Labor Art. 1-6
Labor Art. 1-6
DECISION
MEMORANDUM:
TO: JHORIZALDY B. UY
FROM: RAMONITA Y. SY
RE: FAILURE TO MEET QUOTA FOR SALES
EXECUTIVE
DATE: February 21, 2002
TO: JHORIZALDY B. UY
THRU: RICHARD B. AGCAOILI
FROM: RAMONITA Y. SY
RE: NOTICE OF CHARGE OF ABSENCE
WITHOUT LEAVE
DATE: March 13, 2002
Records show that since February 22, 2002,
to date, you have failed to report for work,
without informing your employer of the
reason therefor and without securing proper
leave in violation of your contract of
employment and existing company rules and
regulations.Further, you have refused to
receive any of your monetary entitlements
such as salary, commission and other
amounts due to you despite notice that the
same are available to you for payment.
NLRCs Ruling
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which
reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling. The NLRC
found that the dismissal of petitioner was
made under questionable circumstances,
thus giving weight to petitioners assertion
that he was being singled out
notwithstanding that all sales personnel
similarly could not meet the P1.5 million
monthly sales quota. Such finding is
reinforced by the fact that no sanction was
imposed on petitioner or any other employee
for the supposed failure to meet the quota,
thereby creating the impression that the
situation was tolerated by the
respondents. The NLRC thus decreed:
Issue
The sole issue to be addressed is whether
petitioner was dismissed by the respondents
or voluntarily severed his employment by
abandoning his job.
1.
Soliciting and/or receiving money for his
own benefit from suppliers/dealers/traders
[Cristino Samarita and Jose Aying], representing
commissions for job contracts involving the
repair, reconditioning and replacement of parts of
the airconditioning units at the companys
Antipolo Station, as well as the installation of fire
exits at the [LBNIs] Technology Centre;
2.
Diversion of company funds by soliciting
and receiving on different occasions a total
of P14,000.00 in commissions from Aying for a job
contract in the companys Antipolo Station;
3.
Theft of company property involving the
unauthorized removal of one gallon of Delo oil
from the company storage room;
4.
Disrespect/discourtesy towards a coemployee, for using offensive language against
[Vicente Niguidula, the companys supply
manager];
5.
Disorderly behavior, for challenging
Niguidula to a fight during working hours within
the company premises, thereby creating a
disturbance that interrupted the normal flow of
activities in the company;
6.
Threat and coercion, for threatening to
inflict bodily harm on the person of Niguidula and
for coercing [Gil Balais], a subordinate, into
soliciting money in [de Castros] behalf from
suppliers/contractors;
7.
Abuse of authority, for instructing Balais to
collect commissions from Aying and Samarita,
and for requiring Raul Pacaldo (Pacaldo) to exact
2% - 5% of the price of the contracts awarded to
suppliers; and
8.
Slander, for uttering libelous statements
against Niguidula.[3]
Aggrieved, de Castro filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against LBNI with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Branch,
National Capital Region, praying for
reinstatement, payment of backwages, damages,
and attorneys fees.[4] He maintained that he could
not have solicited commissions from suppliers
considering that he was new in the company.
[5]
Moreover, the accusations were belatedly filed
as the imputed acts happened in 1995. He
explained that the one gallon of Delo oil he
allegedly took was actually found in Gil Balais
room.[6] He denied threatening Vicente Niguidula,
whom he claimed verbally assaulted him and
challenged him to a fight, an incident which he
reported to respondent Edgardo Quiogue, LBNIs
executive vice president, and to the Makati
police.[7] De Castro alleged that prior to executing
affidavits against him, Niguidula and Balais had
serious clashes with him.[8]
On April 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision[9] in de Castros favor, holding LBNI liable
SO ORDERED.
PENAFLOR v OUTDOOR
In our Decision of January 21, 2010, we granted
petitioner Manolo Peaflors (Peaflor) petition for
review on certiorari and reversed the Court of
Appeals (CA) decision of December 29, 2006 and
resolution of March 14, 2007. We found that
Peaflor had been constructively dismissed from
his employment with respondent Outdoor
Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (Outdoor
Clothing). Outdoor Clothing now seeks a
reconsideration of this ruling.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Peaflor was hired as probationary HRD Manager
of Outdoor Clothing on September 2, 1999. On
March 13, 2000, more than six months from the
time he was hired, Peaflor learned that Outdoor
Clothings President, Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu),
appointed Edwin Buenaobra (Buenaobra) as the
concurrent HRD and Accounting Manager. After
enduring what he claimed as discriminatory
treatment at work, Peaflor considered the
appointment of Buenaobra to his position as the
last straw, and thus filed his irrevocable
resignation from Outdoor Clothing effective at the
close of office hours on March 15, 2000. He
thereafter filed an illegal dismissal complaint with
the labor arbiter claiming that he had been
constructively dismissed. The labor arbiter agreed
with Peaflor and issued a decision in his favor
on August 15, 2001.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiters
ruling in its September 24, 2002decision. When
Peaflor questioned the NLRCs decision before the
CA, the appellate court affirmed the NLRCs
decision. Hence, Peaflor filed a petition for review
on certiorari with the Court.
The Courts January 21, 2010 Decision
Our January 21, 2010 decision focused on
resolving the issue of whether Peaflors
resignation from Outdoor Clothing was voluntary
or a forced one, the latter making it a
constructive dismissal equivalent to an illegal
dismissal. We found it crucial to
determine whether Peaflor filed his resignation
1. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
[FARRALES] COMMITTED
THEFT IN [HPCs] PREMISES.
3. BY COMMITTING THEFT,
[FARRALES], BEING A
SUPERVISORIAL EMPLOYEE,
FORFEITED THE TRUST
REPOSED IN HIM BY [HPC],
THUS RENDERING HIM
DISMISSIBLE FOR LOSS OF
CONFIDENCE.