ue pocess8 eJuie4ents of notice. Q In all cases of

te4ination of e4plo(4ent, the follo!in& stan"a"s of "ue pocess shall be

substantiall( obseve".

I. 9o te4ination of e4plo(4ent base" on =ust causes as "e?ne" in -ticle

*1* of the Co"e8

6a7 - !itten notice seve" on the e4plo(ee specif(in& the &oun" o

&oun"s fo te4ination, an" &ivin& to sai" e4plo(ee easonable

oppotunit( !ithin !hich to eplain his si"eA

6b7 - heain& o confeence "uin& !hich the e4plo(ee concene",

!ith the assistance of counsel if the e4plo(ee so "esies, is &iven

oppotunit( to espon" to the cha&e, pesent his evi"ence o ebut the

evi"ence pesente" a&ainst hi4A an"

6c7 - !itten notice ofU te4ination seve" on the e4plo(ee in"icatin&

that upon "ue consi"eation of all the cicu4stance, &oun"s have

been establishe" to =ustif( his te4ination.

In case of te4ination, the foe&oin& notices shall be seve" on the

e4plo(ees last %no!n a""ess.

M// Maine Sevices, Inc. v. N5RC21 tesel( "escibe" the 4echanics of !hat

4a( be consi"ee" a t!opat "ue pocess eJuie4ent !hich inclu"es thet!onotice ule, one, of the intention to "is4iss, in"icatin& theein his

acts o o4issions co4plaine" a&ainst, an" t!o, notice of the "ecision to

"is4issA an" an oppotunit( to ans!e an" ebut the cha&es a&ainst hi4, in

bet!een such notices.

in& of in&s Tanspot, Inc. v. Ma4ac20 epoun"e" on this poce"ual

eJuie4ent in this 4anne8

6'7 The ?st !itten notice to be seve" on the e4plo(ees shoul"

contain the speci?c causes o &oun"s fo te4ination a&ainst the4,an" a "iective that the e4plo(ees ae &iven the oppotunit( to sub4it

thei !itten eplanation !ithin a easonable peio". Reasonable

oppotunit( un"e the O4nibus Rules 4eans eve( %in" of assistance

that 4ana&e4ent 4ust acco" to the e4plo(ees to enable the4 to

pepae a"eJuatel( fo thei "efense. This shoul" be constue" as a

peio" of at least ?ve calen"a "a(s fo4 eceipt of the notice




35/117

Moeove, in o"e to enable the e4plo(ees to intelli&entl( pepae

thei eplanation an" "efenses, the notice shoul" contain a "etaile"

naation of the facts an" cicu4stances that !ill seve as basis fo the

cha&e a&ainst

labor cases - illegal dismissal

Documents