47 to 51
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 47 to 51
1/7
Mercado v. AMA Computer College, G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010
FACTS:
Five former faculty members of AMA Computer College in Paraaque City executed individual Teachers Contracts
for each of the trimesters they were engaged to teach. For the school year 2000-2001, when AMACC implemented
new faculty screening guidelines, the petitioners failed to obtain a passing rating based on the performancestandards. Thus, AMACC did not give them any salary increase. Due to this, they filed a complaint for
underpayment of wages. Consequently, they were dismissed as their contracts have expired & were not renewed.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that they had been illegally dismissed. The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision. In addition,
however, it observed that the applicable law is Section 92 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (which
mandates aprobationary period of nine consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for academic personnel in the
tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis), not Article 281 of the Labor Code (which
prescribes a probationary period of six months) as the LA ruled. Despite this, the NLRC still affirmed the LAs
finding of illegal dismissal on the basis of standards that were only introduced near the end of their probationary
period and not at the time of engagement. The CA dismissed the action for illegal dismissal ruling that under the
Manual for Regulations for Private Schools, a teaching personnel in a private educational institution (1) must be a full
time teacher; (2) must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service must be satisfactory
before he or she can acquire permanent status.
Since they had not completed three (3) consecutive years of service (i.e. six regular semesters or nine consecutive
trimesters of satisfactory service) and were still within their probationary period, then they cannot acquire permanent
status. The non-renewal of contract is a valid management prerogative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal is valid.
RULING:
AMACC failed to prove by substantial evidence that there was just cause for the non- renewal of the petitionerscontracts.
The Labor Code is supplemented with respect to the period of probation by special rules found in the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools.On the matter of probationary period, Section 92 of these regulations provides:
Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to compliance with the Department and school
requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of
satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those
in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis.
Other than on the period, the following quoted portion of Article 281 of the Labor Code still fully applies: The
services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause when hefails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee.
The common practice is for the employer and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for one school year. At the
end of the school year, the employer has the option not to renew the contract, particularly considering the teachers
performance. If the contract is not renewed, the employment relationship terminates. If the contract is renewed,
usually for another school year, the probationary employment continues. Again, at the end of that period, the parties
-
7/31/2019 47 to 51
2/7
may opt to renew or not to renew the contract. If renewed, this second renewal of the contract for another school year
would then be the last year since it would be the third school year of probationary employment. At the end of this
third year, the employer may now decide whether to extend a permanent appointment to the employee, primarily on
the basis of the employee having met the reasonable standards of competence and efficiency set by the employer. For
the entire duration of this three-year period, the teacher remains under probation. Upon the expiration of his contract
of employment, being simply on probation, he cannot automatically claim security of tenure and compel the
employer to renew his employment contract.
The school, however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term contract is a system that operates during the
probationary period and for this reason is subject to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code. Given the clear
constitutional and statutory intents, we cannot but conclude that in a situation where the probationary status
overlaps with a fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume
primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way.
While we can grant that the standards were duly communicated to the petitioners and could be applied beginning
the 1st trimester of the school year 2000-2001, glaring and very basic gaps in the schools evidence still exist. The
exact terms of the standards were never introduced as evidence; neither does the evidence show how these
standards were applied to the petitioners. Hence, the dismissal was illegal.
57. Pantoja vs. SCA Hygiene Products Corp., G.R. No. 163554, April 23, 2010
Facts:
SCA Hygiene Products Corp. ( SCA Hygiene for short), a corporation engaged in sale, making and distribution of
tissue products and industrial paper, hired Pantoja on March 1987 as back tender taking charge of operations in one
of SCA Hygienes mill ( Paper Mill No.4).On March 1999, Pantoja received a Notice of Transfer offering him a position
at Paper Mill No. 5 under the same terms and conditions of employment for an anticipated shutdown of Paper Mill
No.4 to streamline and phase out the companys industrial paper manufacturing operations in Paper Mill No.4 due
to financial difficulties brought about by the low volume of sales and orders for industrial paper products. But
Pantoja (and some others offered with transfers ) refused to be transferred of which his services were terminated by
reason of redundancy of position. Pantoja then received separation pay (which was handsomely over and above whatwas provided by law) and executed a release and quitclaim in the corps favor. However, on June 2000, Pantoja filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against SCA Hygiene for lack of valid cause. Pantoja interposed that no permanent
shutdown of Paper Mill No. 4 due to its continuous operation since his termination, presenting in evidence Paper
Mill Personnel Schedule for Mill No.4 for June, July and August 2000; thus, corp. was in bad faith trying to
circumvent his tenurial security when no substantial reason exist. Labor Arbiter dismissed Pantojas complaint stating
his rejection of transfer and receipt of the separation pay belie Pantojas illegal dismissal. On appeal by Pantoja, NLRC
reversed the Arbiters decision stating the redundancy program is legally infirm on feigned shutdown of operations.
On reconsideration by SCA Hygiene asseverating that on 1999 when Mill No.4 was shut down due to low production
output, there was a necessity to occasionally run from time to time the machines only for the purpose of maintaining
and preserving the same and does not mean that Paper Mill No. 4 continued to be operational. Yet, NLRC remain
unpersuaded. On appeal by SCA Hygiene, CA reinstated Labor Arbiters decision.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Pantoja was illegally dismissedRuling:
Pantoja is not illegally dismissed. SCA Hygienes right of management prerogative was exercis ed in good faith. In
International Harvester Macleod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the determination of the need to phase out a
particular department and consequent reduction of personnel and reorganization as a labor and cost saving device is
-
7/31/2019 47 to 51
3/7
a recognized management prerogative which the courts will not generally interfere with. Circumstances pointing
good faith on SCA Hygienes part - the abolishment of Paper Mill No. 4 was a business judgment arrived at due to
low demand for the production of industrial paper at the time. Despite an apparent reason to implement a
retrenchment program as a cost-cutting measure, SCA Hygiene, did not outrightly dismiss the workers affected by
the closure of Paper Mill No. 4 but gave them an option to be transferred to posts of equal rank and pay. As can be
seen, retrenchment was utilized by respondent only as an available option in case the affected employee would not
want to be transferred. SCA Hygiene did not proceed directly to retrench. This, to our mind, is an indication of goodfaith on respondents part as it exhausted other possible measures other than retrenchment. Besides, the employers
prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after
less drastic means have been tried and found wanting. Giving the workers an option to be transferred without any
diminution in rank and pay specifically belie petitioners allegation that the alleged streamlining scheme was
implemented as a ploy to ease out employees, thus, the absence of bad faith. No evidence, however, was presented to
prove that there was continuous operation after the shutdown in the year 1999. On record, Paper Mill No. 4 resumed
its operation in 2000 due to a more favorable business climate. The resumption of its industrial paper manufacturing
operations does not, however, make respondents streamlining/reorganization plan illegal because, again, the
abolishment of Paper Mill No. 4 in 1999 was a business judgment arrived at to prevent a possible financial drain at
that time. As long as no arbitrary or malicious action on the part of an employer is shown, the wisdom of a business
judgment to implement a cost saving device is beyond this courts determination. Work reassignment of an employee
as a genuine business necessity is a valid management prerogative. Even though the transfer would not involve any
diminution of rank and pay, still Pantoja refused the transfer and instead, accepted the separation pay voluntarily.
The consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the waiver represents a valid and binding
undertaking. No force and duress attended in its execution. The corp. even gave Pantoja a separation pay more than
what the law requires from respondent.
58. BPI v. NLRC, G.R. No. 179801, June 18, 2010
FACTS:
Records show that respondent, Arambulo, was initially employed as Clerk in 1972 at Citytrust Banking Corporation,
which eventually merged with the Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI). She later became Lead Teller, then as Sales
Manager, and subsequently, as Bank Manager in BPI-San Pablo, Laguna Branch in 1996.
On 4 October 2001, she was reprimanded for the improper handling and retention of a clients account. She was
transferred to BPI Family Bank in Los Baos, Laguna on 21 November 2001.
On 26 April 2002, a client of BPI-San Pablo, Laguna Branch requested for a certification of her savings account. Her
balance reflected an amount less than the actual amount deposited. Hence, BPI conducted an investigation and
discovered that its bank teller, Teotima Helen Azucena (Azucena) was making unauthorized withdrawals. A show
cause memorandum was served to Azucena asking her to explain the unauthorized withdrawals. In her written
response, Azucena implicated respondent, in that the latter, on many occasions, would make temporary cash
borrowings and would return the money at the end of the day through withdrawals from her own or other clients
accounts. There were times when respondent would fail to return the money withdrawn resulting in shortages on the
part of Azucena. When respondent was transferred to Los Baos, Laguna, Azucena added that the same practice was
continued by her son, Artie Arambulo.
BPI conducted a thorough investigation and discovered that respondent had approved several withdrawals from
various accounts of clients whose signatures were forged.
The assistant branch manager of the said branch also imputed fault to Arambulo.
Arambulo admitted that she prepared the unsigned withdrawal slips on the account of Mr. Vicente Amante (Mr.
Amante) totalingP700,000.00 upon request of the latter. She also explained that she processed the withdrawal slips of
-
7/31/2019 47 to 51
4/7
-
7/31/2019 47 to 51
5/7
FACTS:
Petitioner Maribago isacorporationoperatingaresorthotelandrestaurantinBarangayMaribago,Lapu-LapuCity.
In 19953, it hired respondent Dual as waiter and promoted him later as outlet cashier of its Poolbar/Allegro
Restaurant.
Sometime in 2005,a groupofJapaneseguestsandtheircompanionsdinedatAllegro.CaptainwaiterHiyastooktheir
dinnerorderscomprisingofsix(6)setsoflambandsix(6)setsoffish.Aspercompanyprocedure,Hiyasforwarded
onecopyoftheordersliptothekitchenandanothercopytorespondent. Pursuanttotheorderslip,fourteen(14)
setsofdinnerwerepreparedbythechef. HiyasandwaiterGenaroMission,Jr.servedtwelve(12)setdinnerstothe
guests,andanother two (2)sets to theirguides freeofcharge (total of14sets ofdinner). Afterdinner, theguests
askedfortheirbill.SinceHiyaswasattendingtootherguests,hegaveasignaltoMissiontogivethebill.Mission
askedrespondentDualforthesalestransactionreceiptandpresentedthistotheguests.Theguestspaidtheamount
indicatedonthereceiptandthereafterleftinahurry. Thereceiptprintedat10:40p.m.showsthatonlyP3,036.00
wasremittedbycashierDualcorrespondingtosix(6)setsofdinner.Inviewofthediscrepancybetweentheorder
slipandthereceiptissued,petitionerMaribago,throughitsHumanResourceDevelopment(HRD)manager,issued
memoranda, requiring respondent Dual,AlvinHiyas, Ernesto Avenido and Basilio Alcoseba to explain why they
shouldnotbepenalizedforviolatingHouseRule4.1(dishonestyinanynature).
During the clarificatory hearing,
- butcherAlegradotestifiedthatwaiterAlcosebawenttothebutcherylookingfortheorderslipfortableno.113.Ataround9:45p.m.,waiterAlcosebacausedthealterationoftheordersliptoreflectthatsix(6)orders
were cancelled. Alegrado allegedly askedAlcoseba if thecook wasalreadyaware of thecancellation, to
which the latteranswered "oo,kahibawna" (yes,he isalreadyaware).Alcosebastated thathewasnot
privytothecancellationoforderssincehewasbusyattendingtohisroomserviceduty.
- Heclaimsthat - hesawthecancelledfoodordersatthewaiter'sstationbutinsiststhat - hedidnothaveanypartinthealterationoftheorderslip.Duringtheclarificatoryhearing,however,headmittedthathealtered
theorderslipbycancellingsix(6)setdinners.
- After the investigation, respondentDualwasfoundguiltyofdishonestyforhisfabricatedstatementsandforaskingoneofthewaiters(Mission)tocorroboratehisallegations.Hewasterminatedpermemorandum
dated22January2005.Alcosebawasalsoterminatedfordishonestybasedonhisadmissionthathealteredtheorderslip.
Dual filedacomplaint forunfair laborpractice, illegaldismissal,non-paymentof13thmonthandseparationpay,
anddamages.
The Labor Arbiter foundthatrespondent'sterminationwaswithoutvalidcauseandruledthatrespondentisentitled
toseparationpay; The NLRC setasidetheLaborArbiter'sdecisionanddismissedthecomplaint for lackofmerit,
saying that complainant's act of depriving respondent of its lawful revenue is tantamount to fraud against the
companywhichwarrantsdismissalfromtheservice. Falsificationofcommercialdocumentsasameanstomalverse
companyfundsconstitutesfraudagainstthecompany; The Court of Appeals reversedthedecisionandresolutionof
theNLRC.Findingnosufficientvalidcausetojustifyrespondent'sdismissal,theCourtofAppealsorderedpetitioner
topayrespondentfullbackwagesandseparationpay.
Petitioner places - thecruxofthecontroversy - ontheproventamperingofthetransactionreceiptwhichhappened
inrespondent'sworkstation.
Respondent,ontheotherhand,reiterateshisstorythattheorderslipwasalreadyalteredwhenMissiongaveitto
him;thathewasabletoconfirmthecancellationofsomeordersfromAlcosebaandHiyas;thatthereceiptheprinted
wasbasedontheorderslipforsix(6)setsofdinner;thatMissiongavehimP3,100.00aspaymentandhereturned
P64.00aschange.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt3 -
7/31/2019 47 to 51
6/7
ISSUE:
Whetherornotthecourtofappealscommittedagraveandreversibleerrorinreversingthenationallaborrelations
commissionanddirectingpetitionertopayrespondentfullbackwagesfromthetimehewasillegallydismissed,up
tothefinalityof[its]decisionandseparationpayofonemonthsalaryforeveryyearofservice.
Inessence,theissueiswhether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
The law requires that
anemployershallnotterminatetheservicesofanemployee
exceptforajustorauthorizedcause.
Otherwise,anemployeeunjustlydismissedfromworkisentitledtoreinstatementandfullbackwages.
Thelawalsorequires
- theemployer - toobservedueprocessinterminationcases. wIn Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,34cralaw
- weruledthat- violation of the employee's statutory right to due process makes the employer liable to payindemnity in the form of nominal damages. Thelawfurtherrequiresthatthe burden of proving the cause
for termination rests with the employer.cra35
In this case,
- weare inagreement thatpetitioner'sevidenceproved thatrespondent isguiltyof DISHONESTY andofstealingmoneyentrustedtohimascashier.
- InsteadofreportingP10,100.00aspaymentbytheguestsfortheirdinner,respondentcashieronlyreportedP3,036.00 as shownby the receipt which he admitted to have issued. The receipt whichbears his name
"NITO"wasprintedat"22:40" (10:40p.m.)or1hourand40minutesafter theguestshad leftat9:00p.m.
Twootherreceiptswereissuedforthesameamountat"22:39:55"and"22:40:01".
- Moreover,respondent'sclaim that - he receivedP3,100.00onlyandgaveMissionP64.00aschange isnotshownbythereceiptthatheissued.Theissuedreceiptdoesnotshowthatchangewasgiven.Inaddition,
theamountindicatedinthereceiptdoesnotcoincidewithDual'scontentionthatonlyfour(4)disheswere
cancelledandtwo(2)dishesweregivenfreeofcharge.
- Ifsuchwerethecase,thentheamountchargedtotheguestsshouldhavebeenforeight(8)setsofdinnerandnotsix(6)sets.Asestablishedduringtheclarificatoryhearing,twelve(12)setsofdinnerwereservedto
guests and two (2) dinnersets weregiven to the tour guides freeof charge. It is clearly indicated in the
alteredorderslipthatsix(6)outofthetwelve(12)setsofdinnerwerecancelled.
TheallegationofDualthat - six(6)dinnersetswereindeedcancelledasevidencedbythedishesheallegedlysawin
the utensil station is negatedby the testimonies of the kitchen staff (Chef Armand Galica, Butcher Alegrado and
Dessert-in-chargeJohnMarollano)thattwelve(12)setmealswereservedandconsumed.- These testimonies coincide with the claim of waiters Hiyas and Mission that fourteen (14) sets of dinner
wereserved.Theservingoffoodeliminatestheargumentofcancellation.
The alibi of cancellation has no leg to stand on.
- ThestandardoperatingprocedureofMaribagodictatesthatincasesofcancellation,theorderslip - hastobecountersignedbytheattendingwaiter(which inthiscaseshouldhavebeenChiefWaiterHiyas)butsuch
wasnotsointhiscase.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/july2010/180660.php#fnt34 -
7/31/2019 47 to 51
7/7
The foregoing facts - explainwhyDualandAlcosebatriedtwicetoconvinceMissiontocoveruptheircrime.
- TheyevenaskedMissiontotakethefallbyaskinghimtoadmitthathealteredtheorderslipfromtwelve(12)setsofdinnertosix(6)sets.
Infine,whatisdamningtothecauseofDual - isthereceiptwhichheadmittedlyissued.Thereceiptwasissuedlong
aftertheguestshadleft(9:00p.m.)andafterthealterationoftheorderslip(9:45p.m.)wasdone.Suchfactledusto
theconclusionthat - he consented to and participated in the anomaly.
Respondent's acts constitute SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
- whichisajustcauseforterminationunderthelaw.- THEFT committedbyanemployeeisavalidreasonforhisdismissalbytheemployer.- Although as a rule this Court leans overbackwards to help workers and employees continue with their
employmentortomitigatethepenaltiesimposedonthem,
- ACTS OF DISHONESTY - in the handling of company property, petitioner's income in this case, are adifferentmatter.
Withal, the law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer.WhiletheConstitutioniscommittedtothepolicyofsocialjusticeandtheprotectionoftheworkingclass,
itshouldnotbesupposedthateverylabordisputewillbeautomaticallydecidedinfavoroflabor.
- Themanagementalsohasitsownrights,assuch,areentitledtorespectandenforcementintheinterestofsimple fair play.Outof its concern for thosewith less privileges in life, theSupreme Courthas inclined
moreoftenthannot - towardtheworkerandupheldhiscause - inhisconflictswiththeemployer.
- Suchfavoritism,however,hasnotblindedtheCourttotherulethatjusticeisineverycaseforthedeserving,
tobedispensedinthelightoftheestablishedfactsandapplicablelawanddoctrine.