Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LabStan January 17
LabStan January 17
General Coverage
All establishments or undertaking, whether for profit or not, including educational, medical,
charitable and religious institutions and organizations, in cases of regular employment.
Security of tenure
LC294. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of
his actual reinstatement.
ESPINA, ET AL. V CA
While petitioners were only probationary employees who do not enjoy permanent status,
nonetheless, they were still entitled to the constitutional protection of security of tenure. As may
be gleaned in the Art. 281 of the LC, their employment may only be terminated for a valid and
just cause or for failing to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable
standards made known to them by the employer at the time of engagement and after being
accorded due process.
As a general proposition, an employer has free reign over every aspect of its business, including
the dismissal of his employees as long as the exercise of its management prerogative is done
reasonably, in good faith, and in a manner not otherwise intended to defeat or circumvent the
rights of the workers.
SUGUE V TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.) INC.
The Act of management in reorganizing the sales department in order to achieve its objectives is
a legitimate exercise of its management prerogatives, barring any showing of bad faith which is
absent in the instant case. Indeed, labor laws discourage interfering in employer’s judgments
concerning the conduct of their business. The law must protect not only the welfare of
employees, but also the right of employers.
REQUISITED FOR LAWFUL DISMISSAL: Concurrence of substantive and procedural due process
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: mandates that an employee can only be dismissed on just or
authorized causes
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: requires that an employee can only be dismissed after being given
an opportunity to be heard
The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged
against the employee; otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules.
Coca-Cola failed to satisfy the two-notice requirement. They argue that the purpose of the notice
requirement was achieved when they sent several notices to Garcia’s last known address. While
they presented the envelopes of the alleged notices sent to the last known address, the contents
thereof were not offered in evidence. Thus, the records are wanting of proof that Garcia was
properly apprised of the charges against her and was given an opportunity to explain her side, as
petitioner maintains. Evidently, it is clear that Garcia’s dismissal was effected without the notice
required by law.
On the substantive aspect, in Valiao, we defined gross negligence as, “want of care in the
performance of one’s duties” and habitual neglect as “repeated failure to perform one’s duties
for a period of time, depending upon the circumstance.” Bitara’s last absences on 11, 13, 14, 15
and 16 March 2000 were undertaken without even notice/permission from management. These
attendance delinquencies may be characterized as habitual and are sufficient justifications to
terminate the complainant’s employment.
We cannot simply tolerate injustice to employers of only to protect the welfare of undeserving
employees.
Bitara claims that he was denied due process when the company failed to observe the two-notice
rule as the Notice of Explanation and Notice of Termination were never served upon him.
However, in Bughaw v Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, this Court, in verifying the veracity
of the allegation that respondent refused to receive the Notice of Termination, essentially looked
for the following:
1. affidavit of service stating the reason for failure to serve the notice upon the recipient;
and
2. notation to that effect, which shall be written on the notice itself.
In the case at bar, Mansion Printing, through its GM, did both. First, the notices indicated the
notation that Bitara “ refused to sign” together with the corresponding dates of service. Second,
an Affidavit executed by the Mansion Printing GM that 1) he is the GM; 2) that he personally
served each notice upon Bitara. Bitara refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. We are, thus,
convinced that the notices have been validly served.
1. reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages computed from
the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement; or
2. where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one
month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The payment
of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages. (Golden Ace Buikders v Talde)
- Failure to show that a dismissal is for just and valid cause necessarily means that it was
not justified and therefore, was illegal
- The employer must affirmatively show by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for
a just cause
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion
MEASURE OF PENALTY
Note: a dismissal with a valid cause and which afforded the employee due process may still be
questioned and nullified if the penalty itself is not appropriate
To the Court’s mind, the case of an employee who is compelled to apologize for a previous
infraction but fails to do so is not one which would properly warrant his termination, absent any
proof that the refusal was made in brazed disrespect of his employer.
RESIGNATION
LC 300. Termination by employee. (a) an employee may terminate without just cause the
employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1)
month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the
employee liable for damages.
(b) an employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the
employer for any of the following just causes:
i. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the
employee;
ii. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his
representative;
iii. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the
person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and
iv. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing
RESIGNATION
The voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal
reason cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, then he has no other choice
but to disassociate himself from his employment
JUST CAUSE
LC300. (b) an employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the
employer for any of the following just causes:
i. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the
employee;
ii. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his
representative;
iii. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the
person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and
iv. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing
LC 300. (a) an employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer
relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.
The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for
damages.
LC 301. The bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not
exceeding six monts or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not
terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former
position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than
1 month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military
or civic duty.
FORCED RESIGNATION
GILLES V CA
Invariably, the law recognizes and resolves such situation in favor of the employees in order to
protect their rights from the coercive acts of the employer. Resignation contemplates a voluntary
act; thus, an employee who is forced to relinquish his position due to the employer’s unfair or
unreasonable treatment is deemed to have been illegally terminated or discharged. The test of
constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt
compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY EMPLOYER
LC 297. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;
4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or
any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
YABUT V MERALCO
An employer may terminate an employment for any of the cases in LC 297.
We emphasize the dismissal of a dishonest employee to the best interest not only of the
management but also of labor, as a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest,
a company has the right to dismiss his erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to
continue employing an employee guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interest, justifying loss
of confidence in him.
Misconduct- improper or wrong conduct; it is the transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment.
To be considered “serious,” it must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely
trivial or unimportant.
Elements:
1. It must be serious;
2. It must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and
3. It must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
(Johansen World Group Corporation v Gonzales III)
Examples of misconduct:
The use of the company’s time and premises for gambling activities is a grave offense which
warrants the penalty of dismissal for it amounts to theft of the company’s time and it is explicitly
prohibited by the company rules on the ground that it is against public morals.
DISOBEDIENCE
Elements:
1. The employeee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional (wilfulness
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude)
2. The order violated must have been:
a. Reasonable
b. Lawful
c. Made known to the employe; and
d. Must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge
(Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v NLRC)
Gross Negligence
- Generally means an absence of that diligence that an ordinarily prudent man would use
in his own affairs
- The want or absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care; it evinces a thoughtless regard of consequences without exerting any
effort to avoid them. (PNB v Padao)
- Connotes a want of care in the performance of one’s duties (Publico v Hospital Manager,
Inc)
Habitual Neglect
- Implies repeated failure to perform on’es duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances
Note:
- A single or isolated act of negligence cannot constitute as a just casue for termination or
dismissal
- Unsatisfactory performance is not the same as gross and habitual neglect of duties, and
thus, is not a just cause for termination
Rather than taking proactive steps to prevent the anomalies at her branches, Jumuad merely
affected remedial measures. In the restaurant business where the health and well-being of the
consuming public is at stake, this does not suffice. Thus, there is reasonable basis for Hi-Flyer to
withdraw its trust in her and dismissing her from its service.
Gross negligence
- The want or absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care; it evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any
effort to avoid them (PNB v Dan Padao)
- Constitutes a valid just cause for termination of employment
Simple negligence
- Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected
of him, and signifies disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
(Panaligon v Valente)
- Not a valid cause for termination of employment
To our mind, such numerous infractions are sufficient to hold him grossly and habitually
negligent. His repeated negligence is not tolerable. The totality of infractions or the number of
violations he committed during his employment merits his dismissal. Moreover, gross and
habitual negligence includes unauthorized absences and tardiness, as well as gross inefficiency,
negligence and carelessness.
While the right of an employer to select or discharge his employee is regulated by the State, an
employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee guilty of acts
inimical to its interests. To be a valid reason of dismissal, loss of confidence must be genuine.
Examples of dishonesty:
- Falsification of time cards
- Theft of company property
Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or
suspicions. Otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
PJ LHULLIER V VELAYO
There are two classes of corporate positions of trust: on the one hand are the managerial
employees. On the other hand, are the fiduciaruy rank-and-file employees.
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES
Those who by the nature of their position, are entrusted with confidential and delicate matters
and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. (Baguio Central University v
Gallente)
Those who are “vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline
employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.”
Those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are
employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and other officers or members of the
managerial staff.
These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the
employer’s money or property and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and
confidence. (PJ LHUILLER INC v VELAYO)
Ex. Cashiers, auditors, property custodians
The work of a salesman exposes him to voluminous financial transactions involving his employer’s
goods. The life if the soft drinks company depends not so much on the bottling or production of
the production of the product since this is primarily done by automatic machines and personnel
who are easily supervised but upon mobile and fa-ranging salesmen who go from store to store
all over the country or region. Salesmen are highly individualistic personnel who have to be
trusted and left essentially on their own. A high degree of confidence is reposed on them because
they are entrusted with funds or properties of their employer.
But these are broad principles that do not themselves show when, where, and how Atty.
Chuanico betrayed the trust that Legacy Consolidated gave him as in-house counsel.
The company charged him with having mishandled two things that were assigned to him, the
drafting of an answer in one and the preparation of a complaint affidavit in the other. It failed to
present proof, however, of such mishandling.