Case #112

G.R. No. 199554 February 18, 2015

Zenaida Paz, Petitioner

FACTS:
Northern Tobacco Redrying Co.,Inc ( NTRCI) who was engaged in flue-curing and redrying of
tobacco leaves business and who employs approximately 100 employees with seasonal workers
employed Zenaida Paz as one of those workers. Paz was hired as seasonal sorter and paid P185.00 daily.
She was regularly re-hired every tobacco season and signed a seasonal job contract in order to qualify in
the next season. When she was 63 years old, NTRCI informed that she was considered retired under
company policy and she would receive P12,000.00 as retirement pay. Paz filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal but amended her complaint for payment of retirement benefits, damages and attorney’s fees
as 12,000 seemed inadequate for her 29 years of service. NTRCI countered that no Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) existed between NTRCI and its workers. NTRCI raised the requirement of at least six
months of service a year for that year to be considered in the retirement computation. It claimed that
Paz only worked for at least six months in 1995, 1999 and 2000 out of the 29 years she rendered
services. Thus, after multiplying 185 daily salary by 221/2 working days working days in a month for
three years her retirement pay is 12,487.50.
The Labor Arbiter confirmed that the retirement pay of Paz is 12,487.50 but the NLRC modified
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It ruled that Paz retirement pay should include all the months she was
engaged to work for the last 28 years and divide by six for a fraction of six months is considered as one
year. The CA dismissed the petition and modified the NLRC decision. It awarded financial assistance to
Paz as she is now weak and old, and unable to find employment.
NTRCI argues that the six –month rule avoids the situation where seasonal workers receive
retirement pay twice because unlike regular employees, seasonal workers offer their services to other
employees during off-season.

ISSUE/S:
1. What is the proper computation of the retirement pay;
2. Whether there was illegal dismissal.

RULING:
The Court ruled that petitioner Paz was illegally dismissed.

The services of Paz is necessary and indispensable for the respondent’s business and she was
also regularly rehired during tobacco season, thus considered her as regular seasonal employee. As a
regular employee she was entitled to the rights of security of Tenure. The dismissal of Paz was without
just or authorized cause and due process was not observed. Respondent NTRCI had considered Paz
retired at the age of 63 before she reach the compulsory age of retirement which is 65. Respondent also
failed to show valid company retirement policy or Collective Bargaining Agreement for seasonal
employees, yet it required its employees to retire after they reach the age of 60. Thus, the Court
awarded her full back wages computed until reaching the age of compulsory retirement.
Article 287 as amended by RA 7641 shall govern if an employer fails to provide for retirement
benefits in an agreement with its employees such as in Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since
respondent failed to present a Collective Bargaining Agreement for its retirement policy, the
computation for the retirement pay shall govern by RA 7641. An employee upon reaching the age of 60
years or more but not beyond 65 years who has served at least 5 years in said establishment, may retire
and shall be entitled to retirement of equivalent to at least one-half month salary for every year of
service, a fraction of at least 6 months being considered as one whole year. Unless the parties provide
for broader inclusion, the term one half month salary shall mean 15 days plus one-twelfth of the 13 th
month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than 5 days of service incentive leaves. In this case, the
Court ruled that a fraction of at least 6 months shall be considered one whole year. The amount the
respondent should receive is ½ her monthly pay during the last season she worked multiplied by the
number of years she actually rendered service ,provided that she worked for at least six months during a
given year. Thus , petitioner was entitled for retirement pay based on the years she worked on the 3
years she worked for at least 6 months in a year which is in 1995, 1999, and 2000.

DOCTRINE:
The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.
The test is whether the employment is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer. The fact that petitioner do not work continuously for one whole year do not detract from
considering her in regular employment since seasonal workers are not considered separated from
service during off season but merely considered on-leave until re-employed.
Case #115

G.R. No. 187605 April 13, 2010

TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,

FACTS:
The petitioner employs Dennis Amular, Clarence Ducay, and Rafael Mendoza. The line team
leader was Mendoza. Mendoza went to Surf City Internet and it happen that Amular and Ducay saw him.
The two confronted Mendoza about the report he submitted to their Assistant Supervisor particulary
about their questionable behavior at work. The confrontation lead to a heated argument which resulted
in a fistfight that required the intervention of the barangay tanods in the area. Upon learning of the
incident, petitioner sent a notice of preventive suspension/ notice of discharged advising them that their
fistfight with Mendoza violated section 1-k of Technol’s Human Resouce Department Manual. They were
given 48 hours to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them. They were placed
under preventive suspension. Amular received a notice informing him that Technol Management will
conduct an administrative hearing. He was also given 2 days to respond in writing to the statements
attached to the notice. A day before the hearing, Amular filed a complaint for illegal suspension/
constructive dismissal with a prayer of separation pay, backwages, and other claims. Amualr failed to
attend the administrative hearing. Petitioner sent him a notice of dismissal.
The labor arbiter found that Amular was illegally dismissed on the ground that petitioner failed
to afford him procedural due process since he was not able to present his side because he had filed a
case before the NLRC at the time he was called for a hearing. Petitioner also failed to substantiate its
allegations because the fistfight was committed outside the company premises and it happened after
office hours. NLRC and CA affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter hence this petition.

Issue:
1. Whether Amular was illegally dismissed.

Ruling:
No. The jurisprudential guidelines that misconduct warranting a dismissal are: (1) must be
serious; (2) must relate to the performance of employees duties; and (3) must show that the employee
has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The act of Amular and Ducay is work-related.
The underlying reason why Amular confronted Mendoza was to question his report regarding their
questionable work behavior. The confrontation rooted in a workplace dynamics as they interacted with
one another in the performance of their duties. The place and time for the assault done by Amular and
Ducay is immaterial. The incident may have had happened if Amular and Ducay found time to confront
Mendoza inside the company premises since they were intimidated about the negative report regarding
their work behavior. The circumstances of his misdeed rendered him unfit to continue working for the
petitioner.
Amular was not deprived of procedural due process. He was given notice of preventive
suspension/notice of discharge and he also submitted 2 written statements. He was notified about the
administrative hearing but he refused to appear and filed a complaint instead. He avoided the
investigation into the charges against him by filing a complaint of illegal dismissal. The Court reiterated
that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard; it is the denial of this opportunity
that constitutes violation of due process of law.
Case 118

G.R. No. 111110 August 2, 1994

ZENCO SALES, INC. and/ or ZENCO FOOTSTEP,

FACTS:
Private respondent was found guilty of misfeasance for his failure to closely monitor and control
the sales transactions of salesman Chua and malfeasance because he used company’s properties,
equipment and personnel in connection with his personal business. This resulted to a loss of substantial
amount of money and an act inimical to the interest of the company. The private respondent was
dismissed on the ground of gross neglect in the performance of duty and serious misconduct resulting to
loss of trust and confidence. NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter that the dismissal was of
legal cause. However it modified the decision of the labor arbiter by granting separation pay at the rate
of 1 month’s salary for every year of service on the ground of social justice. Since the private respondent
worked for 10 years with unblemished service, except for the instant case, it is justifiable to award him a
separation pay. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether private respondent is entitled to separation pay.

Ruling:
No. Under article 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, separation pay is authorized only in cases of
dismissal due to the following reasons: (1) the installation of labor-saving devices; (2) redundancy; (3)
retrenchment; (4) cessation of the employer’s business; (5) when the employee is suffering from a
disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health and to the
health of his co-employees. Section 7, Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
reveals that an employee who is dismissed for cause under Article 282 after appropriate proceedings in
compliance with due process is not entitled to an award of separation pay. Separation pay, as a measure
of social justice, shall be allowed only where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. The policy of social justice is not intended
to countenance wrongdoing because it is committed by the under privileged. Compassion for the poor is
an imperative of every human society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved
privilege. Those who invoke social justice may do so if their hands are clean and their motives blameless
and not simply because they happen to be poor. The private respondent was guilty of gross misconduct
for using his employer’s properties in connection with his personal business. His acts involved
dishonesty deliberately done for his personal advantage.
Case #121

G.R No. 140853 FEBRUARY 27, 2003

ARIEL A. TRES REYES, petitioner

FACTS:
Petitioner was hired by the respondent as driver. His working hours were from 5:00PM to
3:00AM. In performance of his duty he noticed that a 10 wheeler truck coming his way at full speed
despite the fact that the latter’s lane had a red light signal light on. Petitioner maneuvered and swerved
to the left to avoid the collision, but nonetheless the van he was driving struck the truck. As a result,
petitioner and 7 of his passengers sustained injuries and both vehicles were damaged. The management
of the respondent required petitioner to submit within 48 hours a written explanation about the
incident. He complied but his employer found his explanation unsatisfactory thus, he was preventively
suspended which later on turned as termination of the petitioner.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter and the latter found
that the petitioner was grossly negligent in failing to avoid the collision. Instead of filing the requisite
pleading for appeal, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration with the NLRC. The NLRC
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and considered the Motion for Partial Reconsideration as an
Appeal. Respondent filed a special civil action before the Court of Appeals which the latter granted and
dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

Issue/s:
1) Could the Motion for Partial Reconsideration be considered as an appeal to the NLRC.
2) Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed.

Ruling:

Yes.
The court ruled that the first issue involves a question of substance versus form. Strictly
speaking, Section 19, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure prohibits a motion for reconsideration of a
decision, order, or award of a Labor Arbiter. But such rule allows that a motion for reconsideration to be
treated as an appeal provided it meets all the requisites of an appeal. The requirements set forth was:
(1) there must be a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision; (2) it
should be filed within 10 days from the date of receipt by petitioner of his copy of the Labor Arbiter’s
decision; (3) payment of filing fee for the appeal. Petitioner’s declaration in his motion that he received
a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 28, 1998 is more than sufficient compliance with
the first requirement. Petitioner filed his motion on October 8, 1998 which is within the reglementary
ten-period. The record also shows that petitioner paid the amount of 110 in cash as appeal fee. Thus,
the court ruled that petitioner has substantially complied with the requirements.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Under the Labor
Code, gross negligence is a valid ground for an employer to terminate an employee. Gross negligence is
a negligence characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in situation where there
is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. The petitioner used/ acted reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would use in the same situation to avoid the collision. As a
matter of fact, petitioner did not insist on his right of way, notwithstanding the green light in his lane. He
exerted reasonable effort under the circumstances to avoid injury not only to himself but also to his
passengers and even the car he was driving. Thus, there was no showing that petitioner was grossly
negligent, hence he was illegally dismissed.

DOCTRINE:
In labor cases, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. They
are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and where their strict application would
result in the frustration rather than promotion of substantial justice, technicalities must be avoided.
Technicalities should not be permitted to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the
rights and obligations of the parties. Where the ends of substantial justice shall be better served, the
application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed.
Case #124

G.R.No. 172031 July 14, 2008

JUANITO TALIDANO
vs
FALCON MARITIME & ALLIED SERVICES,INC.,
SPECIAL EIGHT DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND
LABOR ARBITER ERMITA C. CUYUGA

FACTS:
Petitioner was employed on October 15, 1996 as a second marine officer by private respondent
and was assigned to M/V Phoenix Seven, a vessel owned and operated by Hansu Corp. which is based in
Korea. Petitioner send a letter-complaint to the officer incharge of the Internatonal Transport
Federation for the alleged discrimination and maltreatment of the Chief officer to Filipino crews in the
vessel. Consequently, petitioner was dismissed on January 21, 1997. He filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal on October 27, 1999. Private respondent countered that petitioner voluntarily disembarked
the vessel having been warned several times of dismissal from service for his incompetence,
insubordination, disrespect and insulting attitude toward his superiors. Private respondent cited an
incident involving petitioner’s incompetence wherein the vessel invaded a different route at the Osaka
Port in Japan due to petitioner’s neglect of duty at the bridge. This was supported by a fax message sent
to it on the day of the incident and a copy of the report of a crew discharge. Respondent also alleged
that by virtue of POEA Memorandum Circular No.55, series of 1996 prescription has already set in since
petitioner was already repatriated for 2 years and 9 months.
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying on the fax message
presented by the private respondent. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and declared that
the dismissal was illegal on the ground that fax messages in support to the alleged neglect of duty by the
petitioner have no probative value and are self-serving. It added that the ship’s logbook should have
been submitted as it is the repository of all the activities on board the vessel. Private respondent filed an
appeal before the CA which reinstated the judgment of the Labor Arbiter noting that said fax messages
constitute the res gestae. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented considered as res gestae.

RULING:
No.
The substantive requirements that satisfy the validity of an employee’s dismissal are: (1) the
dismissal must be for any of the cause provided in Art. 282 of the Labor code; and (2) the employee was
accorded due process. The acts which for as part of the res gestae are: spontaneous statements and
verbal acts. In spontaneous exclamations, the res gestae is the startling occurrence, whereas in verbal
acts, the res gestae are the statements accompanying the equivocal act. To be admissible it is required
that (1) the principal act be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant
had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence
in question and its immediate attending circumstances. In the present case, there was no showing that
the statements contained in the fax messages were made immediately after the alleged incident. There
was also no means to determine if these utterances were made spontaneously or with careful
deliberation. Therefore, the fax message as evidence cannot be considered as res gestae.
The fax message does not also satisfy the requisites of admissibility which are: (1) the principal
act to be characterized must be equivocal; (2) the equivocal act must be material to the issue; (3) the
statement must accompany the equivocal act; and (4) the statements give a legal significance to the
equivocal act. Petitioner’s alleged absence from watch of duty is simply an innocuous act or at least
proved to be one. It is nevertheless accompanied by any statement adverted to as parts of the res
gestae. There was no date mentioned to determine if the fax messages were made simultaneously with
the purported equivocal act. Further, the material content of the fax message is unclear and the matter
of route encroachment is questionable.
Neglect for duty to be a ground for dismissal must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence
connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duty. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to
perform one’s duty for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. A single or isolated act of
negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. Petitioner’s alleged
absence from watch duty for a single isolated instance is neither gross nor habitual negligence.
Therefore his dismissal is of no basis.
Case #127

G.R. Nos. 76818-19 JULY 3, 1992

FACTS:
Petitioners Reynaldo Miranda and Guillermo Carino Jr were toll tellers of private respondent
corporation. On July 1983, Victoria Robles, a field auditor of private respondent corporation saw Rosario
Sanchez, a toll reliever come out of the booth which was manned by Miranda and thereafter entered
the booth manned by Carino where she was seen folding a piece of paper into her pocket. Robles told
her co-auditor to seek permission from collection supervisor to conduct body search on Sanchez. On the
way to the sub-office where search would be conducted, Sanchez suddenly stepped inside the
powerhouse, pulled out from her pocket the folded cash count sheet and threw it inside the
powerhouse. Danilo Estanislao grabbed the paper. When Robles insisted to turn over to her said paper,
Estanislao threw it to Rodolfo Palad, an incoming security guard of private corporation. Believing said
paper fell inside the drawer, Robles asked Palad toopen it and their they found a box with 47
unvalidated patron tickets amounting to 646. When the paper was finally turned over to Robles it
yielded 590 in paper bills. As a result of said incident, Estanilao, Miranda and Carino were dismissed .
They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. The Labor Arbiter sustained their dismissal but awarding them separation pay equivalent
to one month’s salary for every year of service. NLRC affirmed the dismissal of said employees but
modified that only Miranda and Maglunog may be granted a separation pay of one-half month’s pay for
every year of service. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether there is illegal dismissal.

RULING:
No.
Under the rules of the National Labor Relations Commission, proceedings before a labor arbiter
are summary and non-litigious in nature. By agreement, the parties may submit their case for decision
on the basis of position papers and their supporting evidence. An administrative proceedings requires
only substantial evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the conclusions of the Labor
Arbiter are sufficiently corroborated by the evidence on record, the same should be respected by the
appellate tribunals since he is in a better position to assess and evaluate the credibility of the contending
parties. In the present case, the investigation report is one of the supporting evidence submitted by the
private respondent corporation. Said report should not be considered as hearsay and conjecture since
said report was based on the testimonies of witnesses who had direct knowledge of the incident.
Petitioner’s contention that they should be reinstated with backwages on the ground that evidence
presented are weak and shaky is unmeritorious. Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an
employee. And proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some
basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is
responsible for the misconduct and his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded of his position.
Therefore their dismissal was valid because there is a sufficient basis for the private respondent
corporation to lose its confidence to them.