April 2014 Labor Cases Topic: Constructive Dismissal Ponente: Perez, J. Chiang Kai Shek College v. Torres, G.R. o. !"#$%&, 'pril (, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner Petitioner Chiang Kai Shek College is a private educational educational institution that that of ofer ers s elem elemen enta tary ry to coll colleg ege e educ educat atio ion n to the the publ public ic.. Indi Indivi vidu dual al petitioner Carmelita Espino is the Vice-President o the school. !espondent had been employed as a grade school teacher o the school rom "uly #$%& until '# (ay )&&'.
!espondent !espondent *as accused o leaking a copy o a special +ui, given to rade students o /EK0SI . Petitioners came to kno* about the leakage rom one o the teachers o /EK0SI 1 0ileen 2enabese. (s. 2enabese narrated that ater giving a special +ui,1 she borro*ed the book o one o her students1 0ileen !egine (. 0nduyan1 or the purpose o making an ans*er key. 3hen she opened 0ileen4s book1 a piece o paper ell. Said paper turned out to be a copy o the same +ui, she had 5ust given and the same already contained ans*ers. 0ssist 0ssistan antt Supe Supervi rvisor sor Encar Encarna nacio cion n Koo oo11 conr conron onted ted respon esponde dent1 nt1 *ho *ho had had initially denied leaking the test paper but later on admitted that she gave the test paper to (rs. 6eresita 0nduyan1 her co-teacher and the mother o 0ileen. 6he school4s Investigating Investigating Committee ound respondent respondent and (rs. 0nduyan guilt guilty y o commi committi tting ng a grave grave of ofen ense se o the school school polic policies ies by leaki leaking ng a special +ui,. 6he Investigating Committee had actually decided to terminate respondent but the respondent pleaded that she suspended instead and that she *ill resign at the end o the school year. Petitioners acceded to the re+uest. 7n #8 9ebru ebruar ary y )&&' )&&' ho*e ho*eve ver1 r1 res espo pond nden ent4s t4s coun counse sell se sent nt a lett letter er to petitioners demanding the payment o her back*ages1 bonus1 teacher4s day git1 git1 moral moral damages damages and e:empl e:emplary ary damage damages. s. !esponde espondent4s nt4s counsel counsel also re+ui re+uire red d petiti petition oner er to cease cease and and desist desist rom rom calli calling ng respo responde ndent nt or her her resignation at the end o the school year )&&) ; )&&'.
Petitioners1 through counsel1 *rote to respondent4s counsel asserting that respo responde ndent nt *a *as s being being termin terminate ated d but but the the latter latter re+u re+uest ested ed that that
abor >abor 0rbi 0rbiter ter.. /o*ev /o*ever1 er1 the compl complain aintt *a *as s dism dismis isse sed d or or lack lack o me meri rit. t. 6he 6he >abo >aborr 0rbi 0rbite terr deem deemed ed res espo pond nden ent4 t4s s suspension coupled *ith petitioner4s allo*ance o respondent4s resignation at the end o the the schoo schooll year year as gener generou ous s acts acts consi consider dering ing the of ofen ense se committed. 7n appeal1 the ?>!C a@rmed the decision but ordered the petitioners to pay separation pay e+uivalent to one-hal A#B) month salary or every year o service on the grounds o e+uity and social 5ustice. 6he Court o 0ppeals reversed reversed the ?>!C ?>!C !econsideration *as =led but it *as denied.
decision.
0
(otion
or
/ence1 this petition. +ssue: Does the school4s act o imposing the penalty o suspension instead o immediate dismissal rom service at the behest o the erring employee1 in e:cha e:chang nge e or the em emplo ployee yee4s 4s resig resignat nation ion at the end end o the schoo schooll year1 year1 constitute constructive dismissal Ruling: .
!esignation is the voluntary act o an employee *ho is in a situation *here one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacri=ced or the avor o employment1 and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is a ormal pron pronou ounc ncem emen entt or relin elin+u +uis ishm hmen entt o an o@ce o@ce11 *i *ith th the the inte intent ntio ion n o relin+uishing the o@ce accompanied by the act o relin+uishment. 0s the intent to relin+uish must concur *ith the overt act o relin+uishment1 the acts acts o the emplo employee yee beor beore e and and ater ater the alleg alleged ed resig resigna natio tion n must must be considered in determining *hether1 he or she1 in act1 intended to sever his or her employment. 6here is constructive constructive dismissal *hen there is cessation o *ork1 because continued employment is rendered impossible1 unreasonable or unlikely1 as an of ofer er invol involvin ving g a demo demotio tion n in rank rank or a dimin diminuti ution on in pay pay and and other other
Petitioners1 through counsel1 *rote to respondent4s counsel asserting that respo responde ndent nt *a *as s being being termin terminate ated d but but the the latter latter re+u re+uest ested ed that that abor >abor 0rbi 0rbiter ter.. /o*ev /o*ever1 er1 the compl complain aintt *a *as s dism dismis isse sed d or or lack lack o me meri rit. t. 6he 6he >abo >aborr 0rbi 0rbite terr deem deemed ed res espo pond nden ent4 t4s s suspension coupled *ith petitioner4s allo*ance o respondent4s resignation at the end o the the schoo schooll year year as gener generou ous s acts acts consi consider dering ing the of ofen ense se committed. 7n appeal1 the ?>!C a@rmed the decision but ordered the petitioners to pay separation pay e+uivalent to one-hal A#B) month salary or every year o service on the grounds o e+uity and social 5ustice. 6he Court o 0ppeals reversed reversed the ?>!C ?>!C !econsideration *as =led but it *as denied.
decision.
0
(otion
or
/ence1 this petition. +ssue: Does the school4s act o imposing the penalty o suspension instead o immediate dismissal rom service at the behest o the erring employee1 in e:cha e:chang nge e or the em emplo ployee yee4s 4s resig resignat nation ion at the end end o the schoo schooll year1 year1 constitute constructive dismissal Ruling: .
!esignation is the voluntary act o an employee *ho is in a situation *here one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacri=ced or the avor o employment1 and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is a ormal pron pronou ounc ncem emen entt or relin elin+u +uis ishm hmen entt o an o@ce o@ce11 *i *ith th the the inte intent ntio ion n o relin+uishing the o@ce accompanied by the act o relin+uishment. 0s the intent to relin+uish must concur *ith the overt act o relin+uishment1 the acts acts o the emplo employee yee beor beore e and and ater ater the alleg alleged ed resig resigna natio tion n must must be considered in determining *hether1 he or she1 in act1 intended to sever his or her employment. 6here is constructive constructive dismissal *hen there is cessation o *ork1 because continued employment is rendered impossible1 unreasonable or unlikely1 as an of ofer er invol involvin ving g a demo demotio tion n in rank rank or a dimin diminuti ution on in pay pay and and other other
bene=ts. 0ptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as i it *ere not1 constructive dismissal may1 like*ise1 e:ist i an act o clear discrimination1 discrimination1 insensibility1 or disdain by an employer employer becomes so unbearable on the part o the employee that it could oreclose any choice by him e:cept to orego his continued employment. 6here *as here no discrimination committed by petitioners. 3hile respondent did not tender her resignation *holeheartedly1 *holeheartedly1 circumstances circumstances o her o*n making did not give her any other option. 3ith due process1 she *as ound to have comm committ itted ed the the grav grave e of ofen ense se o leaki leaking ng test test +uest +uestio ions. ns. Dismi Dismissa ssall rom rom employment *as the 5usti=ed e+uivalent penalty. /aving reali,ed that1 she asked or1 and *as granted1 not 5ust a deerred imposition o1 but also an acceptable cover or the penalty. !espondent4s proession1 the gravity o her inraction1 and the act that she *ait *a ited ed unti untill the the clos close e o the the scho school ol year year to chal challe leng nge e her her impe impend ndin ing g resignation demonstrate that respondent had bargained or a graceul e:it and is no* trying to renege on her obligation. !espondent should not be re*arded or reneging on her promise to resign at the end o the school year. 7ther*ise1 employers placed in similar situations *ould no longer e:tend compassion to employees. Compromise agreements1 like that in the instant case case11 *hic *hich h lean lean to*a to*ard rds s desi desirred libe libera rali lity ty that that avo avorr labo labor1 r1 *o *oul uld d be discouraged. Topic: emplo-er emplo-ee relationship/ illegal 0ismissal/ 0octrine o1 straine0 relation Ponente: Re-es, J. Tenazas v. R. 2illegas Ta3i Transport, G.R. o. !#(##", 'pril (, ()!$ *acts: acts: 7n "uly 81 )&&%1 2ernard 0. 6ena,as and "aime (. 9rancisco =led a compl complain aintt or illeg illegal al dismis dismissal sal again against st !. Vill Villega egas s 6a:i 6ranspo ransport rt andBo andBorr !omualdo Villegas and 0ndy Villegas. 0t that time1 a similar case had already been =led by Isidro . Endraca against the same respondents. 6he t*o A) cases *ere subse+uently consolidated.
!elaying the circumstances o his dismissal1 6ena,as alleged that on "uly #1 )&&% )&&%11 the the ta:i ta:i unit unit assig assigne ned d to him *as sides* sides*ip iped ed by anot another her vehicl vehicle1 e1 causing a dent on the let ender near the driver seat. 6he cost o repair or the damage *as estimated at P&&.&&. Fpon reporting the incident to the company1 he *as scolded by respondents !omualdo and 0ndy and *as told to leave the garage or he is already =red. /e *as even threatened *ith
physical harm should he ever be seen in the company4s premises again. Despite the *arning1 6ena,as reported or *ork on the ollo*ing day but *as told that he can no longer drive any o the company4s units as he is already =red. 9rancisco1 on the other hand1 averred that his dismissal *as brought about by the company4s unounded suspicion that he *as organi,ing a labor union. /e *as instantaneously terminated1 *ithout the bene=t o procedural due process1 on "une 81 )&&%. Endraca1 or his part1 alleged that his dismissal *as instigated by an occasion *hen he ell short o the re+uired boundary or his ta:i unit. /e related that beore he *as dismissed1 he brought his ta:i unit to an auto shop or an urgent repair. /e *as charged the amount o P%&&.&& or the repair services and the replacement parts. 0s a result1 he *as not able to meet his boundary or the day. Fpon returning to the company garage and inorming the management o the incident1 his driver4s license *as con=scated and *as told to settle the de=ciency in his boundary =rst beore his license *ill be returned to him. /e *as no longer allo*ed to drive a ta:i unit despite his persistent pleas. 9or their part1 the respondents admitted that 6ena,as and Endraca *ere employees o the company1 the ormer being a regular driver and the latter a spare driver. 6he respondents1 ho*ever1 denied that 9rancisco *as an employee o the company or that he *as able to drive one o the company4s units at any point in time. 6he respondents urther alleged that 6ena,as *as never terminated by the company. 6hey claimed that 6ena,as *ent to the company garage to get his ta:i unit but *as inormed that it is due or overhaul because o some mechanical deects reported by the other driver *ho takes turns *ith him in using the same. /e *as thus advised to *ait or urther notice rom the company i his unit has already been =:ed. 7n "uly G1 )&&%1 ho*ever1 upon being inormed that his unit is ready or release1 6ena,as ailed to report back to *ork or no apparent reason. 0s regards Endraca1 the respondents alleged that they hired him as a spare driver in 9ebruary )&. 6hey allo* him to drive a ta:i unit *henever their regular driver *ill not be able to report or *ork. In "uly )&&'1 ho*ever1 Endraca stopped reporting or *ork *ithout inorming the company o his reason. 7n (ay '&1 )&&G1 the >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision stating that there *as no illegal dismissal as there *as no proo o overt act o dismissal committed by the respondents.
7n appeal1 the ?>!C reversed the decision o the >0. It held that the additional pieces o evidence belatedly submitted by the petitioners su@ced to establish the e:istence o employer-employee relationship and their illegal dismissal. 6he respondents then =led a petition or certiorari *ith the C0. 6he C0 agreed *ith the ?>!C4s =nding that 6ena,as and Endraca *ere employees o the company1 but ruled other*ise in the case o 9rancisco or ailing to establish his relationship *ith the company. It also deleted the a*ard o separation pay and ordered or reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca. /ence1 this petition. +ssue:
#. Is 9rancisco an employee o the respondent ). Is reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca possible Ruling:
#. . In determining the presence or absence o an employer-employee relationship1 the Court has consistently looked or the ollo*ing incidents1 to *itH Aa the selection and engagement o the employee Ab the payment o *ages Ac the po*er o dismissal and Ad the employer4s po*er to control the employee on the means and methods by *hich the *ork is accomplished. 6he last element1 the so-called control test1 is the most important element.< 6here is no hard and ast rule designed to establish the aoresaid elements. 0ny competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identi=cation cards1 cash vouchers1 social security registration1 appointment letters or employment contracts1 payrolls1 organi,ation charts1 and personnel lists1 serve as evidence o employee status. In this case1 ho*ever1 9rancisco ailed to present any proo substantial enough to establish his relationship *ith the respondents. 2eret o any evidence1 the C0 correctly ruled that 9rancisco could not be considered an employee o the respondents. ). 45S. 6he C04s order o reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca1 instead o the payment o separation pay1 is also *ell in accordance *ith prevailing 5urisprudence. 0n illegally dismissed employee is entitled to t*o reliesH
back*ages and reinstatement. 6he t*o relies provided are separate and distinct. In instances *here reinstatement is no longer easible because o strained relations bet*een the employee and the employer1 separation pay is granted. In efect1 an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement1 i viable1 or separation pay i reinstatement is no longer viable1 and back*ages. 0ter a perusal o the ?>!C decision1 this Court ailed to =nd the actual basis o the a*ard o separation pay to the petitioners. 6he ?>!C decision did not state the acts *hich demonstrate that reinstatement is no longer a easible option that could have 5usti=ed the alternative relie o granting separation pay instead. 6he petitioners themselves like*ise overlooked to allege circumstances *hich may have rendered their reinstatement unlikely or un*ise and even prayed or reinstatement alongside the payment o separation pay in their position paper. 0 bare claim o strained relations by reason o termination is insu@cient to *arrant the granting o separation pay. >ike*ise1 the =ling o the complaint by the petitioners does not necessarily translate to strained relations bet*een the parties. 0s a rule1 no strained relations should arise rom a valid and legal act asserting one4s right. 0lthough litigation may also engender a certain degree o hostility1 the understandable strain in the parties4 relation *ould not necessarily rule out reinstatement *hich *ould1 other*ise1 become the rule rather the e:ception in illegal dismissal cases. 6hus1 it *as a prudent call or the C0 to delete the a*ard o separation pay and order or reinstatement instead1 in accordance *ith the general rule stated in 0rticle )%$ o the >abor Code.
Topic: pro6ationar- emplo-ment o1 teachers in private schools/ illegal 0ismissal Ponente: 2illarama, Jr., J. 7niversi0a0 De Sta. +sa6el v. Sam6a8on, Jr., G.R. os. !#&(") 9 !#&("&, 'pril (, ()!$ *acts: Fniversidad de Sta. Isabel is a non-stock1 non-pro=t religious educational institution in ?aga City. Petitioner hired (arvin-"ulian >. Samba5on1 "r. as a ull-time college aculty member *ith the rank o 0ssistant Proessor on probationary status1 as evidenced by an 0ppointment Contract dated ?ovember #1 )&&)1 efective ?ovember #1 )&&) up to (arch '&1 )&&'.
0ter the aoresaid contract e:pired1 petitioner continued to give teaching loads to respondent *ho remained a ull-time aculty member o the Department o !eligious Education or the t*o semesters o school-year )&&'-)&&8 and t*o semesters o SJ )&&8-)&&. Sometime in "une )&&'1 ater respondent completed his course in (aster o 0rts in Education1 ma5or in uidance and Counseling1 he submitted the corresponding Special 7rder rom the Commission on /igher Education AC/ED1 together *ith his credentials or the said master4s degree1 to the /uman !esources Department o petitioner or the purpose o salary ad5ustmentBincrease. Subse+uently1 respondent4s salary *as increased1 as reected in his pay slips starting 7ctober #-#1 )&&8. /e *as like*ise reranked rom 0ssistant Proessor to 0ssociate Proessor. In a letter dated 7ctober #1 )&&8 addressed to the President o petitioner1 Sr. (a. 0suncion . Evidente1 D.C.1 respondent vigorously argued that his salary increase should be made efective as o "une )&&' and demanded the payment o his salary diferential. 6he school administration replied by e:plaining that there is no re ; ranking during the employee4s probationary period. 6o resolve the issue1 a dialogue *as held bet*een respondent and Sr. Evidente but the parties gave conicting accounts. 7n 9ebruary )L1 )&&1 respondent received his letter o termination. 7n 0pril #81 )&&1 respondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal against the petitioner.
6he >abor 0rbiter ruled that there *as no 5ust or authori,ed cause in the termination o respondent4s probationary employment. Conse+uently1 petitioner *as ound liable or illegal dismissal. Petitioner appealed to the ?>!C raising the issue o the correct interpretation o Section $) o the (anual o !egulations or Private Schools and D7>EDECS-C/ED-6ESD0 7rder ?o. series o #$$L1 and alleging grave abuse o discretion committed by the >abor 0rbiter in ruling on a cause o actionBissue not raised by the complainant Arespondent in his position paper. 7n 0ugust #1 )&&G1 the ?>!C rendered its Decision a@rming the >abor 0rbiter and holding that respondent had ac+uired a permanent status pursuant to Sections $#1 $) and $' o the #$$) (anual o !egulations or Private Schools1 in relation to 0rticle )G# o the >abor Code1 as amended. Fnder the circumstances1 it must be concluded that the complainant has ac+uired permanent status. 6he last paragraph o 0rticle )G# o the >abor Code provides that !C that respondent had already ac+uired permanent status *hen he *as allo*ed to continue teaching ater the e:piration o his =rst appointment-contract on (arch '&1 )&&'. /o*ever1 the C0 ound it necessary to modiy the decision o the ?>!C to include the a*ard o back *ages to respondent. /ence1 this petition. +ssues:
#. Did the ?>!C correctly resolve an issue not raised in petitioner4s appeal memorandum ). 3as the respondent illegally dismissed Ruling:
#. 45S. 6he ?>!C shall1 in cases o perected appeals1 limit itsel to revie*ing those issues *hich are raised on appeal. 0s a conse+uence thereo1 any other issues *hich *ere not included in the appeal shall become =nal and e:ecutory. In this case1 petitioner sought the correct interpretation o the (anual o !egulations or Private School 6eachers and D7>E-DECS-C/ED-6ESD0 7rder ?o. series o #$$L1 insoar as the probationary period or teachers. In revie*ing the >abor 0rbiter4s =nding o illegal dismissal1 the ?>!C concluded that respondent had already attained regular status ater the e:piration o his =rst appointment contract as probationary employee. Such conclusion *as but a logical result o the ?>!C4s o*n interpretation o the la*. Since petitioner elevated the +uestions o the validity o respondent4s dismissal and the applicable probationary period under the aoresaid regulations1 the ?>!C did not gravely abuse its discretion in ully resolving the said issues. ). 45S. 6he probationary employment o teachers in private schools is not governed purely by the >abor Code. 6he >abor Code is supplemented *ith respect to the period o probation by special rules ound in the (anual o !egulations or Private Schools. 7n the matter o probationary period1 Section $) o the #$$) (anual o !egulations or Private Schools regulations statesH 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 (! consecuti"e years of satisfactory ser"ice for those in the elementary and secondary le"els, si# ($! consecuti"e re%ular semesters of satisfactory ser"ice for those in the tertiary le"el, and nine (9! consecuti"e trimesters of satisfactory ser"ice for those in the tertiary le"el where colle%iate courses are o&ered on a trimester basis.
In this case1 it *as e:plicitly provided in the third appointment contract o the respondent that unless rene*ed in *riting respondent4s appointment automatically e:pires at the end o the stipulated period o employment. Simply because the *ord
nature o his appointment. Its signi=cance lies in the rule that only ull-time teaching personnel can ac+uire regular or permanent status. In this case1 petitioner applied the ma:imum three-year probationary period ; e+uivalent to si: consecutive semesters ; provided in the (anual o !egulations. 6he circumstance that respondent4s services *ere hired on semester basis did not negate the applicable probationary period1 *hich is three school years or si: consecutive semesters. In a situation *here the probationary status overlaps *ith a =:ed-term contract not speci=cally used or the =:ed term it ofers1 0rticle )G# should assume primacy and the =:ed-period character o the contract must give *ay. ?ot*ithstanding the limited engagement o probationary employees1 they are entitled to constitutional protection o security o tenure during and beore the end o the probationary period. 6he services o an employee *ho has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated or any o the ollo*ingH Aa a 5ust or Ab an authori,ed cause and Ac *hen he ails to +ualiy as a regular employee in accordance *ith reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. 6hus1 *hile no vested right to a permanent appointment had as yet accrued in avor o respondent since he had not completed the prere+uisite threeyear period Asi: consecutive semesters necessary or the ac+uisition o permanent status as re+uired by the (anual o !egulations or Private Schools -- *hich has the orce o la* -- he en5oys a limited tenure. During the said probationary period1 he cannot be terminated e:cept or 5ust or authori,ed causes1 or i he ails to +ualiy in accordance *ith reasonable standards prescribed by petitioner or the ac+uisition o permanent status o its teaching personnel. In a letter dated 9ebruary )L1 )&&1 petitioner terminated the services o respondent stating that his probationary employment as teacher *ill no longer be rene*ed upon its e:piry on (arch '#1 )&&1 respondent4s =th semester o teaching. ?o 5ust or authori,ed cause *as given by petitioner. Prior to this1 respondent had consistently achieved above average rating based on evaluation by petitioner4s o@cials and students. /e had also been promoted to the rank o 0ssociate Proessor ater =nishing his master4s degree course on his third semester o teaching. Clearly1 respondent4s termination ater =ve semesters o satisactory service *as illegal.
Topic: circumstances hen a seaman ma- 6e alloe0 to pursue an action 1or permanent an0 total 0isa6ilit- 6ene;ts/ aar0 o1 attorne-(, 'pril (, ()!$ *acts: Petitioners Fnited Philippine >ines1 Inc. and /olland 0merica >ine hired Sibug as *aste handler on board the vessel (IS Volendam. 7n 0ugust 1 )&&1 Sibug ell rom a ladder *hile cleaning the silo sensor at a garbage room o the Volendam and in5ured his knee. /e *as repatriated and had anterior cruciate ligament A0C> reconstruction surgery at the (anila Doctors /ospital. 7n "anuary #$1 )&&L1 he *as declared =t to return to *ork rom an orthopedic point o vie*.
Sibug sought reemployment1 passed the pre-employment medical e:amination1 and *as re-hired by petitioners in the same capacity or the vessel (BS !yndam. 7n board !yndam1 Sibug met another accident *hile
driving a orklit and in5ured his right hand and *rist. /e *as repatriated. /e arri arrived ved in the the Phili Philippi ppine nes s on "anuar "anuary y #1 #1 )&&%1 )&&%1 and and had surgery surgery or his his !yndam yndam in5ury in5ury.. 7n Septemb September er %1 )&&%1 )&&%1 the company company-des -design ignated ated doctor doctor issu issued ed a me medi dica call repor eportt that that Sibu Sibug g has has a per perma mane nent nt but but inco incomp mple lete te disability. In an email dated September )G1 )&&%1 the company-designated doctor doctor classi=ed classi=ed Sibug4s Sibug4s disabili disability ty rom rom his !yndam yndam in5ury in5ury as a grade grade #& disability. Sibug =led t*o complaints or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 damages and attorney4s ees against petitioners anchored on his Volendam in5ury and !yndam in5ury. 6he >abor 0rbiter dismissed the Volendam case on the ground ground that Sibug *as declared =t to *ork ater his 0C> reconstruction surgery. /e also passed the pre-employment medical e:amination *hen he sought reemployment1 *as reemployed and *as able to *ork again in !yndam. 0s regards the !yndam case1 the >abor 0rbiter a*arded to Sibug FSM#&1&% *hich is the e+uivalent a*ard or the grade #& disability rating issued by the companydesignated doctor. 6he ?>!C ?>!C reversed the >abor >abor 0rbiter4s 0rbiter4s Decision. It ruled that Sibug Sibug is entitled to perman permanent ent and total disabili disability ty bene=t bene=t o FSML&1&& FSML&1&&& & or his Volendam olendam in5ury and another FSML&1&&& or his !yndam in5ury. 7n reconsideration1 the ?>!C reinstated the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision. >ater1 the ?>!C denied Sibug4s motion or reconsideration. 6hus1 the case *as elevated to the C0. 6he C0 set aside the ?>!C Decision dated (ay )$1 )&&$ and reinstated the ?>!C Decision dated December G1 )&&G. It ruled that Sibug *as unable to perorm his customary *ork or more than #)& days on account o his Volendam and !yndam in5uries. 6hus1 he is entitled to permanent and total disability bene=t or both in5uries. /ence1 this petition. +ssues:
#. Is Sibu Sibug g enti entitl tled ed to per perma mane nent nt and and tota totall disa disabi bili lity ty bene bene=t =ts s or or his his Volendam and !yndam in5uries ). Is he entitl entitled ed to attorne attorney4s y4s ees ees
Ruling:
#. Sibu Sibug g is not not enti entitl tled ed to per perma mane nent nt and and tota totall disa disabi bili lity ty bene bene=t =t or or his his Volendam in5ury. 2ut he is entitled to permanent and total disability bene=t or his !yndam in5ury and to attorney4s ees. Sibu Sibug g is not not enti entitl tled ed to per perma mane nent nt and and tota totall disa disabi bili lity ty bene bene=t =t or or his his Volendam in5ury since he became already =t to *ork again as a seaman. /e even admitted in his position paper that he *as declared =t to *ork. /e *as also also decl declar ared ed =t or or se sea a se serv rvic ice e ate aterr his his prepre-em empl ploy oyme ment nt medic edical al e:amination *hen he sought reemployment *ith petitioners. 6he medical certi=cate declaring Sibug =t or sea service even bears his signature. 0nd he *as able to *ork again in the same capacity as *aste handler in !yndam. 0s regar regards ds his his !yndam yndam in5ur in5ury1 y1 Sibug Sibug is entit entitled led to perma permanen nentt and total total disability bene=t bene=t amounting to FSML&1&&&. FSML&1&&&. +n ?illan v. @allem ?aritime Services, +nc., the 1olloing are the circumstances hen a seaman mama- 6e allo alloe e0 0 to purs pursue ue an acti action on 1o 1or r perm perman anen entt an0 an0 to tota tall 0isa6ilit- 6ene;ts: Aa 6he company-designated physician ailed to issue a declaration as to his =tness to engage in sea duty or disability even ater the lapse o the #)&-d #)&-day ay perio period d and and there there is no indic indicati ation on that that urthe urtherr medica medicall treatment *ould address his temporary total disability1 hence1 5ustiy an e:tension o the period to )8& days Ab Ab )8& )8& days days had had laps lapsed ed *i *ith thou outt any any cert certi= i=ca cati tion on issu issued ed by the the company-designated physician Ac 6he company-designated physician declared that he is =t or sea duty *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period1 period1 as the case may be1 but his physician o choice and the doctor chosen under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC are o a contrary opinion Ad Ad 6he 6he comp compan any y-des -desig igna nate ted d phys physic icia ian n ackn ackno* o*le ledg dged ed that that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors *ho he consulted1 on his o*n and 5ointly *ith his employer1 believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as *ell Ae 6he company-designated physician recogni,ed that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading
A 6he company company-des -design ignated ated physicia physician n determi determined ned that that his medical medical condition is not compensable or *ork-related under the P7E0-SEC but his doctor-o-choice and the third doctor selected under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC ound other*ise and declared him un=t to *ork Ag Ag 6he 6he comp compan any y-des -desig igna nate ted d phys physic icia ian n decl declar ared ed him him tota totall lly y and and per perma mane nent ntly ly disa disabl bled ed but but the the em empl ploy oyer er reus euses es to pay pay him him the the corresponding bene=ts and Ah 6he 6he comp compan anyy-de desig signat nated ed physi physicia cian n declar declared ed him him parti partiall ally y and and permanently disabled *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period but he remains incapacitated to perorm his usual sea duties ater the lapse o said periods. Paragraph Ab applies to Sibug4s case. 6he company-designated doctor ailed to issue a certi=cation *ith a de=nite assessment o the degree o Sibug4s disability or his !yndam in5ury *ithin )8& days. In 9il-P il-Pri ride de Ship Shippi ping ng Co Comp mpan any1 y1 Inc. Inc.11 et al. al. v. 2a 2ala last sta1 a1 *e held held that that the the abor Code and !ule N1 Section ) o the 0mended !ules on Employees Compensation. I he ails to do so and the seaarer4s medical condition remains unresolved1 the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently permanently disabled.< 6his de=nite assessment o the the se seam aman an4s 4s perm perman anen entt disa disabi bili lity ty must must incl includ ude e the the degr degree ee o his his disability1 as re+uired by Section )&-2 o the P7E0-SEC. In this case1 Sibug *as repatriated and arrived in the country on "anuary #1 )&&% )&&% ater ater his !ynda yndam m in5u in5ury ry.. /e had had surger surgery y on his in5ur in5ured ed hand hand.. 7n September %1 )&&%1 the company-designated doctor issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. 2ut this medical report aile ailed d to state state the degr degree ee o Sibug Sibug4s 4s disab disabili ility ty.. 7nly 7nly in an ema email il dated dated September )G1 )&&%1 copy o *hich *as attached as 0nne: ' o petitioners4 position paper1 *as Sibug4s disability rom his !yndam in5ury classi=ed as a grad grade e #& disa disabi bili lity ty by the the comp compan anyy-de desi sign gnat ated ed doct doctor or.. 2y that that time time11 ho*ever1 the )8&-day e:tended period *hen the company-designated doctor must give the de=nite assessment o Sibug4s disability had lapsed. 9rom "anuary #1 )&&% to September September )G1 )&&% is )L days. /ence1 Sibug4s disability is already deemed permanent and total.
). 45S. Sibug is entitled to attorney4s ees o FSML1&&& since he *as orced to litigate to protect his valid claim. 3here an employee is orced to litigate and incur e:penses to protect his right and interest1 he is entitled to an a*ard o attorney4s ees e+uivalent to #&O o the a*ard.
Topic: +llegal DismissalA*loating Status Ponente: 'ntonio T. Carpio, J.: 5meritus Securit- an0 ?aintenance S-stems +nc. v. Dailig, G.R. o. ()$>&!, 'pril (, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner hired respondent as one o its security guards. !espondent *as relieved rom his post. !espondent =led a complaint or underpayment o *ages1 non-payment o legal and special holiday pay1 premium pay or rest day and underpayment o EC7>0 beore the D7>E. 6he hearing o@cer recommended the dismissal o the complaint since the claims *ere already paid.
!espondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal and payment o separation pay against petitioner beore the Conciliation and (ediation Center o the ?>!C. !espondent =led another complaint or illegal dismissal1 underpayment o salaries and non-payment o ull back*ages beore the ?>!C. >abor 0rbiter ound illegal dismissal and ordered respondent to reinstate complainant and to pay him back*ages. Court o 0ppeals a@rmed the =nding o illegal dismissal but ordered separation pay instead o reinstatement. +ssuesH 3hether or not there is illegal dismissal
3hether or not respondent is entitled to separation pay1 instead o reinstatement Ruling H 4es.
!espondent *as on oating status rom #& December )&& to #L "une )&&L or more than si: months. 6he Court ound that a Boating status o1 a securit- guar0, such as respon0ent, 1or more than si3 months constitutes constructive 0ismissal. *actual ;n0ings o1 uasi8u0icial
6o0ies like the =RC, i1 supporte0 6- su6stantial evi0ence, are accor0e0 respect an0 even ;nalit- 6- this Court, more so hen thecoinci0e ith those o1 the =a6or 'r6iter. o.
0rticle )%$ o the >abor Code o the Philippines mandates the reinstatement o an illegally dismissed employee1 to *itH Security o 6enure. - : : : 0n employee *ho is un5ustly dismissed rom *ork shall be entitled to reinstatement *ithout loss o seniority rights and other privileges and to his ull back *ages1 inclusive o allo*ances1 and to his other bene=ts or their monetary e+uivalent computed rom the time his compensation *as *ithheld rom him up to the time o his actual reinstatement. 6hus1 reinstatement is the general rule, hile the aar0 o1 separation pa- is the e3ception . 6he circumstances *arranting the grant o separation pay1 in lieu o reinstatement1 are laid do*n by the Court in lobe-(ackay Cable and !adio Corporation v. ?ational >abor !elations Commission1 thusH 7ver time1 the ollo*ing reasons have been advanced by the Court or denying reinstatement under the acts o the case and the la* applicable thereto that reinstatement can no longer be efected in vie* o the long passage o time A)) years o litigation or because o the realities o the situation or that it *ould be inimical to the employer4s interest4 or that reinstatement may no longer be easible or1 that it *ill not serve the best interests o the parties involved or that the company *ould be pre5udiced by the *orkers4 continued employment or that it *ill not serve any prudent purpose as *hen supervening acts have transpired *hich make e:ecution on that score un5ust or ine+uitable or1 to an increasing e:tent1 due to the resultant atmosphere o antipathy and antagonism4 or strained relations4 or irretrievable estrangement4 bet*een the employer and the employee. !espondent admits receiving a reinstatement notice rom petitioner. 6hereater1 respondent *as assigned to one o petitionerQs clients. /o*ever1 respondent pointed out that he *as not sreinstated by petitioner1 but *as employed by another company1 Emme Security and (aintenance Systems1 Inc. 6hus1 according to respondent1 he *as not reinstated at all. Petitioner countered that Emeritus and Emme are sister companies *ith the same
2oard o Directors and o@cers1 arguing that Emeritus and Emme are in efect one and the same corporation. Considering petitionerQs undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme are one and the same1 there is no basis in respondentQs allegation that he *as not reinstated to his previous employment. ?othing in the records sho*ed any strained relations bet*een the parties to *arrant the a*ard o separation pay. 6here is neither allegation nor proo that such animosity e:isted bet*een petitioner and respondent.
Topic: +ntegration o1 'lloances Ponente: Pres6itero J. 2elasco Jr., J.: =an0 Eank v. aval, G.R. o. !#%&">, 'pril >, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner >2P granted its o@cers and employees Cost o >iving 0llo*ance AC7>0 and a monthly allo*ance called a <2ank E+uity Pay< A2EP. >2P issued a resolution integrating the C7>0 into the basic pay o >2P employees *hich took efect on (ay #L1 #$G$. 7n 0ugust )#1 #$G$1 !.0. L%G1 other*ise kno*n as the Salary Standardi,ation >a* ASS>1 *as enacted *hich provides the integrationBconsolidation o allo*ances and additional compensation into the standardi,ed salary rates save or certain additional compensation enumerated therein and others that the Department o 2udget and (anagement AD2( is mandated to determine. D2(-CCC ?o. #& A!ules and Implementation o !0 L%G or 7CCs and 9Is speci=cally stated that the C7>0 and 2EP granted to employees o 7CCs and 9Is shall be deemed integrated into the basic salary efective "uly #1 #$G$. 6hus1 >2P integrated the 2EP into the basic pay o its employees efective as o "uly #1 #$G$.
7n 9ebruary )'1 #$$1 !0 %$&% removed petitioner >2P rom the coverage o the SS>. 6he Court nulli=ed D2(-CCC ?o. #& in De "esus v. Co0 because it *as not published in the 7@cial a,ette or in a ne*spaper o general circulation1 as re+uired by la*. 6he D2( remedied its circular4s deect by publishing D2(-CCC ?o. #& in the 7@cial a,ette in (arch #$$$1 *hich *as released on "uly #1 #$$$. /ence1 D2(-CCC ?o. #&1 as published1 took efect on "uly #L1 #$$$. 0ter the publication o the Decision in De "esus1 respondents started negotiating *ith >2P or the payment o their C7>0 and 2EP bene=ts over and above their monthly basic salaries1 and back payment o the same rom the time that >2P stopped to e:tend them until the =nality o the Decision in De "esus. !espondents appealed to >2P or the restoration o their C7>0 and 2EP. >2P1 ho*ever1 denied respondents4 appeal based on a Civil Service Commission ACSC ruling citing D2( 2udget Circular )&-&' *hich prohibits the payment o C7>0 and similar allo*ances on top o the basic salary on the ground that it *ould constitute double compensation. !espondents instituted a Petition or (andamus beore the !6C to compel >2P to pay their C7>0 and the 2EP allo*ances over and above their basic salaries. 6rial court granted the petition or mandamus and ordered >2P to pay respondents4 claim. Court o 0ppeals a@rmed *ith modi=cation directing respondents to pay an interest o LO per annum on all the amounts due to respondents efective (ay #L1 #$G$1 in the case o C7>01 and "uly #1 #$G$1 in the case o 2EP1 up to the =nality o this Decision1 *hich interest rate should become #)O per annum rom the =nality o this Decision up to its satisaction. +ssue: 3hether or not respondents and intervenors are entitled to the C7>0 and the 2EP on top o their basic salaries rom #$G$ up to the present Ruling: o.
6he Court clari=ed that the nulli;cation o1 DE?CCC o. !) is irrelevant to the vali0it- o1 the provisions o1 the SS= . ?ot*ithstanding the ruling in De "esus vs. Commission on 0udit1 the Court declared the nullity o D2(CCC ?o. #&1 nothing in the decision suggested or intimated the suspension o the efectivity o !ep. 0ct ?o. L%G pending the publication in the 7@cial a,ette o D2(-CCC ?o. #&.
Section #) o SS>. Consolidation o 0llo*ances and Compensation. ; 0ll allo*ances1 e:cept or representation and transportation allo*ances clothing and laundry allo*ances subsistence allo*ance o marine o@cers and cre* on board government vessels and hospital personnel ha,ard pay allo*ances o oreign service personnel stationed abroad and such other additional compensation not other*ise speci=ed herein as may be determined by the D2(1 shall be deemed included in the standardi,ed salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation1 *hether in cash or in kind1 being received by incumbents only as o "uly #1 #$G$ not integrated into the standardi,ed salary rates shall continue to be authori,ed. E:isting additional compensation o any national government o@cial or employee paid rom local unds o a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary o said o@cial or employee and shall be paid by the ?ational overnment. 9rom the oregoing provision1 it is immediately apparent that the SS> mandates the integration o all allo*ances e:cept or the ollo*ingH #. !epresentation and transportation allo*ances ). Clothing and laundry allo*ances '. Subsistence allo*ance o marine o@cers and cre* on board government vessels 8. Subsistence allo*ance o hospital personnel . /a,ard pay L. 0llo*ances o oreign service personnel stationed abroad %. 0nd such other additional compensation not other*ise speci=ed herein as may be determined by the D2(. Since the C=' an0 the E5P are among those e3pressl- e3clu0e0 6the SS= 1rom integration, the- shoul0 6e consi0ere0 as 0eeme0 integrate0 in the stan0ar0ize0 salaries o1 =EP emplo-ees un0er the general rule o1 integration.
C7>0 is one o those allo*ances deemed integrated under Sec. #) o the SS> because A# it had not been e:pressly e:cluded rom the general rule o integration and A) it is a bene=t intended to reimburse the employee or the e:penses he incurred in the perormance o his o@cial unctions. C7>0 is not in the nature o an allo*ance intended to reimburse e:penses incurred by o@cials and employees o the government in the perormance o their o@cial unctions. It is not payment in consideration o the ul=llment o o@cial duty. 0s de=ned1 cost o living reers to 0 is a bene=t intended to cover increases in the cost o living. 6hus1 it is and should be integrated into the standardi,ed salary rates. >7I ?os. #&8 and ##L1 ho*ever1 *ould argue against the idea that they prohibit the integration o either allo*ance into the basic pay o 9I employees. ?o*here in either issuance is it mandated that these allo*ances can only be paid on top o1 and separate rom1 the basic and net pay o the employees o 9Is. 6he rule is that the payment o a salary may be amended by the po*er *hich granted it in the =rst place. Sec. #& o !0 %$&% simply reads as ollo*sH Sec. #&. Section $& o the same 0ct is hereby amended to read as ollo*sH <0ll positions in the 2ank shall be governed by a compensation1 position classi=cation system and +uali=cation1 standards approved by the 2ank4s 2oard o Directors based on a comprehensive 5ob analysis and audit o actual duties and responsibilities. 6he compensation loan shall be comparable *ith the prevailing compensation plans in the private sector and shall be sub5ected to periodic revie* by the 2oard no more than once every t*o A) years *ithout pre5udices to yearly merit revie*s or increases based on productivity and pro=tability. 6he bank shall thereore be e:empt rom e:isting la*s1 rules and regulations on compensation1 position classi=cation and +uali=cation standards. It shall ho*ever endeavor to make its system conorm as closely as possible *ith the principle under !epublic 0ct ?o. L%G.< It is at once apparent rom the +uoted provision that1 by R' >#)>, petitioner =EP ha0 6een given suFcient in0epen0ence an0 autonom- to 0esign its on compensation plan, i.e., to 0eci0e hether to integrate the C=' an0 the E5P into the 6asic pa-. 6his Court cannot dictate the inclusion o the C7>0 and 2EP contrary to the sound business 5udgment o >2P recogni,ed and sustained in !0 %$&%.
6hus1 the back payment o the C7>0 and the 2EP to respondents1 *ere reversed and set aside.
Topic: 7n1air =a6or Practice through Ea0 *aith EargainingA ational +nterest Ponente: Teresita J. =eonar0oDe Castro, J.: Ta6angao Shell Re;ner- 5mplo-ees 'ssociation v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. o. !>)))>, 'pril >, ()!$ *acts: ?ear the e:piration o the C201 petitioner and respondent started negotiations or a ne* C20. Initially1 the union proposed )&O annual increase in basic pay or the ne:t three years *hile the company made a counter-proposal to grant all covered employees a lump sum amount o PG&1&&&.&& yearly or the three-year period o the ne* C20. 6he union lo*ered its proposal to #)O *hile the company increased the lump sum amount to PGG1&&&.&&. 6he company 5usti=ed that its counter-ofer is based on its afordability or the company1 comparison *ith the then e:isting *age levels o allied industry1 and the then e:isting total pay and bene=ts package o the employees. Fnsatis=ed1 the union asked or additional 5usti=cation and re+uested or a copy o the comparison o the salaries o its members and those rom allied industries. 6he company denied the re+uest on the ground that the re+uested inormation *as entrusted to the company under a con=dential agreement. 0lleging ailure on the part o the company to 5ustiy its ofer1 the union maniested that the company *as bargaining in bad aith.
6he company proposed the declaration o a deadlock and recommended that the help o a third party be sought. 6he union replied that they *ould ormally ans*er the proposal o the company a day ater the signing o the o@cial minutes o the meeting. 7n that same day1 ho*ever1 the union =led a ?otice o Strike in the ?C(21 alleging bad aith bargaining on the part o the company. 6he ?C(2 immediately summoned the parties or the mandatory conciliation-mediation proceedings but the parties ailed to reach an amicable settlement. During the cooling of period1 the members o the union unanimously voted or the holding o a strike. Fpon being a*are o this development1 the company =led a Petition or 0ssumption o "urisdiction *ith the Secretary o >abor and Employment. Convinced that such a strike *ould have adverse conse+uences on the national economy1 the Secretary o >abor and
Employment ruled that the labor dispute bet*een the parties *ould cause or likely to cause a strike in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 6hus1 he assumed 5urisdiction and the union *as en5oined rom any orm o concerted action. Court o 0ppeals ruled that the So>E did not commit grave abuse o discretion. 6he union =led a complaint or unair labor practice beore ?>!C on the ground that the company reused1 or violated its duty1 to bargain. 6he complaint *as or*arded to So>E because the issue raised by the union *as a proper incident o the labor dispute over *hich the Secretary o >abor and Employment assumed 5urisdiction. So>E held that there *as already deadlock although the ground or the =rst ?otice o Strike *as unair labor practice or bargaining in bad aith. It ound no unair labor practice through bad aith bargaining. +ssuesH 3hether or not there is unair labor practice through bad aith bargaining
3hether or not the Secretary o >abor committed grave abuse o discretion *hen he assumed 5urisdiction over the labor dispute Ruling: o.
6he 0octrine o1 conclusiveness o1 8u0gment states that a act or +uestion *hich *as in issue in a ormer suit1 and *as there 5udicially passed on and determined by a court o competent 5urisdiction1 is conclusively settled by the 5udgment therein1 as ar as concerns the parties to that action and persons in privity *ith them1 and cannot be again litigated in any uture action bet*een such parties or their privies1 in the same court or any other court o concurrent 5urisdiction on either the same or a diferent cause o action1 *hile the 5udgment remains unreversed or unvacated by proper authority. 6he only identities thus re+uired or the operation o the 5udgment as an estoppel : : : are identity o parties and identity o issues. 6he Decision o the So>E in the labor dispute over *hich he assumed 5urisdiction has long attained =nality. In this connection1 0rticle )L'Ai o the >abor Code is clearH 0!6. )L'. Strikes1 picketing1 and lockouts. ; : : : :::: Ai 6he Secretary o >abor and Employment1 the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute *ithin thirty A'& calendar days
rom the date o the assumption o 5urisdiction or the certi=cation or submission o the dispute1 as the case may be. 6he decision o the President1 the Secretary o >abor and Employment1 the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall be =nal and e:ecutory ten A#& calendar days ater receipt thereo by the parties. Pursuant to 0rticle )L'Ai o the >abor Code1 the Decision o1 the So=5 6ecame ;nal an0 e3ecutor- ater the lapse o the period provided under the said provision. (oreover1 neither party urther +uestioned the Decision. ' uestion o1 1act cannot properl- 6e raise0 in a petition 1or revie un0er Rule $% o1 the Rules o1 Court. The e3istence o1 6a0 1aith is a uestion o1 1act an0 is evi0entiar- . 6he crucial +uestion o *hether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good aith typically turns on the acts o the individual case1 and good aith or bad aith is an inerence to be dra*n rom the acts. 6hus1 the issue o *hether or not there *as bad aith on the part o the company *hen it *as bargaining *ith the union is a +uestion o act. It re+uires that the revie*ing court look into the evidence to =nd i indeed there is proo that is substantial enough to sho* such bad aith.
6he issue o *hether there *as already deadlock bet*een the union and the company is like*ise a +uestion o act. It re+uires the determination o evidence to =nd *hether there is a E that there already e:isted a bargaining deadlock *hen she assumed 5urisdiction over the labor dispute bet*een the union and the company1 and that there *as no bad aith on the part o the company *hen it *as bargaining *ith the union are both supported by substantial evidence. o.
0s there is already an e:isting controversy on the matter o *age increase1 the Secretary o >abor and Employment need not *ait or a deadlock in the negotiations to take cogni,ance o the matter. 6hat is the signi=cance o the poer o1 the Secretar- o1 =a6or an0 5mplo-ment un0er 'rticle (&HIg o1 the =a6or Co0e to assume 8uris0iction over a la6or 0ispute causing or likel- to cause a strike or lockout in an in0ustrin0ispensa6le to the national interest. 0rticle )L'Ag is both an e:traordinary and a preemptive po*er to address an e:traordinary situation a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 6his grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice o strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout nor is it limited to the incidents o the strike or lockout that in the mean*hile may have taken place. 0s the term abor Secretary ull authority to resolve all matters *ithin the dispute that gave rise to or *hich arose out o the strike or lockout it includes and e:tends to all +uestions and controversies arising rom or related to the dispute1 including cases over *hich the labor arbiter has e:clusive 5urisdiction.
Topic: =oss o1 Trust an0 Con;0ence Ponente: Eienveni0o =. Re-es, J.: Eluer than Elue Joint 2entures v. 5ste6an, G.R. o. !#(%"(, 'pril >, ()!$ *acts: Esteban *as hired as Sales Clerk by petitioner. Part o her primary tasks *ere attending to all customer needs1 ensuring e@cient inventory1 coordinating orders rom clients1 cashiering and reporting to the accounting department.
Petitioner received a report that several employees have access to its P7S system through a universal pass*ord given by 9lores. Fpon investigation1 it *as discovered that it *as Esteban *ho gave 9lores the pass*ord. 6he
petitioner sent a letter memorandum to Esteban1 asking her to e:plain in *riting *hy she should not be disciplinary dealt *ith or tampering *ith the company4s P7S system through the use o an unauthori,ed pass*ord. Esteban *as also placed under preventive suspension or ten days. Esteban admitted that she used the universal pass*ord three times on the same day1 ater she learned o it rom t*o other employees *ho she sa* bro*sing through the petitioner4s sales in+uiry. She in+uired ho* the employees *ere able to open the system and she *as told that they used the <#)'8L< pass*ord. Esteban4s preventive suspension *as lited1 but at the same time1 a notice o termination *as sent to her1 =nding her e:planation unsatisactory and terminating her employment immediately on the ground o loss o trust and con=dence. Esteban *as given her =nal pay1 including bene=ts and bonuses1 less inventory variances incurred by the store. Esteban signed a +uitclaim and release in avor o the petitioner. Esteban =led a complaint or illegal dismissal1 illegal suspension1 holiday pay1 rest day and separation pay. >0 ruled in avor o Esteban and ound that she *as illegally dismissed. ?>!C reversed the decision o the >0 and dismissed the case or illegal dismissal but ordered petitioner to reund to Esteban the illegal deductions based on inventory variances. Court o 0ppeals reinstated >04s ruling. +ssueH 3hether or not Esteban4s acts constitute 5ust cause to terminate her employment *ith the company on the ground o loss o trust and con=dence Ruling H o. =oss o1 trust an0 con;0ence is premise0 on the 1act that the emplo-ee concerne0 hol0s a position o1 responsi6ilit-, trust an0 con;0ence. 6he employee must be invested *ith con=dence on delicate matters1 such as the custody1 handling1 care and protection o the employer4s property and unds. 0mong the =duciary rank-and-=le employees are cashiers1 auditors1 property custodians1 or those *ho1 in the normal e:ercise o their unctions1 regularly handle signi=cant amounts o money or property. 6hese employees1 though rank-and-=le1 are routinely charged *ith the care and custody o the employer4s money or property1 and are thus classi=ed as occupying positions o trust and con=dence.
In this case1 Esteban *as a sales clerk. /er duties1 ho*ever1 *ere more than that o a sales clerk. 0side rom attending to customers and tending to the shop1 Esteban also assumed cashiering duties. 0s consistently ruled by the Court1 it is not the 5ob title but the actual *ork that the employee perorms
that determines *hether he or she occupies a position o trust and con=dence. In Esteban4s case1 given that she had in her care and custody the store4s property and unds1 she is considered as a rank-and-=le employee occupying a position o trust and con=dence. =oss o1 trust an0 con;0ence to 6e a vali0 cause 1or 0ismissal must 6e ork relate0 such as oul0 sho the emplo-ee concerne0 to 6e un;t to continue orking 1or the emplo-er an0 it must 6e 6ase0 on a il1ul 6reach o1 trust an0 1oun0e0 on clearl- esta6lishe0 1acts. Such breach is *ilul i it is done intentionally1 kno*ingly1 and purposely1 *ithout 5usti=able e:cuse as distinguished rom an act done carelessly1 thoughtlessly1 heedlessly or inadvertently. 6he loss o trust and con=dence must spring rom the voluntary or *ilul act o the employee1 or by reason o some blame*orthy act or omission on the part o the employee.
In this case1 Esteban4s acts do not amount to a *ilul breach o trust. /er acts *ere out o curiosity and *ithout any obvious intention o derauding the petitioner. She *as acting in good aith in veriying *hat her co-staf told her about the opening o the computer by the use o the <#)'8L< pass*ord1 : : :. She even told her co-staf not to open again said computer1 and that *as the =rst and last time she opened said computer. (oreover1 the petitioner even admitted that Esteban has her o*n pass*ord to the P7S system. I it *as her intention to manipulate the store4s inventory and unds1 she could have done so long beore she had kno*ledge o the unauthori,ed pass*ord. 2ut the acts on hand sho* that she did not. 6he petitioner also ailed to establish a substantial connection bet*een Esteban4s use o the <#)'8L< pass*ord and any loss sufered by the petitioner. Indeed1 it may be true that1 as posited by the petitioner1 it is the act that she used the pass*ord that gives cause to the loss o trust and con=dence on Esteban. /o*ever1 such breach must have been done intentionally1 kno*ingly1 and purposely1 and *ithout any 5usti=able e:cuse1 and not simply something done carelessly1 thoughtlessly1 heedlessly or inadvertently. /er careless acts do not merit the imposition o the penalty o dismissal. Preventive suspension is a measure alloe0 6- la an0 aor0e0 to the emplo-er i1 an emplo-ee
In this case1 the petitioner *as acting *ell *ithin its rights *hen it imposed a #&-day preventive suspension on Esteban. 3hile it may be that the acts complained o *ere committed by Esteban almost a year beore the investigation *as conducted1 still1 it should be pointed out that Esteban *as perorming unctions that involve handling o the petitioner4s property and
unds1 and the petitioner had every right to protect its assets and operations pending Esteban4s investigation. 'rticle !!H o1 the =a6or Co0e provi0es that no emplo-er, in his on 6ehal1 or in 6ehal1 o1 an- person, shall make an- 0e0uction 1rom the ages o1 his emplo-ees, e3cept in cases here the emplo-er is authorize0 6- la or regulations issue0 6- the Secretar- o1 =a6or an0 5mplo-ment, among others.
6he 7mnibus !ules Implementing the >abor Code1 mean*hile1 providesH SEC6I7? #8. Deduction or loss or damage. ; 3here the employer is engaged in a trade1 occupation or business *here the practice o making deductions or re+uiring deposits is recogni,ed to ans*er or the reimbursement o loss or damage to tools1 materials1 or e+uipment supplied by the employer to the employee1 the employer may make *age deductions or re+uire the employees to make deposits rom *hich deductions shall be made1 sub5ect to the ollo*ing conditionsH Aa 6hat the employee concerned is clearly sho*n to be responsible or the loss or damage Ab 6hat the employee is given reasonable opportunity to sho* cause *hy deduction should not be made Ac 6hat the amount o such deduction is air and reasonable and shall not e:ceed the actual loss or damage and Ad 6hat the deduction rom the *ages o the employee does not e:ceed )& percent o the employee4s *ages in a *eek. In this case1 the petitioner ailed to su@ciently establish that Esteban *as responsible or the negative variance it had in its sales and that Esteban *as given the opportunity to sho* cause the deduction rom her last salary should not be made. 6he petitioners should =rst establish that the making o deductions rom the salaries is authori,ed by la*1 or regulations issued by the Secretary o >abor. 6hus1 the decision o the Court o 0ppeals is a@rmed but the a@rmation o respondent4s preventive suspension *as reversed. >0 *as ordered to re-
compute the monetary a*ard in avor o Esteban and to e:clude the a*ard o back*ages during such period o preventive suspension1 i any.
Topic: 'ar0 o1 loss o1 1uture earnings, moral 0amages, e3emplar0amages an0 attorne-, ()!$ *acts: 6home Ship (anagement Pte. >td.1 acting through its agent petitioner (agsaysay (aritime Corporation A(agsaysay hired respondent 7scar D. Chin1 "r. to *ork or nine months as able seaman on board (V Star Siranger Chin *as to receive a basic pay o FSM# per month. Chin sustained in5uries *hile *orking on his 5ob aboard the vessel. Dr. Solan o 3ilmington1 ?orth Carolina1 FS01 ound him to have sufered rom lumbosacral strain due to heavy liting o pressuri,ed machine. 6he doctor gave him medications and advised him to see an orthopedist and a cardiologist. Chin *as repatriated. 7n return to the Philippines1 Chin under*ent a surgical procedure called laminectomy and discectomy >-8->-. 0 year ater the operation1 Dr. !obert D. >im o the (etropolitan /ospital diagnosed Chin to have a moderate rigidity o his tract.
Chin =led a claim or disability *ith PandimanPhils.1 Inc. *hich is the local agent o P R I Club o *hich (agsaysay (aritime is a member. Pandiman ofered FSM'&1&&&.&& as disability compensation *hich Chin accepted. /e then e:ecuted a !elease and uitclaim in avor o (agsaysay (aritime. Chin =led a complaint *ith the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C1 claiming underpayment o disability bene=ts and attorney4s ees. /e later amended his complaint to include claims or damages. 6he >abor 0rbiter dismissed Chin4s complaint or lack o merit. 6he ?>!C a@rmed the dismissal. 7n appeal1 ho*ever1 the Court o 0ppeals AC0 reversed the dismissal and ruled that Chin *as entitled to permanent total disability bene=t o FSML&1&&&.&&. 6he C0 remanded the case to the >abor 0rbiter or determination o the other monetary claims o Chin. 6his prompted petitioner (agsaysay to come beore this court on a petition or revie* on certiorari. 6he Court denied the petition1 ho*ever1 in a !esolution. 6his !esolution became =nal and e:ecutor.
(agsaysay paid the de=ciency a*ard o FSM'&1&&&.&& in ull and =nal settlement o Chin4s disability compensation claim. 7n 9ebruary )L1 )&&%1 ho*ever1 the >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision ordering it to pay ChinH a P#$1)%$.% as reimbursement or medical e:penses b FSM#8%1&)L.8' as loss o uture *ages c P)&&1&&&.&& as moral damages d P%1&&&.&& as e:emplary damages and e #&O o the total a*ard as attorney4s ees. ?>!C modi=ed the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision by deleting the a*ards o loss o uture *ages and moral and e:emplary damages or lack o actual and legal bases. 7n appeal1 the C0 reversed the ?>!C4s Decision and ordered the reinstatement o the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision1 hence1 this petition. +ssueH 3hether or not the a*ard o loss o uture earnings on top o his disability bene=ts as *ell as a*ards o moral and e:emplary damages and attorney4s ees is valid. Ruling:o.
>abor 0rbiter4s a*ard o loss o earning is un*arranted since Chin had already been given disability compensation or loss o earning capacity. 0n additional a*ard or loss o earnings *ill result in double recovery. In a catena o cases1 the Court has consistently ruled that 0isa6ilit- shoul0 not 6e un0erstoo0 more on its me0ical signi;cance 6ut on the loss o1 earning capacit-. Permanent total disability means disablement o an employee to earn *ages in the same kind o *ork1 or *ork o similar nature that he *as trained or or accustomed to perorm1 or any kind o *ork *hich a person o his mentality and attainment could do. Disability1 thereore1 is not synonymous *ith
Topic:Computation o1 6ackages Ponente: Justice 'rturo D. Erion @5PL+= CRPR'T+ vs. '=?5R R. 'E+G an0 ''E5==5 ?. T7'M,G.R. o. ()>#"H 'pril >, ()!$ *acts: In a complaint or illegal dismissal =led by respondents 0lmer !. 0bing and 0nabelle (. 6ua,on against petitioner 3enphil Corp.1 the ormer *ere a*arded back*ages. 2ut the period or the computation o the back*ages set by the >abor 0rbiter A>0 *as inconsistent *ith that o the Court o 0ppeals AC0. 0ccording to the >01 *hose ruling the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C a@rmed1 the period or computation should be rom 9eb. #1 )&&)1 the day *hen petitioner last paid respondents4 back*ages1 until ?ov. G1 )&&) *hen the ?>!C4s decision became =nal and e:ecutory.
7n the other hand1 the C01 in setting aside the ?>!C4s rulings1 relied on the case o P=,er v. Velasco A.!. ?o. #%%8L%1 (arch $1 )#1 L8 SC!0 #' *here the Supreme Court ruled that the back*ages o the dismissed employee should be granted during the period o appeal until reversal by a higher court. Since the =rst C0 decision that ound the respondents had not been illegally dismissed *as promulgated on 0ug. )%1 )&&'1 then the reversal by the higher court *as efectively made on 0ug. )%1 )&&'. +ssueH 3hether or not the Court o 0ppeals is correct that the date o computation should start on 9ebruary #1 )&&). Ruling:o.
0mong various vie*s1 the comman0ing one is the rule in P;zer1 *hich merely echoes the rulings the Supreme Court ASC made in the cases o !o+uero v. Philippine 0irlines A.!. ?o. #)')$1 88$ Phil. 8'% A)&&' and arcia v. Philippine 0irlines A.!. ?o. #L8GL1 "anuary )&1 )&&$1 %L SC!0 8%$ that the perio0 1or computing the 6ackages 0ue to the respon0ents 0uring the perio0 o1 appeal shoul0 en0 on the 0ate that a higher court reverse0 the la6or ar6itration ruling o1 illegal 0ismissal . In this case1 the higher court that =rst reversed the ?>!C4s ruling *as not the SC but rather the C0. In this light1 the C0 *as correct *hen it ound that that the period o computation should end on 0ug. )%1 )&&'. 6he date *hen the SC4s decision became =nal and e:ecutory need not matter as the rule in !o+uero1 arcia and P=,er merely reerred to the date o reversal1 not the date o the ultimate =nality o such reversal.
0s a last minor detail1 *e do not agree *ith the C0 that the date o computation should start on 9eb. #1 )&&). !ather1 it should be on 9eb. #L1 )&&). 6he respondents themselves admitted in their motion or computation and issuance o *rit o e:ecution that the last date *hen they *ere paid their back*ages *as on 9eb. #1 )&&). 6o start the computation on the same date *ould result to a duplication o *ages or this day thus1 computation should start on the ollo*ing date ; 9eb. #L1 )&&).
Topic: 'ar0 o1 moral an0 e3emplar- 0amages Ponente: Justice Eienveni0o =. Re-es SP+ T5CL=G+5S, +C. an0 =5' 2+=='752' vs. 2+CTR+' K. ?'P7', G.R. o. !#!!%$ 'pril >, ()!$ *acts: Victoria K. (apua *as the Corporate Development4s !esearchB2usiness Intelligence Fnit /ead and (anager o SPI 6echnologies1 Inc. ASPI. Subse+uently1 the Vice President and Corporate Development /ead1 Peter (a+uera hired Eli,abeth ?olan as (apua4s supervisor. 6he hard disk on (apua4s laptop crashed1 causing her to lose =les and data. (apua inormed ?olan and her colleagues that she *as *orking on recovering the lost data and asked or their patience or any possible delay on her part in meeting deadlines. (apua retrieved the lost data *ith the assistance o ?ational 2ureau o Investigation 0nti-9raud and Computer Crimes Division. Jet1 ?olan inormed (apua that she *as realigning (apua4s position to become a subordinate o co-manager Sameer !aina due to her missing a *ork deadline.
?olan and !aina started giving out ma5ority o her research *ork and other duties under /ealthcare and >egal Division to the rank-and-=le staf. (apua consulted these *ork problems *ith SPI4s /uman !esource Director1 >ea Villanueva and asked i she can be transerred to another department *ithin SPI. (apua allegedly sa* the ne* table o organi,ation o the Corporate Development Division *hich *ould be renamed as the (arketing Division. 6he ne* structure sho*ed that (apua4s level *ill be again do*ngraded because a ne* manager *ill be hired and positioned bet*een her rank and !aina4s. She *as inormed that she should cease reporting or *ork the ne:t day. /er laptop computer and company mobile phone *ere taken right a*ay and her o@ce phone ceased to unction. (apua =led *ith the >abor 0rbiter A>0 a complaint or illegal dismissal1 claiming reinstatement or or separation pay. 0ter*ards1 she *ent to a meeting *ith SPI1 *here she *as given a second termination letter1 the contents o *hich *ere similar to the =rst one.(apua received through mail1 a third ?otice o 6erminationbut the date o efectivity o the termination *as changed. It urther stated that her separation pay *ill be released and a notation *as inscribed1
unnamed 2usiness Process 7utsourcing company located in ParaTa+ue City. (apua suspected that this advertisement *as or SPI because the *riting style used *as similar to !aina4s. She also claimed that SPI is the only 2P7 o@ce in ParaTa+ue City at that time. 6hereater1 she applied or the position under the pseudonym o <"eanne 6esoro<. 7n the day o her intervie* *ith Prime (anpo*er4s consultant1 (s. Portia Dimatulac the latter allegedly revealed to (apua that SPI contracted Prime (anpo*er4s services to search or applicants or the Corporate Development (anager position.She *asconvinced that her ormer position is not redundant. 0ccording to her1 she under*ent psychiatric counseling and incurred medical e:penses as a result o emotional anguish1 sleepless nights1 humiliation and shame rom being 5obless. She also averred that the manner o her dismissal *as unproessional and incongruous *ith her rank and stature as a manager as other employees have *itnessed ho* she *as orced to vacate the premises on the same day o her termination. 6he company1 through Villanueva1 served a *ritten notice to (apua1 inorming her o her termination efective. (apua reused to receive the notice1 thus1 Villanueva made a notation abor and Employment-?ational Capital !egion AD7>E-?C! inorming the latter o (apua4s termination. (apua *as ofered her separation and =nal pay1 *hich she reused to receive. 2eore the efective date o her termination1 she no longer reported or *ork. SPI has not hired a Corporate Development (anager since then. >0 rendered a Decision1 the redundancy o U(apua4s position being in *ant o actual basis1 her termination is thereore hereby declared illegal. 0ccordingly1 she should be paid her back*ages1 separation pay in lieu o reinstatement1 moral and e:emplary damages and attorney4s ees. SPI appealed the >0 decision to the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C.In ruling so1 the ?>!C held that 0 decision should be reinstated.(apua4s petition *as initially dismissed by the C0. (apua =led a motion or reconsideration *hich *as granted by the C0. It promulgated its Decision1 reinstating the >04s decree. +ssueH
# 3hether or not (apua is illegally dismissed rom *ork. ) 3hether or not the a*ard o moral and e:emplary damages is valid.
! Ruling: 4es.
6he Court does not agree *ith the rationali,ation o the ?>!C that !C ailed to perceive is that
6he Court has consistently accorded the *orking class a right to recover damages or un5ust dismissals tainted *ith bad aith *here the motive o the employer in dismissing the employee is ar rom noble. 6he a*ard o such damages is based not on the >abor Code but on 0rticle ))& o the Civil Code. /o*ever1 the Court observes that the C0 decision a@rming the >04s a*ard o P&&1&&&.&& and P)&1&&&.&& as moral and e:emplary damages1 respectively1 is evi0entl- e3cessive 6ecause the purpose 1or aar0ing 0amages is not to enrich the illegall- 0ismisse0 emplo-ee. Conse+uently1 the Court hereby reduces the amount o P&1&&&.&& each as moral and e:emplary damages
Topic: Seaman Permanent Disa6ilitPonente: Justice Eienveni0o =. Re-es E'RK +T5R'T+'=, +C. AC'PT. T5DR E. O7+J' 'DAR *74 K'+7 C. =TD. vs. 5E5R=4 S. '=C'4, G.R. o. !""!#), 'pril (!, ()!$ *acts: 6he respondent *as employed by 9uyo Kaiun Co. >td. through its local manning agent1 2arko International1 Inc. Apetitioners1 as 0ble-bodied Seaman. 6he employment contract provided or a contract period o nine months. /is prime duty1 among others1 *as to paint and chip rust on deck or superstructure o ship and to give directions to the cre* engaged in cleaning *heelhouse and +uarterdeck on board the vessel1 (BV Cape Iris./aving passed the re+uired Pre-Employment (edical E:amination APE(E and ound =t or sea service1 the respondent boarded the ocean vessel (BV Cape Iris.
0ter one month on board the vessel1 the respondent complained o stif neck1 and his right 5a* started to s*ell. /is physical condition *orsened despite medications given him on board until he signed of at the port o the Sue, Canal1 Egypt *here he *as e:amined by a certain Dr. (ichael /. (ohsen o the Dr.?a,my /ospital. Dr. (ohsen4s diagnosis stated that the respondent had a <=rm mass in the let side o neck *ith severe difuse inection and pus collection in the neck1 gangrene and necrosis in skin and tissues o neck1 Fncontrolled D.(.1 6o:aemia and this condition may be due to chronic disease or malignancy.< 6he (edical !eport issued by the Dr.?a,my /ospital recommended hospital con=nement. 6he respondent *as repatriated to the Philippines.Fpon arrival in (anila1 the respondent *as e:amined by Dr.?icomedes . Cru,1 a company-designated physician. 6he Diagnosis indicatedH Fncontrolled diabetes mellitus and tuberculous adenitis. 6he respondent *as placed under a si:-month antituberculosis treatment. 6he respondent consulted a private physician1 Dr. !egina Pascua 2arba1 *ho also medically assessed him to be sufering rom cervical tuberculosis adenitis as similarly assessed by the companydesignated physician. She recommended continuous treatment and medication or the respondent. 6he respondent =led a complaint or disability bene=ts1 reimbursement o medical e:penses1 payment o the une:pired portion o his contract1 moral and e:emplary damages and attorney4s ees against the petitioners. 6o support his claim1 he alleged that his illness *as contracted *hile he *as on board (BV Cape Iris that he *as repatriated or medical reasons and *as treated or more than #)& days and1 that he sufered a permanent total disability *ith rade # impediment. 6hus1 he should be compensated by the petitioners. 6he petitioners denied the claim and averred that a company-
designated physician1 in act1 issued a hand*ritten medical evaluation =nding his condition *ell-controlled1 asymptomatic1 and stable and thereore1 physically =t to resume *ork anytime. Dr. Cru, declared the respondent =t to *ork on even date ater completion o the anti-Koch4s medication or si: months. Such act *as not disputed hence1 there is no disability to speak o.>0 granted the claim o the respondent. 6he ?>!C reversed the decision o the >0 as it ound no actual and legal basis to support the respondent4s allegation. 6he C0 granted the petition o the respondent and reversed the resolution o the ?>!C. /ence this petition. +ssueH 3hether or not the respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability bene=ts 5ust because his in5ury rendered him incapable o perorming his *ork or more than #)& days. Ruling: 4es.
3hat is important is that he as una6le to per1orm his customarork 1or more than !() 0a-s hich constitutes permanent total 0isa6ilit- 1 and not the actual in8ur- itsel1 . Fndoubtedly1 the illness o the respondent *hich incapacitated him to *ork more than #)& days ater repatriation is considered as *ork-related *hich entitles him to disability bene=ts. 6he Court1 moreover1 agrees *ith the C0 regarding the applica6ilit- o1 the 0octrine in the case o1 Cr-stal Shipping that a sea1arers continuous ina6ilit- to ork 0ue to a orkrelate0 illness 1or a perio0 o1 more than !() 0a-s nee0 not 6e uali;e0 6- a 0eclaration o1 ;tness to ork by a company-designated physician 1or it to 6e consi0ere0 as a permanent total 0isa6ilit- *hich is compensable. It *ould1 thus1 be illogical to apply the ruling laid do*n in Vergara *hich *as promulgated on 7ctober L1 )&&G1 or more than t*o years rom the time the complaint *as =led. 6he o6servance o1 the principle o1 prospectivit- 0ictates that 2ergara shoul0 not operate to strip the respon0ent o1 his cause o1 action or total and permanent disability that accrued since the time o his inability to perorm his customary *ork.
Topic: Retrenchment 0ierentiate0 1rom Re0un0ancPonente: ER+, J. 'R'E+T, et al., v. J'RD+5 P'C+*+C *+'C5, +C., G.R. o. !"!>!#, 'pril (!, ()!$ *acts: Petitioners *ere ormer regular employees o respondent "ardine Paci=c 9inance1 Inc. Aormerly (2 9inance A"ardine. 6he petitioners *ere also o@cers and members o (2 9inance Employees 0ssociation-993 Chapter Athe Fnion1 a legitimate labor union and the sole e:clusive bargaining agent o the employees o "ardine. 7n the claim o =nancial losses1 "ardine decided to reorgani,e and implement a redundancy program among its employees. 6he petitioners *ere among those afected by the redundancy program. "ardine thereater hired contractual employees to undertake the unctions these employees used to perorm. 6he Fnion alleged unair labor practice on the part o "ardine1 as *ell as discrimination in the dismissal o its o@cers and members. ?egotiations ensued bet*een the Fnion and "ardine under the auspices o the ?C(21 and both parties eventually reached an amicable settlement. In the settlement1 the petitioners accepted their redundancy pay *ithout pre5udice to their right to +uestion the legality o their dismissal *ith the ?>!C.
7n "une #1 #$$$1 the petitioners and the Fnion =led a complaint against "ardine *ith the ?>!C or illegal dismissal and unair labor practice. 6he >0 ruled in the petitioners4 avor. 6he C0 reversed the >04s and the ?>!C4s rulings1 and granted "ardine4s petition or certiorari. +ssueH 3hether or not the C0 correctly ruled that the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion *hen it ound that "ardine validly terminated the petitioners4 employment because o redundancy Ruling: o.
!etrenchment and redundancy are t*o diferent concepts they are not synonymous thus1 they should not be used interchangeably. !edundancy e:ists *here the services o an employee are in e:cess o *hat is reasonably demanded by the actual re+uirements o the enterprise. 0 position is redundant *here it is superuous1 and superuity o a position or positions may be the outcome o a number o actors1 such as over hiring o *orkers1 decreased volume o business1 or dropping o a particular product line or service activity previously manuactured or undertaken by the enterprise. Primarily1 employers resort to redundancy *hen the unctions o an employee have already become superuous or in e:cess o *hat the business re+uires. 9or the implementation o a redundancy program to be valid1 the employer must comply *ith the ollo*ing re+uisitesH A# *ritten notice served on both the employees and the Department o >abor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date o retrenchment A) payment o separation pay e+uivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay or every year o service1 *hichever is higher A' good aith in abolishing the redundant positions and A8 air and reasonable criteria in ascertaining *hat positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. Topic: Pa-ment o1 accrue0 ages 0espite reversal o1 0ecision Ponente: ER+, J. E5RG+ v. S7TL 5'ST 'S+' '+R=+5S, G.R. o. !#%((>, 'pril (!, ()!$ *acts: 7n 0pril '&1 )&&81 the petitioners =led beore the >0 a complaint or illegal dismissal and illegal suspension *ith prayer or reinstatement against respondents South East 0sian 0irlines ASE0I! and Irene Dornier as SE0I!4s President Acollectively1 the respondents. 6he >0 ound the petitioners illegally dismissed and ordered the respondents1 among others1 to immediately reinstate the petitioners *ith ull back*ages. 6he respondents appealed *ith the ?>!C the (ay '#1 )&& illegal dismissal ruling o the >0. 6he ?>!C issued an Entry o "udgment on 9ebruary L1 )&&% declaring its ?ovember )$1 )&&L resolution =nal and e:ecutory. 6he C0 rendered its decision Aon the illegal dismissal ruling o the >0 partly granting the respondents4 petition. 6he Court like*ise denied the petitioners4 subse+uent motion or reconsideration1 and thereater issued an Entry o "udgment certiying that its 0ugust 81 )&&G resolution had become =nal and e:ecutory on (arch $1 )&&$. In its "uly #L1 )&&G resolution1 the ?>!C a@rmed in toto the >04s (arch #'1 )&&G order. 6he C0 reversed1 or grave abuse o discretion1 the ?>!C4s "uly #L1 )&&G decision that a@rmed the >04s order to release the garnished amount. +ssueH 3hether or not the petitioners may recover the accrued *ages prior to the C04s reversal o the >04s (ay '#1 )&& decision.
Ruling: 4es.
0n employer1 *ho1 despite the >abor 0rbiter4s order o reinstatement1 did not reinstate the employee during the pendency o the appeal up to the reversal by a higher tribunal may still be held liable or the accrued *ages o the employee1 i.e.1 the unpaid salary accruing up to the time the higher tribunal reverses the decision. 6he rule1 thereore1 is that an employee may still recover the accrued *ages up to and despite the reversal by the higher tribunal. 6his entitlement o the employee to the accrued *ages proceeds rom the immediate and sel-e:ecutory nature o the reinstatement aspect o the >04s decision. 53ception. 6o determine *hether an employee is thus barred1 t*o tests must be satis=edH A# actual delay or the act that the order o reinstatement pending appeal *as not e:ecuted prior to its reversal and A) the delay must not be due to the employer4s un5usti=ed act or omission. ?ote that under the second test1 the delay must be *ithout the employer4s ault. I the delay is due to the employer4s un5usti=ed reusal1 the employer may still be re+uired to pay the salaries not*ithstanding the reversal o the >04s decision.
Fnder the acts and the surrounding circumstances1 the delay *as due to the acts o the respondents that *e =nd *ere un5usti=ed. 6he respondentsQ ailure in this case to e:ercise either option rendered them liable or the petitionersQ accrued salary until the >0 decision *as reversed by the C0 on December #%1 )&&G. Topic: Stan0ar0s 1or regularization/ conceptual un0erpinnings Ponente: P5R='SE5R'E5, J. '66ot =a6oratories Philippines, et al. v. Perlie 'lcaraz GR o. !#(%>!, Jul- (H, ()!H *acts: 6he respondent 0lcara, *as the !egulatory 0fairs and Inormation (anager o 0ventis Pasteur Philippines *ho sho*ed interest in applying as a (edical and !egulatory 0fairs (anager1 a position that *as published by the petitioner 0bbot >aboratories in the ne*spaper. 3hen the petitioner ormally ofered the position to the respondent1 the latter accepted the position. It *as on (ay )'1 )&& that 3alsh1 0lma,ar and 2ernardo ormally handed to the respondent a letter terminating her employment *ith the detailed e:planation or her termination. 6he respondent then =led a complaint or illegal dismissal *ith damages against the petitioner and its o@cers. 6he >abor 0rbiter upheld the termination o probationary employment o the respondent holding that the termination *as 5usti=ed *ith no evidence sho*ing that the o@cers o the 0bbot >ab acted in bad aith *hen terminating her services.
6he ?>!C annulled and set aside the ruling o the >abor 0rbiter *hich prompted the petitioners to =le beore the Court o 0ppeals a petition or certiorari *ith prayer or issuance o a temporary restraining order and *rit o preliminary in5unction. (ean*hile1 the action o the petitioner on its motion or reconsideration o the C04s resolution in the second C0 petition *as denied that became =nal on "anuary #&1 )# because the petitioner ailed to =le a timely appeal on the said decision. 0lcara,1 in her comment1 raised the issue on orum shopping *hen the petitioner =led its second petition to the C0 pending the resolution o the motion or reconsideration that they =led earlier in the December #&1 )&&$ decision. 0lcara, urther contends that the petitioners ailed to comply *ith certi=cation re+uirement under Section 1 !ule % o the rules o court *hen they ailed to disclose in their petition =led on "une #L1 )& (emorandum o 0ppeal =led beore the ?>!C. +ssueH 3hether or not 0lcara, *as validly terminated rom her employment. Ruling: 4es.
0lcara, *as su@ciently inormed o the reasonable standards. 6he employer is made to comply *ith t*o A) re+uirements *hen dealing *ith a probationary employeeH =rst1 the employer must communicate the regulari,ation standards to the probationary employee and second1 the employer must make such communication at the time o the probationary employee4s engagement. I the employer ails to comply *ith either1 the employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary employee. 0 punctilious e:amination o the records reveals that 0bbott had indeed complied *ith the above-stated re+uirements. 6his conclusion is largely impelled by the act that 0bbott clearly conveyed to 0lcara, her duties and responsibilities as !egulatory 0fairs (anager prior to1 during the time o her engagement1 and the incipient stages o her employment. !ecords sho* that 0lcara, *as terminated because she Aa did not manage her time efectively Ab ailed to gain the trust o her staf and to build an efective rapport *ith them Ac ailed to train her staf efectively and Ad *as not able to obtain the kno*ledge and ability to make sound 5udgments on case processing and article revie* *hich *ere necessary or the proper perormance o her duties. Due to the nature and variety o these managerial unctions1 the best that 0bbott could have done1 at the time o 0lcara,Qs engagement1 *as to inorm her o her duties and responsibilities1 the ade+uate perormance o *hich1 to repeat1 is an inherent and implied standard or regulari,ation this is unlike the circumstance in 0liling *here a +uantitative regulari,ation standard1 in the term o a sales +uota1 *as readily articulable to the employee at the outset. /ence1 since the reasonableness
o 0lcara,Qs assessment clearly appears rom the records1 her termination *as 5usti=ed. 2ear in mind that the +uantum o proo *hich the employer must discharge is only substantial evidence *hich1 as de=ned in case la*1 means that amount o relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade+uate to support a conclusion1 even i other minds1 e+ually reasonable1 might conceivably opine other*ise. 0 diferent procedure is applied *hen terminating a probationary employee the usual t*o-notice rule does not govern. Section )1 !ule I1 2ook VI o the Implementing !ules o the >abor Code states that abor Code.
Topic: +llegal Dismissal Ponente: 2+=='R'?', JR., J. ?irant IPhilippines Corporation, et al. v. Joselito '. Caro, G.R. o. !"!$#), 'pril (H, ()!$ *acts: !espondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal and money claims or #'th and #8th month pay1 bonuses and other bene=ts1 as *ell as the payment o moral and e:emplary damages and attorney4s ees. It is the contention o respondent that he *as illegally dismissed by petitioner
corporation due to the latter4s non-compliance *ith the t*in re+uirements o notice and hearing. /e asserts that *hile there *as a notice charging him o abor 0rbiter ound respondent to have been illegally dismissed. 6he ?>!C ound that respondent *as not only validly dismissed or cause ; he *as also properly accorded his constitutional right to due process. 6he C0 disagreed *ith the ?>!C and ruled that it *as immaterial *hether respondent ailed1 reused1 or avoided being tested. 6he C0 ho*ever ound that a*ard o moral and e:emplary damages is *ithout basis due to lack o bad aith on the part o the petitioner corporation *hich merely acted *ithin its management prerogative. +ssueH 3hether or not the respondent *as illegally dismissed Ruling: 4es.
6here *as illegal dismissal. 3hile the adoption and enorcement by petitioner corporation o its anti-drugs policy is recogni,ed as a valid e:ercise o management prerogative as an employer1 such e:ercise is not absolute and unbridled. 3e agree *ith the disposition o the appellate court that there *as illegal dismissal in the case at bar. 3hile the adoption and enorcement by petitioner corporation o its 0ntiDrugs Policy is recogni,ed as a valid e:ercise o its management prerogative as an employer1 such e:ercise is not absolute and unbridled. (anagerial prerogatives are sub5ect to limitations provided by la*1 collective bargaining agreements1 and the general principles o air play and 5ustice.8L In the e:ercise o its management prerogative1 an employer must thereore ensure that the policies1 rules and regulations on *ork-related activities o the employees must al*ays be air and reasonable and the corresponding penalties1 *hen prescribed1 commensurate to the ofense involved and to the degree o the inraction.8% 6he 0nti-Drugs Policy o (irant ell short o these re+uirements. Topic: 'cci0ent an0 Disa6ilit- Eene;ts Ponente: Erion, J.
Sunga v. 2ir8en Shipping Corporation, G.R. o. !#"&$), 'pril (H, ()!$ *acts: Vir5en Shipping Corporation AVir5en1 acting in behal o its oreign principal1 ?issho 7dyssey Ship (anagement Pte. >td.1 entered into a contract o employment *ith Sunga. Fnder the contract1 Sunga *ould be *orking as a =tter on board the ocean-going vessel (6 Sun*ay or nine A$ months on a monthly salary o FSM LL.&&. Sunga4s employment *as covered by the I29 "FSB0(7SFP-I((0" Collective 2argaining 0greement AC20 e:ecuted bet*een Vir5en and ?issho 7dyssey1 0ll "apan Seamen4s Fnion and 0(7SFP.
Sometime in )&&%1 *hile already on board the (6 Sun*ay vessel1 Sunga started to e:perience an on-and-of right ank pain1 making it di@cult or him to *ork. 6he pain became more intense as the days progressed1 thereby prompting him to re+uest or repatriation. 6he re+uest *as granted. Sunga reported to Vir5en4s company-designated physician1 Dr. Cru,1 or medical e:amination. 6he doctor instructed him to undergo (agnetic !esonance Imaging A(!I o his lumbosacral spine. 6he (!I4s results merited the medical advice that Sunga undergo physical therapy or a period o our A8 months under the supervision o Dr. Cru,. Despite the therapy1 Sunga still e:perienced episodes o moderate to severe pain on his right lo*er e:tremity and back. /e also maniested limited trunk mobility and *as unable to undertake liting activities. Dr. Cru, issued a medical certi=cate recommending a rade G disability A(oderate rigidity or )B' loss o motion or liting po*er o the trunk based on the Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration AP7E0 Standard Employment Contract or Seaarers. Dr. Cru, also issued another medical certi=cate recommending a disability grading o )O A2ack pains *ith considerable reduction o mobility in accordance *ith the parties4 C20. 7n the strength o these t*o certi=cates1 Vir5en immediately ofered Sunga the amount o FSM #L1%$.&&1 in accordance *ith the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract or Seaarers1 as ull settlement or the latter4s disability bene=ts. /o*ever1 Sunga re5ected the ofer he demanded instead that his disability bene=ts be based on the disability grading o )O1 pursuant to the provisions o the parties4 C20. Vir5en denied Sunga4s demand. /ence1 on 7ctober )'1 )&&%1 Sunga =led a complaint beore the ?>!C against Vir5en or disability bene=ts as stated in the parties4 C20 Anot under the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract or Seaarers in the amount o FSM ##&1&&&.&&. 6he complaint like*ise prayed or attorney4s ees1 plus moral and e:emplary damages. >abor 0rbiter ruled in Sunga4savour. It ordered Vir5en to pay Sunga his disability compensation bene=ts in the amount o FSM ##&1&&&.&& pursuant to the provisions o the parties4 C20. 6he >abor 0rbiter ruled that Sunga4s
in5ury is not merely an anatomical deect but a bodily harm brought upon by the perormance o his duties and unctions as =tter o the vessel. Vir5en =led a petition or certiorari *ith the C01 attributing grave abuse o discretion on the part o the ?>!C *hich *as granted. 6he C0 reasoned that accident is an unintended and unoreseen in5urious occurrence1 something that does not occur in the usual course o events or could not be reasonably anticipated. 0ccording to the appellate court1 the in5ury *as not accidental it is common kno*ledge that carrying heavy ob5ects can cause in5ury and that liting and carrying heavy ob5ects are part o his duties as =tter. 6hus1 a back in5ury is reasonably anticipated. It cannot serve as basis1 thereore1 or Sunga to be entitled to disability bene=ts. +ssues: !. 3hether the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion to 5ustiy its substitution by the C0 (. 3hether the in5ury sufered by Sunga is accidental or him to get disability bene=ts. Ruling: !. . rave abuse o discretion1 amounting to lack or e:cess o 5urisdiction1 has been de=ned as the capricious and *himsical e:ercise o 5udgment amounting to or e+uivalent to lack o 5urisdiction. 6here is grave abuse o discretion *hen the po*er is e:ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason o passion or personal hostility1 and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion o a positive duty or to a virtual reusal to perorm the duty en5oined or to act at all in contemplation o la*.
6he Court ailed to see any grave abuse o discretion on the part o the ?>!C *hich *ould authori,e the appellate court to substitute its o*n ruling over that o the ?>!C. 6here *as ample evidence to support the =ndings o the ?>!C. 6he C01 in a !ule L petition1 is limited to a simple revie* o *hether there e:isted grave abuse o discretion the C0 should not concern itsel *ith the determination o *hether the ?>!C1 ater evaluation o the evidence presented beore it1 had correctly ruled on the merits o the case. 6he +uestion o intrinsic merits is an issue best let to the labor tribunals *hich are deemed to have mastery over the sub5ect matter. (. 45S. 0s ound by both the ?>!C and the >abor 0rbiter1 Sunga4s in5ury *as the result o the accidental slippage in the handling o the )&&kilogram globe valve *hich triggered Sunga4s back pain the *eight o the globe valve1 coupled *ith the abruptness o the all1 e:plained *hy the in5ury *as so severe as to render Sunga immobile. 3hile indeed Sunga had not e:plained in the re+uest or repatriation the pro:imate
cause o the in5ury1 there *as enough circumstantial evidence to substantiate the claim. In "arco (arketing Corporation1 et al.1 v. Court o 0ppeals1 *e ruled that an accident pertains to an unoreseen event in *hich no ault or negligence attaches to the deendant. It is Wa ortuitous circumstance1 event or happening an event happening *ithout any human agency1 or i happening *holly or partly through human agency1 an event *hich under the circumstances is unusual or une:pected by the person to *hom it happens.X Since Sunga encountered an accident on board (6 Sun*ay1 the C0 thus grossly misappreciated and misread the ruling o the ?>!C1 leading the appellate court to =nd a grave abuse o discretion su@cient or a reversal o the ?>!C ruling. In other *ords1 as the ?>!C ound1 SungaQs disability bene=ts should all *ithin the coverage o the partiesQ C201 *hich providesH 'rticle 2) Disability 2.!
W0 seaarer *ho sufers permanent disability as a result o an accident *hilst in the employment o the Company regardless o ault1 including accidents occurring *hile traveling to or rom the ship1 and *hose ability to *ork as a seaarer is reduced as a result thereo1 but e:cluding permanent disability due to *illul acts1 shall in addition to sick pay1 be entitled to compensation according to the provisions o this 0greement.X In sum1 *e =nd that the ?>!C did not abuse its discretion. It arrived at a proper decision ater ully appreciated o the partiesQ arguments and careully considering the presented evidence. 6hus1 there *as no basis or the C04s conclusion that the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion.
July 2014 Labor Cases Topic: Reim6ursement o1 me0ical e3penses Ponente: Erion, J. Javier v. Transmarine Carriers, +nc., G.R o. ()$!)!, Jul- )(, ()!$ *acts: Philippine 6ransmarine Carriers1 Inc. (PTCI) hired 0lberto as Wpumpman1X on board the vessel (6 ?eptune lory. 6his *as 0lberto4s )&th contract *ith the respondents. Pursuant to the agreement1 0lberto received a basic monthly salary o FSMLL.&& or a contract period o nine months. Prior to his hiring on (arch '1 )&&'1 0lberto under*ent the re+uired Preemployment (edical E:amination (PEME) and *as declared W=t or *orkX by P6CI4s designated physician. In )&&'1 0lberto suddenly elt severe headache accompanied by di,,iness1 vomiting and physical *eakness *hile he *as on board (6 ?eptune lory.
7n ?ovember #1 )&&'1 0lberto *as con=ned at the Fniversity o 6e:as (edical 2ranch /ospital in alveston1 6e:as. /e under*ent a series o medical e:amination and *as diagnosed to be sufering rom hypertension. 7n the doctors4 advice1 0lberto *as repatriated to the Philippines on ?ovember )'1 )&&' or urther medical treatment. Fpon arrival in (anila1 0lberto *as reerred to Dr. Cammayo at the (anila Doctors /ospital. 0lberto under*ent a series o medical treatment and e:amination. 7n (arch '&1 )&&81 0lberto under*ent coronary artery bypass surgery due to a three vessel Coronary 0rtery Disease. 7n 0pril #81 )&&81 0lberto *as discharged rom the (anila Doctors /ospital. 6he doctors1 ho*ever1 ailed to either declare him as W=t to return to *orkX or to assess his disability grading. 6hus1 0lberto sought the opinion o Dr. ErenVicaldo1 a private doctor-cardiologist1 *ho assessed 0lberto4s disability
as Wimpediment grade #X and declared the latter as W un=t to resume *ork as seaman in any capacityX and Wnot e:pected to land a gainul employment given his medical background.X In vie* o Dr. Vicaldo4s assessment1 0lberto claimed rom the respondents4 disability bene=ts and sickness allo*ance pursuant to the Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration Standard Employment Contract (POEASEC). 6he respondents denied 0lberto4s claim. /ence1 0lberto =led beore the >0 a complaint or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 and reimbursement o medical e:penses1 damages and attorney4s ees. 6he >0 ordered the respondents to pay 0lberto the total amount o FSMLG1GGL.8& or its Philippine Peso e+uivalent at the prevailing rate o e:change it consisted o disability bene=ts Ain the amount o FSML&1&&&.&&1 sickness allo*ance Ain the amount o FSM)1L)8.&& or 0lberto4s basic monthly *age o FSMLL.&& or our months1 and attorney4s ees e+uivalent to #&O o the monetary a*ard. 0ccording to the >01 0lberto contracted his illness during the term o his contract *ith the respondents and because o his constant e:posure to e:traneous *ork. /ence1 he is entitled to disability bene=ts. 6he ?>!C a@rmed the >04s decision *ith modi=cation. 6he ?>!C ound that 0lberto made an 0pril #)1 )&&8 certi=cation ackno*ledging receipt in ull o his sickness allo*ance e+uivalent to #)& days Ain the amount o P#881'#G.&' and payment in ull o his medical treatment Ain the amount o P#1$)G1G8#.)%. Since these e:penses1 in the total amount o P)1&%'1#$.'&1 have already been paid1 the ?>!C ordered its deduction rom the peso e+uivalent o the total monetary a*ard o FSMLG1GGL.8&. C0 a@rmed the ?>!C4s resolution. 6he C0 brushed aside the petitioners4 claim or reimbursement o medical e:penses incurred by 0lberto because the petitioners ailed to appeal the portion o the >04s decision that denied 0lberto4s claim on these. It also denied 0lberto4s claim or sickness allo*ance because o 0lberto4s 0pril #)1 )&&8 certi=cation. It re5ected the petitioners4 claim or death bene=ts. It pointed out that death bene=ts are granted to the heirs o the seaarer only *hen the seaarer dies during the term o the contract and or causes that are *ork-related. In this case1 0lberto died ater his employment contract *ith the respondents had already been terminated. +ssue: 3hether 0lberto4s heirs are entitled to reimbursement o the e:penses that 0lberto incurred or his medical treatment as medical e:penses and sickness allo*ance are separate and distinct rom one another and rom disability bene=ts Ruling: 45S. 6he employment o seaarers and its incidents are governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. 6hese contracts have the orce o la* bet*een the parties as long as their stipulations are not contrary to la*1 morals1 public order or public policy. Every seaman and the
vessel o*ner Adirectly or represented by a local manning agency are re+uired to e:ecute the P7E0-SEC as a condition sine qua non to the seaarer4s deployment or overseas *ork. 3hile the seaarers and their employers are governed by their mutual agreements1 the P7E0 rules and regulations re+uire that the P7E0-SEC1 *hich contains the standard terms and conditions o the seaarers4 employment in oreign ocean-going vessels1 be integrated in every seaarer4s contract. In the present case1 Section )&-2 o the )&&& P7E0-SEC Athe governing P7E0-SEC at the time the respondents employed 0lberto in )&&' is the applicable provision. Fnder this section1 the employers assume several kinds o liabilities to the seaarer or any *ork-related illness or in5ury that the seaarer may have sufered during the term o the contract. 6he separate treatment o1 and the distinct considerations in1 these three kinds o liabilities under the P7E0-SEC can only mean that the P7E0-SEC intended to make the employer liable or each o these three kinds o liabilities. In other *ords1 employers mustH A# pay the seaarer sickness allo*ance e+uivalent to his basic *age in addition to the medical treatment that they must provide the seaarer *ith at their cost and A) compensate the seaarer or his permanent total or partial disability as =nally determined by the company-designated physician. Signi=cantly1 too1 *hile Section )& o the P7E0-SEC did not e:pressly state that the employer4s liabilities are cumulative in nature ; so as to hold the employer liable or the sickness allo*ance1 medical e:penses and disability bene=ts ; it does not also state that the compensation and bene=ts are alternative or that the grant o one bars the grant o the others. Fnder this setup1 the Court must be guided by the principle that as a labor contract1 the P7E0-SEC is imbued *ith public interest. 0ccordingly1 its provisions must be construed airly1 reasonably and liberally in avor o the seaarer in the pursuit o his employment on board ocean-going vessels. 0ter all1 the constitutional policy1 *hich *e here uphold and emphasi,e in construing as *e do these P7E0-SEC provisions1 accords and guarantees ull protection to labor1 both local and overseas. /o*ever1 since the sickness allo*ance *as already paid1 it should be deleted rom the monetary a*ard. 6he Court =nds no compelling reason to overturn the ?>!C and the C04s actual =nding that the respondents have ully paid 0lberto4s sickness allo*ance. In this regard1 *e agree *ith the C0 that the ?>!C committed no grave abuse o discretion in ordering the deletion o the sickness allo*ance bene=t in the amount o P#881 '#G.&' rom the peso e+uivalent o the amount a*arded to 0lberto. 6he >04s grant o sickness allo*ance despite its ull payment is clearly contrary to the provisions o the P7E0-SEC its ruling ine+uitably resulted in a double payment to 0lberto at the respondents4 e:pense.
Similarly1 *e are bound by the ?>!C and the C04s actual =nding that the respondents ully paid 0lberto4s medical e:penses. /o*ever1 unlike the deletion o sickness allo*ance bene=ts1 *e =nd that the C0 legally erred in not =nding that the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion in ordering the deduction o the medical e:penses paid by the respondents rom the total monetary a*ard. 6he ?>!C4s action is *himsical and arbitrary or clear lack o actual1 legal and 5urisprudential basis. 0s earlier stated1 the >0 denied or lack o basis 0lberto4s prayer or reimbursement o medical e:penses. 6he total monetary a*ard o FSMLG1GGL.8& consisted only o the disability bene=ts1 sickness allo*ance and attorney4s ees. In vie* o the ?>!C4s ruling that ordered the deletion o the sickness allo*ance rom the total monetary a*ard1 0lberto *as efectively let *ith only the disability bene=ts and the #&O attorney4s ees as his monetary a*ard. In this regard1 the ?>!C had no reason1 both in act and in la*1 to order the deduction rom the total monetary a*ard AFSMLG1GGL.8& the amount o P#1$)G1G8#.)% incurred Aand *hich the respondents had already paid in ull or 0lberto4s medical treatment. 0s a matter o act1 the >0 did not a*ard 0lberto any amount as reimbursement or his medical e:penses *hich the ?>!C could arguably consider as double reimbursement or payment resulting in Wun5ust enrichmentX on 0lberto4s part. 0s a matter o la*1 the bene=t o medical treatment at the employer4s e:pense is1 as earlier discussed1 separate and distinct rom the disability bene=ts and sickness allo*ance to *hich the seaarer is additionally entitled. 6he ?>!C reached its conclusion even i the P7E0-SEC treats these t*o kinds o liabilities distinctly and even i the bases or their payment are diferent. 6his clearly smacks o grave abuse o discretion amounting to lack and e:cess o 5urisdiction. rave abuse o discretion *as patent *hen the ?>!C acted contrary to the acts ; that the >0 did not a*ard 0lberto medical e:penses ; and the provisions o the la* - in this case1 the P7E0-SEC.
Topic: Reinstatement ithout loss o1 seniorit- rights Ponente: Perez, J. 'mpelouio v. Jaka Distri6ution, +nc., G.R. o. !#H&, Jul- (, ()!$ *acts: 0mpelo+uio is a reinstated employee o respondent "aka Distribution1 Inc. A"0K01 ormerly !(I (arketing Corporation A!(I. Previously1 0mpelo+uio had =led a complaint or illegal dismissal against !(I beore the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C. Subse+uently1 the >abor 0rbiter ound !(I guilty o illegal dismissal. 0mpelo+uio resumed *ork as merchandiser at "0K0 and reported at "0K04s outlets *ithin (etro (anila1 Shop*ise (akati and 0labang. /e received a daily *age o P)).&&1 *ithout meal and transportation allo*ance. In )&&1 0mpelo+uio *as transerred outside o (etro (anila1 to >ucena City and subse+uently to San Pablo City. 0t that time1 he *as receiving the same daily *age o P)).&&1 *ithout meal
and transportation allo*ance. 0mpelo+uio *as given a monthly cost o living allo*ance AC7>0 o P%)&.&&. 0mpelo+uio re+uested or salary ad5ustment and bene=ts retroactive to the date o his reinstatement1 L 0ugust )&&81 and payment o salary diferential in the total amount o P8)1#$L.&&. In another letter1 0mpelo+uio *rote "0K0 reiterating his re+uest or salary ad5ustment and payment o bene=ts retroactive to his reinstatement1 and an increase rom his previous re+uest o salary diferential *hich amounted to a total o P#G&1$&.&&.0mpelo+uio based his re+uest on *hat other merchandisers o "0K0 received. 2ecause o the discrepancy in *ages1 0mpelo+uio =led ane* beore the ?>!C1 a complaint or underpayment o *ages1 C7>01 non-payment o meal and transportation allo*ances. >0 /ernande, granted 0mpelo+uio4s complaint or underpayment o *ages1 basic and C7>0 and non-payment o allo*ances1 meal and transportation. 7n appeal by "0K01 the ?>!C proper1 in its !esolutionmodi=ed the amounts ordered by the >abor 0rbiter to be paid by "0K0 to 0mpelo+uio. 0mpelo+uiois thereore entitled to a total salary diferential o only P))1#%).&&.
"0K04s contention that 0mpelo+uio is not entitled to reimbursement o transportation e:penses rom the latter4s house to the outlet *here he *as assigned and back is impressed *ith merit as "0K0 submitted a copy o their policies and the pertinent portion1 statesH <%. 6he only transportation e:penses allo*ed to be reimbursed are those incurred rom the =rst outlet to succeeding outlets. 6he transportation reimbursement shall not include house to =rst outlet and last outlet to house.< 0ggrieved by the ?>!C4s modi=cation o *hat 0mpelo+uio obviously perceived as an acceptable monetary a*ard1 the latter =led a petition or certiorari beore the Court o 0ppeals be*ailing grave abuse o discretion inH A# the reduction o his a*ard o salary diferential to only ))1#%).&& A) the deletion o his entitlement to transportation e:penses and A' the deletion o the a*ard o moral and e:emplary damages.6he appellate court dismissed 0mpelo+uio4s petition or certiorari =nding no grave abuse o discretion in the ?>!C4s ruling and =nding that1 in act1 it is supported by substantial evidence. +ssues: !. 3hat is the scope vis-a-vis *ages o reinstatement <*ithout loss o seniority rights and other privileges.< (. 3hat is the salary rate he is entitled to Ruling:
Seniority rights reer to the creditable years o service in the employment record o the illegally dismissed employee as i he or she never ceased *orking or the employer. In other *ords1 the employee4s years o service is deemed continuous and never interrupted. Such is like*ise the rationale or reinstatement4s t*in relie o ull back *ages. 0mpelo+uio is correct in asserting that he is a senior employee compared to the other merchandisers *hom he himsel designates as casual or contractual merchandisers. /e is like*ise senior to other regular employees subse+uently hired by "0K01 speci=cally t*o regular messenger employees *hich 0mpelo+uio claims receive *ages higher than *hat he is receiving rom "0K0. 0ttached to the recognition o seniority rights o a reinstated employee *ho had been illegally dismissed is the entitlement to *ages appurtenant thereto. 6he case o 0mpelo+uio is outside the ordinary. /is reinstatement *as ordered *hen merchandisers like him *ere no longer employed by "0K0. /e is not entitled to the same terms and conditions o employment as that *hich *as ofered to the other regular employees Anot merchandisers subse+uently hired by "0K0."0K04s decision to grant or *ithhold certain bene=ts to other employees is part o its management prerogative as a unction o an employer4s constitutionally protected right to reasonable return on investments. 0mpelo+uio cannot like*ise compare his *ages to that received by
other regular employees o "0K0 the re+uired number o years o service to +ualiy or retirement. In all1 the labor tribunals *ere right in using as guidepost the e:isting statutory minimum *ages and C7>0 during the three A' year prescriptive period *ithin *hich 0mpelo+uio can make his money claims. 3e are not una*are that reinstatement is the rule and such covers reinstatement to the same or substantially e+uivalent position *ithout loss o seniority rights and privileges. In this case1 "0K0 did not claim e:ceptions to the rule o reinstatement1 i.e.1 A# strained relations1 or A) abolition o the position "0K0 immediately complied *ith the >abor 0rbiter4s order o reinstatement. 3e note that1 speci=cally1 "0K0 could have claimed that the position o merchandiser no longer e:ists and has been abolished *ith the contracting o this 5ob unction. /o*ever1 it merely opted to reinstate 0mpelo+uio to the same position. 6here is no +uarrel that *ith his reinstatement1 0mpelo+uio is no* the lone regular merchandiser o "0K0. 6he option o reinstatement to a substantially e+uivalent position does not apply herein as reinstatement to a substantially e+uivalent position entails the same or similar 5ob unctions and not 5ust same *ages or salary. 0s applied to this case1 0mpelo+uio cannot be reinstated to a messengerial position although such is a regular employment en5oying the same employment bene=ts and privileges. /is employment cannot like*ise be converted into a contractual employment as such is actually a do*ngrade rom his regular employment en5oying security o tenure *ith "0K0. 0s the sole regular merchandiser o "0K01 0mpelo+uio4s reinstatement entitles him1 at the minimum1 to the standard minimum *age at the time o his employment and to the *ages he *ould have received rom "0K0 had he not been illegally dismissed1 as i there *as no cessation o employment. 0mpelo+uio is like*ise entitled to any increase *hich "0K0 may have given across the board to all its regular employees. 6o repeat1 0mpelo+uio is not entitled to all bene=ts or privileges received by other employees subse+uently hired by "0K0 5ust by the act o his seniority in the service *ith "0K0.
Topic: Pa-ment o1 separation paPonente: 2illarama, Jr., J. +mmaculate Conception 'ca0em- v. Camilon G.R. o. !"")H% Jul- (, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner Immaculate Conception 0cademy AIC0 is an educational corporation duly organi,ed and e:isting under the la*s o the Philippines and co-petitioner Dr. "ose Paulo Campos is the president o IC0. !espondent Evelyn Camilon *as an employee o IC0 or #) years. She *as IC04s Chie 0ccountant and 0dministrator rom "une )&&& until her dismissal. 0s Chie 0ccountant1 respondent *as responsible1 among others1 or pre-auditing the school cashier4s report1 checking the entries therein and keeping custody o the petty cash und. She has also direct supervision over the School Cashier1 "anice >oba A>oba.
In "uly )&&81 IC04s 6reasurer1 Shirley Enobal1 received a complaint rom the ather o one student *ho claimed that his son *as denied issuance o an e:amination permit or nonpayment otuition ees despite the act that the said ees had already been paid. Cristina "avier1 Internal 0uditor o IC01 conducted an audit upon the instruction o petitioner Campos. She made the ollo*ing =ndingsH a 6here *ere several payments o tuition and school ees made by a number o IC0 students *hich *ere neither accounted or1 turned over andBor posted by the IC0 Cashier1 (s."anice C. >oba1 to the students4 subsidiary ledgers1 nor *ere the collected amounts deposited in IC04s account *ith the !ural 2ank o DasmariTas1 Inc. b 6he unaccounted collections received rom more or less #GL IC0 students amount to 7?E (I>>I7? 7?E /F?D!ED SIN6J SEVE? 6/7FS0?D 7?E /F?D!ED EI/6J-7?E PES7S and 8B#&& AP#1#L%1#G#.8. c 6here *ere missing or unsurrendered booklets o o@cial receipts issued to and received by (s. "anice C. >oba as cashier *hich *ere not accounted or1 the amount o collection made therein is still undetermined.
d (s. "anice C. >oba manipulated entries in the computeri,ed subsidiary ledger and destroyed records so that the unaccounted amounts collected by her and the missing o@cial receipts issued to her as cashier could not be traced or detected. Petitioner Campos placed respondent under suspension pending investigation o the case in light o her duties and responsibilities as Chie 0ccountant o IC0.!espondent denied any involvement in the irregularities committed and claimed that she had no intention o pro=ting at the e:pense o the school or o betraying the trust reposed on her by the corporation. 7n 7ctober )%1 )&&81 petitioners terminated the services o respondent ater =nding that respondent *as negligent and remiss in her duties as the superior o@cer o >oba. 7n ?ovember )L1 )&&81 respondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal and other money claims against petitioners. She claimed that petitioners ailed to cite speci=c negligent acts or to state the manner and means she employed in assisting or cooperating *ith the cashier in the misappropriation o school unds. !espondent claimed that she *as suspended rom *ork *ithout pay despite the absence o any evidence directly or indirectly implicating her in the =nancial irregularity rom September #1 )&&8 until her termination on 7ctober )%1 )&&8. 0lso1 she *as not given her salary rom 0ugust #L-'&1 )&&8 and the proportionate sick leave pay and #'th month pay. 6he >abor 0rbiter rendered a decisiondeclaring IC0 guilty o illegal dismissal.Petitioners appealed the decision o the >abor 0rbiter to the ?>!C. 6he ?>!C rendered a decision =nding respondent4s dismissal and preventive suspension legal and setting aside the a*ards or back *ages1 separation pay and attorney4s ees. /o*ever1 the a*ards or unpaid salary or the period rom 0ugust #-'&1 )&&81 #'th month pay and service incentive leave pay *hich respondent already earned even prior to her dismissal *as upheld. 6he ?>!C like*ise ordered the payment to respondent o her unpaid salaries or the number o *orking days she remained under preventive suspension beyond '& days. !espondent appealed to the C0. C0 rendered a decision a@rming the ruling o the ?>!C but *ith the modi=cation that petitioners are held liable to pay separation pay to respondent as a measure o social 5ustice. +ssue: 3hether the a*ard o separation pay is proper despite legality o suspension and dismissal Ruling: . 6he issue o *hether a validly dismissed employee is entitled to separation pay has been settled in the )&&% case o Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association (TMPCWA) v !"#C$ *here it *as urther clari=ed that
grounds under 0rt. )G) like *illul disobedience1 gross and habitual neglect o duty1 raud or *illul breach o trust1 and commission o a crime against the employer or his amily1 separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee.< 6his ruling *as reiterated in the case o Central Philippines %an&a' #etrea&ers$ Inc v iasnes 1 *here the Court set aside the a*ard o separation pay to iasnes in vie* o the latter4s gross and habitual negligence. 6o +uoteH W6o reiterate our ruling in 6oyota1 labor ad5udicatory o@cials and the C0 must demur the a*ard o separation pay based on social 5ustice *hen an employee4s dismissal is based on serious misconduct or *illul disobedience gross and habitual neglect o duty raud or *illul breach o trust or commission o a crime against the person o the employer or his immediate amily ; grounds under 0rt.)G) o the >abor Code that sanction dismissals o employees. 6hey must be most 5udicious and circumspect in a*arding separation pay or =nancial assistance as the constitutional policy to provide ull protection to labor is not meant to be an instrument to oppress the employers. 6he commitment o the Court to the cause o labor should not embarrass us rom sustaining the employers *hen they are right1 as here. In =ne1 *e should be more cautious in a*arding =nancial assistance to the undeserving and those *ho are un*orthy o the liberality o the la*.X 0gain in the recent case o Moya v irst Soli& #u**er In&ustries$ Inc$ the Court disallo*ed the payment o separation pay to an employee dismissed rom *ork based on one o the grounds under 0rticle )G) o the >abor Code or *illul breach by the employee o the trust reposed in him by his employer. 6herein1 the Court held that (oya4s act o concealing the truth rom the company is outside o the protective mantle o the principle o social 5ustice. Pursuant to the aorementioned rulings1 respondent is clearly not entitled to separation pay. !espondent *as holding a position *hich involves a high degree o responsibility re+uiring trust and con=dence as it involves the =nancial interests o the school. /o*ever1 respondent proved to be un=t or the position *hen she ailed to e:ercise the necessary diligence in the perormance o her duties and responsibilities as Chie 0ccountant1 thus 5ustiying her dismissal rom service. !espondent *as guilty o gross and habitual negligence *hen she ailed to regularly pre-audit the report o the school cashier1 check the entries therein and keep custody o the petty cash und. !espondent4s dereliction in her duties spanned a period o ## months thus enabling the school cashier to misappropriate tuition ee payments1 manipulate the school records and destroy o@cial receipts1 in the total amount o P#1#L%1#G#.8 to the pre5udice o petitioners. /ence1 she should
not be granted separation pay. 6o rule other*ise *ould be to re*ard respondent or her negligent acts instead o punishing her or her ofense. 0s *e held in #eno oo&s$ Inc v !a'kakaisan'"akasn'Man''a'a+a (!"M),atipunan$abor Code1 as *ell as in cases o illegal dismissal in *hich reinstatement is no longer easible. It is not allo*ed *hen an employee is dismissed or 5ust cause.< 0s to *hether respondent4s length o service *ith petitioners 5usti=es the a*ard o separation pay1 *e rule in the negative. !espondent4s #) years o service and clean employment record cannot simply erase her gross and habitual negligence in her duties. >ength o service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. 0s *e held in Central Pan'asinan Electric Cooperative$ Inc v !"#C$ although long years o service might generally be considered or the a*ard o separation bene=ts or some orm o =nancial assistance to mitigate the efects o termination1 this case is not the appropriate instance or generosity. 6he act that private respondent served petitioner or more than t*enty years *ith no negative record prior to his dismissal1 in our vie* o this case1 does not call or such a*ard o bene=ts1 since his violation reects a regrettable lack o loyalty and *orse1 betrayal o the company. I an employee4s length o service is to be regarded as a 5usti=cation or moderating the penalty o dismissal1 such gesture *ill actually become a pri,e or disloyalty1 distorting the meaning o social 5ustice and undermining the eforts o labor to cleanse its ranks o undesirables.X
Topic: Juris0iction Ponente: D5= C'ST+==, *.. 'mecos +nnovations, +nc. an0 'ntonio *. ?ateov. 5liza R. =opez, G.R. o. !>")%%, Jul- (, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner 0mecos Innovations1 Inc. A0mecos is a corporation duly incorporated under Philippine la*s engaged in the business o selling assorted products created by its President 0ntonio 9. (ateo A(ateo. 7n (ay '&1 )&&'1 0mecos received a Subpoena rom the 7@ce o the City Prosecutor in connection *ith a complaint =led by the Social Security System ASSS or alleged delin+uency in the remittance o SSS contributions.
0mecos settled its obligations *ith the SSS conse+uently1 SSS =led a (otion to 3ithdra* Complaint*hich *as approved by the 7@ce o the City Prosecutor. 6hereater1 petitioners sent a demand letter to respondent or P)%1%$#.L representing her share in the SSS contributions and e:penses or processing1
but to no avail. 6hus1 petitioners =led the instant Complaint or sum o money and damages against respondent. !espondent =led her 0ns*er *ith (otion to Dismiss claiming1among others1 that the regular courts do not have 5urisdiction over the instant case as it arose out o their employer-employee relationship. 6he petitioner argued that their Complaint is one or recovery o a sum o money and damages based on 0rticles #$1 ))1 and )#8 o the Civil Code that their cause o action is based on solutioindebitior un5ust enrichment1 *hich arose rom respondent4s misrepresentation that there *as no need to enroll her *ith the SSS as she *as concurrently employed by another out=t1 6riple 0 lass and 0luminum Company1 and that she *as sel-employed as *ell. 6hey argue that the employer-employee relationship bet*een 0mecos and respondent is merely incidental1 and does not necessarily place their dispute *ithin the e:clusive 5urisdiction o the labor tribunals the true source o respondent4s obligation is derived rom 0rticles #$1 ))1 and )#8 o the Civil Code. 6hey add that by reason o their payment o respondent4s counterpart or share in the SSS premiums even as it *as not their legal obligation to do so1 respondent *as un5ustly enriched1 or *hich reason she must return *hat petitioners paid to the SSS. 6hus1 the regular courts have 5urisdiction over the case. !espondent1 on the other hand1 maintains that 5urisdiction over petitioners4 case lies *ith the >abor 0rbiter1 as their cause o action remains necessarily connected to and arose rom their employer-employee relationship. 0t any rate1 respondent insists that petitioners1 as employers1 have the legal duty to enroll her *ith the SSS as their employee and to pay or remit the necessary contributions. +ssueH 3hether the regular civil court and not the >abor 0rbiter has 5urisdiction over claims or reimbursement and claims or damages or misrepresentation arising rom employer-employee relations. Ruling: 6he Court denies the Petition.
6his Court holds that as bet*een the parties1 0rticle )#%AaA8 o the >abor Code is applicable. Said provision besto*s upon the >abor 0rbiter original and e:clusive 5urisdiction over claims or damages arising rom employeremployee relations. 6he observation that the matter o SSS contributions necessarily o*ed rom the employer-employee relationship bet*een the
parties ; shared by the lo*er courts and the C0 ; is correct thus1 petitioners4 claims should have been reerred to the labor tribunals. In this connection1 it is note*orthy to state that abor 0rbiter has 5urisdiction to a*ard not only the relies provided by >abor >a*s1 but also damages governed by the Civil Code.<
Topic: Disa6ilit- Compensation in relation to Q;t to ork 0eclaration o1 an inhouse ph-sician against the 0eclaration o1 Qun;t 1or 1urther ork 6- a ph-sician o1 choice o1 the claimant Ponente: ER+, *. E'L+' SL+PP+G S5R2+C5S, +C. an0 *R5D =S5 CR7+S5 =+5S =+?+T5D v.CR+S'T5 C. CST'T+, G.R. o. !")H$H, Jul- #, ()!$
*acts: 7n 9ebruary )%1 )&&)1 respondent Crisante C. Constantino AConstantino entered into a nine-month contract o employment as utility *ith petitioners. 6he contract had been veri=ed and approved by the Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration AP7E0.
Sometime in 0pril )&&) *hile at *ork on-board the vessel1 Constantino complained o lo* back pain radiating to his right thigh ater allegedly liting several pieces o heavy luggage. 6he ship doctor gave him medications and advised him to rest. 3hen the vessel arrived at the 2arbados1 he *as reerred to a shore-based physician1 orthopaedic surgeon Dr. "erry 0.3. 6horne1 or e:amination and (agnetic !esonance Imaging A(!I. Dr. 6horne diagnosed Constantino to besufering rom an acute e:acerbation o a pree:isting lumbar disc syndromeand declared him un=t to *ork or #& days. 7n 0pril )1 )&&)1 Constantino *as repatriated and reerred to petitioners4 physician1 Dr. !obert D. >im ADr. >im o the (etropolitan /ospital1 *ho placed him under the care o an orthopaedic surgeon. Constantino under*entseveral medical e:aminations until he *as pronounced by Dr. >im to be =t-or-*ork. /o*ever1 he *as not rehired by the company. Constantinoengaged the services o a la*yer to claim disability compensation rom the petitioners. 6he claim *as grounded on the declaration o Dr. (arciano 0lmeda ADr.0lmeda1 physician o choice o Constantino1 that the latter is un=t or urther sea duties contrary to the declaration o Dr. >im. 6he petitioners denied the claim1 prompting Constantino to =le a complaint or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 reimbursement o medical e:penses1 damages and attorney4s ees against them. +ssue: Is Constantino entitled to receive disability compensation Ruling: ?o.
9irst. 6he employment relationship bet*een Constantino and the petitioners is governed by the P7E0-SEC1 other*ise kno*n as the 0mended Standard 6erms and Conditions overning the Employment o 9ilipino Seaarers 7n2oard 7cean-oing Vessels. 6hus1 *hen the seaarer enters into an individual contract *ith the employer1 as Constantino did1 the terms and conditions o the contract must be in accordance *ith the P7E0-SEC and shall be strictly and aithully observed. It is customary thereore that the individual contract bet*een the seaarer and the employer is veri=ed and
approved by the P7E0. 0shad been declared by the Court in an earlier ruling1 the P7E0-SEC is the la* bet*een the parties1 together *ith their C201 i there any. Fnder the P7E0-SEC1 it is the company-designated physician *ho declares the =tness to *ork o a seaarer *ho sustains a *ork-related in5uryBillness or the degree o the seaarer4s disability. Section )& A2 ' o the P7E0-SEC providesH .pon si'n-o/ 0ro1 the vessel 0or 1e&ical treat1ent$ the sea0arer shall *e entitle& to sickness allo+ance equivalent to his *asic +a'e until he is &eclare& 2t to +ork or the &e'ree o0 his per1anent &isa*ility has *een assesse& *y the co1pany-&esi'nate& physician *ut in no case shall this perio& e3cee& one hun&re&t+enty (456 &ays)
Dr. >im1 the company-designated physician1 declared Constantino =t to *ork ater almost si: months o e:tensive e:amination1 treatment and rehabilitation Atherapy sessions by the company-accredited specialists1 including an orthopaedic surgeon1 upon his repatriation. Second. 6here is no dispute that under the P7E0-SEC1 Constantino *as not precluded rom seeking a second opinionon his medical condition or disability. 6he third paragraph o the Section )& A2' o the P7E0-SEC states thatH I0 a &octor appointe& *y the sea0arer &isa'rees +ith the assess1ent (o0 the co1pany-&esi'nate& physician)$ a thir& &octor 1ay *e a'ree& 7ointly *et+een the E1ployer an& the sea0arer The thir& &octor8s &ecision shall *e 2nal an& *in&in' on *oth parties
Constantino did consult Dr.0lmeda *hose assessment o his medical condition and disability disagreed *ith that o Dr. >im. Dr.0lmeda ound Constantino un=t to *ork1 he gave him a P7E0-SEC rade ## impediment e+uivalent to permanent partial disability as compared *ith the =t-to-*ork assessment o Dr. >im *ho managed the petitioners4 medical team handling Constantino4s treatment and rehabilitation. 6he disagreement should have been reerred to a third doctor or =nal determination1 5ointly by Constantino and the petitioners. 6here *as no such reerral. 6o our mind1 the non-reerral cannot be blamed on the petitioners. Since Constantino consulted *ith Dr.0lmeda *ithout inorming the
petitioners1 he should have actively re+uestedthat the disagreement bet*een his doctor4s assessment and that o Dr. >im be reerred to a =nal and binding third opinion. In the absence o any re+uest rom Constantino Aas sho*n by the records o the case1 the employer-company cannot be e:pected to respond. 0s the party seeking to impugn the certi=cation that the la* itsel recogni,es as prevailing1 Constantino bears the burden o positive action to prove that his doctor4s =ndings are correct1 as *ell as the burden to notiy the company that a contrary =nding had been madeby his o*n physician. In the absence o a third doctor resolution o the conicting assessments bet*een Dr. >im and Dr.0lmeda1 Dr. >im4s assessment o Constantino4s health should stand.
Topics: I! !() 0a-s ina6ilit- to ork in relation to permanent an0 total 0isa6ilit-/ I( Disa6ilit- Compensation in relation to Q;t to ork 0eclaration o1 an inhouse ph-sician against the 0eclaration o1 Qun;t 1or 1urther ork 6- a ph-sician o1 choice o1 the claimant Ponente: ER+, *. ?'GS'4S'4 ?'R+T+?5 CRPR'T+, 5D7'RD 7. ?'5S5 'D R@5G+' CR7+S5 =+5v L5R4 ?. S+?E'J,G.R. o. ()H$>(, Jul- )#, ()!$ *acts: ?or*egian Cruise >ine A !C" hired respondent /enry (. Simba5on as a cook on board its vessel1 the ?or*egian Star A/otel1 under a Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration Standard Employment Contract A POEASEC. Simba5on4s employment contract *as coursed through petitioner (agsaysay (aritime Corporation A Ma'saysay 1 the authori,ed manning agent o ?C> in the Philippines.6his *as already the ourth time that ?C> hired Simba5on through (agsaysay.
2eore hiring1 Simba5on *as re+uired to undergo and pass the mandatory Pre-Employment (edical E:amination APE(E. Simba5on medical tests con=rmed this claim and he *as given a clean bill o health and declared W=t or employmentX or W=t or sea service.X 7nly si: days ater embarkation1 he complained o increased urination and having a constant eeling o thirst. /e consulted the doctor on board and *as initially diagnosed *ith possible ia*etes 1ellitus 6ype II AM Type II. 9or more than #)& days rom embarkation1 he *as not able to *ork. /e
under*ent several test and medication until he *as =nally declared W=t to *orkX by the company-designated physician. Despite the W=t to *orkX declaration o (agsaysay4s designated physician1 Simba5on *as not rehired by petitioners. Dissatis=ed *ith the companydesignated physician4s medical opinion1 Simba5on sought a second opinion rom Dr.Eren !. Vicaldo1 an internal medicine doctor rom the Philippine /eart Center. 0ter conducting a series o tests1 Dr.Vicaldo opined that Simba5on4s D( 6ype II *as W*ork-aggravatedBrelatedX and that Whe is no* un=t to resume *ork as a seaman in any capacityX. 2ased on this medical assessmentSimba5on =led *ith the >0 a complaint or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 reimbursement o medical e:penses1 damages1 and attorney4s ees1 against the petitioners. +ssues: A# Did Simba5on sufer a permanent and total disability because he *as not able to *ork or #)& days
A) Is Simba5on entitled to receive disability compensation Ruling: ?o.
A# 7n Simba5on4s claim that his inability to resume his usual *ork as a cook or a period e:ceeding #)& days1 automatically entitles him to permanent and total disability bene=ts based on a rade I A#)&O impediment rating. 6he Court had the occasion to clariy *hen a seaarer becomes entitled to permanent and total disability bene=tsH As these provisions operate$ the sea0arer$ upon si'n-o/ 0ro1 his vessel$ 1ust report to the co1pany-&esi'nate& physician +ithin three (9) &ays 0ro1 arrival 0or &ia'nosis an& treat1ent or the &uration o0 the treat1ent *ut in no case to e3cee& 456 &ays$ the sea1an is on te1porary total &isa*ility as he is totally una*le to +ork :e receives his *asic +a'e &urin' this perio& until he is &eclare& 2t to +ork or his te1porary &isa*ility is ackno+le&'e& *y the co1pany to *e per1anent$ either partially or totally$ as his con&ition is &e2ne& un&er the POEA Stan&ar& E1ploy1ent Contract an& *y applica*le Philippine la+s +f the 2- days initial period is e#ceeded and no such declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be e#tended up to a ma#imum of 2- days, subject to the ri%ht of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already e#ists. The sea1an 1ay o0 course also *e &eclare&
2t to +ork at any ti1e such &eclaration is 7usti2e& *y his 1e&ical con&ition
Fnder this ruling1 a =nding by the company-designated doctor that the sea1arer nee0s 1urther treatment 6e-on0 the initial !()0aperio0 results in the e3tension o1 the perio0 1or the 0eclaration o1 the e3istence o1 a permanent partial or total 0isa6ilit- to ($) 0a-s . 6hus1 contrary to Simba5on4s claim1 his inability to resume *ork ater the lapse o more than #)& days rom the time he sufered his illness does not by itsel automatically entitle him to permanent and total disability bene=ts. 6he Court enumerated the ollo*ing instances *hen a seaarer may claim or permanent and total disability bene=tsH Aa the company-designated physician ailed to issue a declaration as to his =tness to engage in sea duty or disability even ater the lapse o the #)&day period and there is no indication that urther medical treatment *ould address his temporary total disability1 hence1 5ustiy an e:tension o the period to )8& days Ab )8& days had lapsed *ithout any certi=cation being issued by the company-designated physician Ac the company-designated physician declared that he is =t or sea duty *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period1 as the case may be1 but his physician o choice and the doctor chosen under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC are o a contrary opinion Ad the company-designated physician ackno*ledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors *ho he consulted1 on his o*n and 5ointly *ith his employer1 believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as *ell Ae the company-designated physician recogni,ed that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading A the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or *ork-related under the P7E0-SEC but his doctoro-choice and the third doctor selected under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC ound other*ise and declared him un=t to *ork Ag the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer reuses to pay him the corresponding bene=ts and Ah the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period but he remains incapacitated to perorm his usual sea duties ater the lapse o the said periods. 6hus1 even assuming that Simba5on4s illness is *ork-related1 he is still not
entitled to permanent and total disability bene=ts because his situation does not all in any o the oregoing circumstances. A) 3e no* resolve the issue o the conicting =ndings o the petitioners4 designated physicians and Simba5on4s o*n physician. 6he companydesignated physicians have declared Simba5on as W=t to *orkX ater #%) days o treatment rom his disembarkation. 7n the other hand1 Simba5on4s chosen physician1 Dr.Vicaldo1 came out *ith the =ndings that Simba5on4s illness had rendered him Wun=t to resume *ork as a seaman in any capacity1X *ith a rade VI A&O disability rating. Fnder the P7E0-SEC1 the applicable provision to resolve the issue o conicting medical =ndings is Section )&-2 A'1 *hich statesH .pon si'n-o/ 0ro1 the vessel 0or 1e&ical treat1ent$ the sea0arer is entitle& to sickness allo+ance equivalent to his *asic +a'e until he is &eclare& 2t to +ork or the &e'ree o0 per1anent &isa*ility has *een assesse& *y the co1pany-&esi'nate& physician *ut in no case shall this perio& e3cee& one hun&re& t+enty (456) &ays 333
+f a doctor appointed by the seafarer disa%rees with the assessment, a third doctor may be a%reed jointly between the /mployer and the seafarer. 0he third doctor1s decision shall be nal and bindin% on both parties.
6he glaring disparity bet*een the =ndings o the petitioners4 designated physicians and Dr.Vicaldo calls or the intervention o a third independent doctor1 agreed upon by petitioners and Simba5on. In this case1 no such thirdparty physician *as ever consulted to settle the conicting =ndings o the =rst t*o sets o doctors. 0ter being inormed o Dr.Vicaldo4s un=t-to-*ork =ndings1 Simba5on proceeded to =le his complaint or disability bene=ts *ith the >0. 6his move totally disregarded the mandated procedure under the P7E0-SEC re+uiring the reerral o the conicting medical opinions to a third independent doctor or =nal determination. 6he Supreme Court ruled that the duty to secure the opinion o a third doctor belongs to the employee asking or disability bene=ts. 6he obligation to comply *ith the re+uirement o securing the opinion o a neutral1 third-party physician rested on Simba5on4s shoulders. 2y ailing to observe the re+uired procedure under the P7E0-SEC1 he clearly violated its terms1 i.e.1 the la* bet*een the parties. 0nd *ithout a binding third-party
opinion1 the =t-to-*ork certi=cation o petitioners4 designated physicians prevails over that o Dr.Vicaldo4s un=t-to-return-to-*ork =nding. >astly1 *e have observed that Dr.Vicaldo only e:amined Simba5on once. 3e take this is in comparison *ith the series o tests and treatments made by (agsaysay4s designated physicians to Simba5on. 2et*een the t*o1 the latter4s medical opinion deserves more credence or being more thorough and e:haustive.
Topic: Claim 1or Permanent Disa6ilit- Eene;ts Ponente: ?5DM', J.: '=5 '?'R P. T'G=5 v. 'G=5'ST5R CR5@ ?''G5?5T, PL+=S., +C., 'G=5'ST5R CR5@ ?''G5?5T I'S+' 'D C'PT. GR5GR+ E. S+'=S', G.R. o. ()#H)(, Jul- )#, ()!$
*acts: Petitioner *as hired by 0nglo-Eastern Cre* (anagement1 Phils.1 Inc. or 0nglo-Eastern Cre* (anagement A0sia and *as assigned to *ork on board the vessel ?V 0l Isha4a as 'rd Engineer. "ust t*o days ater boarding the vessel1 petitioner *as ound unconscious inside the engine room o the vessel. /e *as diagnosed to be sufering rom cervical spondylosis and heat e:haustion. /e *as thereater repatriated.
0 day ater his return to the country1 petitioner *as admitted at the (etropolitan (edical Center. 6here1 petitioner *as diagnosed to be sufering rom cervical and lumbar spondylosis1 chronic > spondylosis and rade # spondylolisthesis. 9ollo*ing orders rom the company-designated physician1 petitioner continued his treatment and rehabilitation and had regular checkups. 3hile his back improved1 he continued to sufer rom on and of bouts o pain on his neck. 6he company-designated physician conducted a repeat study on petitioner and ound that he *as sufering rom W> riduculopathy.X 0s a result1 petitioner *as advised to continue the rehabilitation and to return ater three A' *eeks1## suggesting at the same time the ollo*ing disability gradingH Suggested disability grading is rade #) Aneck ; slight stifness o the neck and rade ## Achest-trunk-spine ; slight rigidity or #B' loss o motion or liting po*er o the trunk. Per suggestion1 petitioner reported or his check-up and1 thereater1 *as advised to continue *ith his medication. 7n "anuary L1 )&&$1 petitioner again complained o back pains. /e *as again e:amined by the company-designated physician. Petitioner *as advised to continue his physical therapy and medication and to report back on 9ebruary '1 )&&$ or re-evaluation. 6his time1 ho*ever1 petitioner no longer reported back to the company-designated physician. Instead1 he sought the opinion o his o*n physician1 Dr. ?icanor 9. Escutin ADr. Escutin. During the consultation1 petitioner inormed Dr. Escutin that he is given a Asic PE!(0?E?6 DIS02I>I6J. /E IS F?9I6 67 2E 0 SE0(0? Asic 7? 3/06EVE! C0P0CI6J. 0cting on petitioner4s re+uest or compensation1 respondents ofered a settlement based on the disability grading given by the company-designated physician. Petitioner reused and insisted that he be paid the bene=ts corresponding to that given to those sufering rom permanent total disability. Petitioner =led his complaint beore the >0 claiming permanent total disability bene=ts.
!espondents sought the dismissal o the complaint or lack o merit1 or1 in the alternative1 the limitation o the a*ard o disability bene=ts to rade ## andBor #) as suggested by its company-designated physician. 0ccording to respondents1 respondents1 rather than upholding upholding the =ndings o Dr. Dr. Escutin that petitioner sufered rom Wpermanent disability1X the disability gradings suggested by the company company-des -designa ignated ted physici physicians ans should should prevai prevaill conside considering ring that they thoroughly e:amined and treated petitioner rom 0ugust )&&G to "anuary )&&$. 6he >0 ruled in avor o the petitioner. petitioner. 6he ?>!C and C0 ruled in avor o the respondent. +ssue: 3hether 3hether or bene=ts
not the petitio petitioner ner is entitled entitled to permane permanent nt disabilit disability y
Ruling: ?7. ?7.
6he rule is that1 a seaarer may have basis to pursue an action or total and perma permanen nentt disab disabili ility ty bene= bene=ts ts only only i any any o the ollo ollo*in *ing g cond conditi ition ons s are are presentH Aa 6he company-designated physician ailed to issue a declaration as to his =tness to engage in sea duty or disability even ater the lapse o the #)&-day perio period d and ther there e is no indica indicatio tion n that that urthe urtherr me medic dical al trea treatme tment nt *o *ould uld addres address s his temporar temporary y total total disabili disability1 ty1 hence1 hence1 5ustiy 5ustiy an e:tensi e:tension on o the period to )8& days Ab )8& days had lapsed *ithout any certi=cation issued by the company designated physician Ac 6he company-designated physician declared that he is =t or sea duty *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period1 as the case may be1 but his physician o choice and the doctor chosen under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC are o a contrary opinion Ad 6he company company-des -designa ignated ted physicia physician n ackno* ackno*ledg ledged ed that he is partial partially ly permanently disabled but other doctors *ho he consulted1 on his o*n and 5ointly *ith his employer1 employer1 believed that his disability is not only permanent permanent but total as *ell Ae 6he company company-des -designa ignated ted physici physician an recogn recogni,ed i,ed that he is totally totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading A 6he company-designat company-designated ed physician determined that his medical condition condition is not compensable or *ork-related under the P7E0-SEC but his doctor-o-
choice and the third doctor selected under Section )&-2A' o the P7E0-SEC ound other*ise and declared him un=t to *ork Ag 6he company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer reuses to pay him the corresponding bene=ts and Ah Ah 6he 6he comp compan any y-de -design signat ated ed phys physic icia ian n decl declar ared ed him him part partia iall lly y and and permanently disabled *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period but he remains inca incapa paci cita tate ted d to per peror orm m his his usua usuall se sea a duti duties es ate aterr the the laps lapse e o sa said id periods.'% 0ter an assiduous assessment o the evidence1 ho*ever1 the Court =nds that petitioner4s claim or permanent disability bene=ts is *ithout basis at all. 9irst. Petitioner4s complaint is premature. 3hen petitioner decided to seek the opinion o Dr. Escutin1 it *as yet to be established by the companydesignated physicians *hether he *as totally or partially disabled1 as the disability grading *as tentatively given and only as a suggestion1 rom the results o the various e:aminations conducted on him as o that time. 6o be sur sure1 the the =ndi =nding ngs s o the the comp compan any y-des -desig igna nate ted d phys physic icia ians ns are are *o *ort rth h reiterating to *it1 Wsuggested disability grading is rade #)X. In act1 he *as still re+uired to return or re evaluation but instead o returning1 he *ent to Dr. Dr. Escutin. Es cutin. 0t this 5uncture1 note*orthy1 is the observation o the C0 that rom the time petitioner sustained his in5ury until a disability grading o rade ## Aor the chest-trunk-spine chest-trunk-spine and rade #) Aor the neck1 only ##& days had lapsed. 0t the time he instituted his labor complaint on 9ebruary ##1 )&&$1 only #$L days had lapsed. Clearly1 respondents *ere deprived o the opportunity to determine *hether his claim or permanent total disability bene=ts had any merit. Second. Even assuming e: gratia argumenti that the company-designated phys physic icia ians ns had had arri arrive ved d at a =nal =nal conc conclu lusi sion on o rad rade e ##B# ##B#) ) disa disabi bili lity ty11 petitioner4s evidence *ould still cast doubt on such =ndings. In stark contrast to the detailed medical reports by the company-designated physicians1 a reading o the medical report o Dr. Escutin sho*s that it *as not supported by any diagnostic tests andBor procedures su@cient to reute the results o those administered to petitioner by the company-designated physicians. Dr. Escutin4s assessment o Wpermanent disabilityX or petitioner merely hinged on general impressions. (oreover1 Dr. Escutin4s conclusion that petitioner sufered rom Wpermanent disabilityX and that he *as un=t to serve as a seaman in any capacity *as anchored primarily on petitioner4s o*n narration.
6hird. 6hird. 0ssuming that petitioner petitioner indeed sufered sufered the most severe o back in5uries1 in addition to his neck in5ury1 he could still not be entitled to his claim or permanent total disability bene=ts. It should be remembered that under the terms o the P7E0-SEC1 or an illness sufered by a seaarer to be compensable1 it must =rst all *ithin the de=nition o the term W*ork-related illness1X that is1 any sickness as a result o an occupational disease listed under Section ')-0 *ith the conditions set therein satis=ed. 6hus1 or disability disability to be compensable compensable under Section )& A2A8 o the P7E0SEC1 SEC1 t*o elemen elements ts must must concu concurH rH A# A# the in5ury in5ury or illnes illness s must must be *o *orkrkrelated and A) the *ork-related in5ury or illness must have e:isted during the the term term o the sea seaar arer4 er4s s em emplo ploym ymen entt contr contract act.. In other other *ords1 *ords1 to be entitled to compensation and bene=ts under this provision1 it is not su@cient to simply establish that the seaarer4s illness or in5ury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled it must also be sho*n that there is a causal connection bet*een the seaarer4s illness or in5ury and the *ork or *hich *hich he had been contr contract acted. ed. In this this case1 case1 the the recor record d is bere berett o any any evidence to prove satisaction o the said conditions.
Topic: Serious ?iscon0uct as a 8ust cause in termination Ponente: P5R5M, J.: C=5G+ D5 S' J7' D5 =5TR'C'='?E' v. 5GR. D5ER'L P. T'RD5, G.R. o. !#)H)H, Jul- #, ()!$ *acts: Petitioner is an educational institution created and e:isting under Philippine la*s. !espondent1 on the other hand1 *as employed as a ull-time aculty member o the petitioner since #$G. In 0ugust )&&L1 respondent*as elected as Fnion President o >etran-Calamba 9aculty and Employees 0ssociation A>EC9E0 and served in such capacity until she *as suspended rom *ork in )&&G.
!espondent4s suspension arose rom her re+uest or 9aculty Development Program and 9und 0ssistance submitted or consideration o petitioner. In a >etter dated ) (arch )&&G1 addressed to Vice-President or 0cademic 0fairs Dr. !hodora 7de5ar1 respondent maniested her intention to participate in the '&th ?ational Physics Seminar 3orkshop Convention in Si+ui5or State College. In connection there*ith1 she re+uested or und assistance in the amount o P#%1&&&.&&. 0ttached to her re+uest *as a t*o-page invitation allegedly do*nloaded rom Philippine Physics Society4s APPS *ebsite *hich detailed the supposed e:penses in the upcoming convention. 6he oregoing re+uest *as recommended or approval by the Dean or College o Engineering1 Engr. Del=n "acob A"acob and the /uman !esource Director1 Pro. Dulce Cora,on 6. 2arra+uio. During pre-audit1 the Vice-Presidentor 9inance and concurrently >etran4s Controller !odolo 7ndevilla A7ndevilla noted that the supporting document appended to respondent4s re+uest *as altered. 3hile the documents appeared to have been taken rom the PPS *ebsite1 signi=cant portions thereo *ere missing *hich led him to conclude that the said parts *ere deliberately omitted by respondent.
Conse+uently1 7ndevilla disapproved respondent4s re+uest or und assistance on the ground that her und re+uest *as signi=cantly higher compared to the amount re+uested byanother aculty member *ho also *anted to participate in the same convention. 3hile respondent re+uested or the disbursement o the amount o P#%1&&&.&&1 a certain Delorino only asked or P##1&&&.&&. It *as noted that ater the convention1 Delorino4s actual e:pense *as only P#&1%8.&&.$ 0ter investigation1 the Committee o Discipline ound that respondent is guilty o dishonesty and serious misconduct and meted out the penalty o suspension or one semester starting #$ 0ugust )&&G up to )& December )&&G. 6he Committee o Discipline ound that respondent4s guilt *as established by her o*n admission that she deleted certain portions rom the invitation beore attaching it to her und re+uest1 and by the apparent disparity bet*een the amount re+uestedby the respondent rom that o another aculty member *ho also applied or und assistance or the same purpose. 9eeling aggrieved1 respondent assailed the adverse decision o the Committee o Discipline to the 7@ce othe Voluntary 0rbitrator arguing that she *as denied o her right to dueprocess *hen she *as not allo*ed to conront 7ndevilla in person during the hearing. 6he 7@ce o the Voluntary 0rbitrator and the C0 declared the suspension o respondent rom employment illegal. +ssue: 3hether or not Urespondent committed dishonesty and serious misconduct in kno*ingly submitting a materially altered document to support her unding re+uest Ruling: ?7.
(isconduct is de=ned as improper and *rongul conduct. It is the transgression o some established and de=nite rule o action1 a orbidden act1 a dereliction o duty1 *illul in character1 and implies *rongul intent and not mere error in 5udgment. 7 course1 ordinary misconduct *ould not 5ustiy the termination o the services o an employee. 6he la* is e:plicit that the misconduct should be serious. It is settled that in order or misconduct to be serious1 it must be o such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. 0s ampli=ed by 5urisprudence1 the misconduct must A# be serious A) relate to the perormance o the employee4s duties and A' sho* thatthe employee has become un=t to continue *orking or the employer. Fnder 0rticle )G) o the labor Code1 the misconduct1 to be 5ust cause or termination1 must be serious. 6his implies that it must be o such grave and
aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. E:amples o serious misconduct 5ustiying termination1 as held in some o our decisions1 includeH se:ual harassment Athe manager4s acts o ondling the hands1 massaging the shoulder and caressing the nape o the secretary =ghting *ithin company premises1 uttering obscene1 insulting or ofensive *ords against a superior misrepresenting that a student is his nephe* and pressuring and intimidating a co-teacher to change a student4s ailing grade to passing. 0lthough respondent *as not terminated rom employment but *as merely suspended rom *ork or one semester or e+uivalent to # days school days1 her inraction should still be measured against the oregoing standards considering that the charge leveled against her is serious misconduct. 0s correctly pointed out by the appellate court1 there is no substantial evidence to prove that in not including a portion o the invitation to her und re+uest1 respondent acted in malicious and contemptuous manner *ith the intent to cause damage to the petitioner. In other *ords1 there is no basis or the allegation that respondent4s actconstituted serious misconduct that *arrants the imposition o penalty o suspension. Indeed1 considering the act that beore the act complained o1 respondent has been rendering service untarnished or )' years1 it is not easy to conclude that or PL&&.&&1 respondent *ould *illully and or *rongul intentions omit portions o the documents taken rom the PPS *ebsite. In other *ords1 as ound by the Voluntary 0rbitrator and the Court o 0ppeals1 there is no substantial proo o petitionerQs allegation o malicious conduct against respondent.
Topic: +llegal Constructive 0ismissal Ponente: D5= C'ST+==, J.: G+R=4 G. +C v. S4ST5?S T5CL=G4 +ST+T7T5, +C., ?+C 2. J'CE an0 P5T5R K. *5R'D5M, G.R. o. !"%!)), Jul- #, ()!$ *acts: !espondent Systems 6echnology Institute1 Inc. AS6I is an educational institution duly e:isting under Philippine la*s. !espondents (onico V. "acob A"acob and Peter K. 9ernande, A9ernande, are S6I o@cers1 the ormer being the President and Chie E:ecutive 7@cer ACE7 and the latter Senior VicePresident. Petitioner irly . Ico1 a masteral degree holder *ith doctorate units earned1 *as hired as 9aculty (ember by S6I College (akati AInc.1 *hich operates S6I College-(akati AS6I-(akati. S6I College (akati AInc. is a *holly-o*ned subsidiary o S6I.
0t S6I1 petitioner served under contract rom "une #$$% to (arch #$$G. In 0pril #$$G1 she *as recalled to S6I4s (akati Central 7@ce or/ead+uarters AS6I/ and promoted to the position o Dean o S6I College-ParaTa+ue AS6I ParaTa+ue. In ?ovember #$$$1 she *as again recalled to S6I-/ and S6I appointed her as 9ull-6ime 0ssistant Proessor I reporting directly to S6I4s 0cademic Services Division A0SD.
In "une )&&&1 petitioner *as promoted to the position o Dean under 0SD1 and assigned to S6I College-uadalupe AS6I-uadalupe1 *here she served as Dean rom "une 1 )&&& up to 7ctober )G1 )&&). (ean*hile1 petitioner4s position as Dean *as reclassi=ed rom <"ob rade 8< to <"ob rade (anager 2< *ith a monthly salary o P'%18G'.G efective 0pril #1 )&&)1 up rom the P)%1&&&.&& salary petitioner *as then receiving. 0ter petitioner4s stint as Dean o S6I-uadalupe1 she *as promoted to the position o Chie 7perating 7@cer AC77 o S6I-(akati1 under the same position classi=cation and salary level o <"ob rade (anager 2<. She concurrently served as S6I-(akati School 0dministrator. Sometime in "uly )&&'1 or during petitioner4s stint as C77 and School 0dministrator o S6I-(akati1 a Plan o (erger *as e:ecuted bet*een S6I and S6I College (akati AInc.1 *hereby the latter *ould be absorbed by S6I. 6he merger *as approved by the Securities and E:change Commission on ?ovember #)1 )&&'. S6I College (akati AInc. thus ceased to e:ist1 and S6I(akati *as placed under S6I4s Education (anagement Division AE(D. In a (arch #)1 )&&8 (emorandum1 S6I ; u, A>u,1 *ho shall unction as S6I-(akati4s School 0dministrator and
c 0ppointing petitioner1 efective (ay )&1 )&&81 as S6I4s Compliance (anager *ith the same <"ob rade (anager 2< rank and salary level1 reporting directly to SchoolCompliance roup /ead 0rmand Paraiso AParaiso. 0ccording to S6I1 the u, as the ne* S6I-(akati School 0dministrator ho*ever1 petitioner4s appointment as Compliance (anager *as let out. In a (ay )81 )&&8 letter to "acob1 petitioner took e:ception to the incidents o (ay #G and )&1 )&&81 claiming that she became the victim o a series o discriminatory acts and ob5ecting to the manner by *hich she *as transerred1 asserting that she *as illegally demoted and that her name *as tarnished as a result o the demotion and transer. "acob replied through a "une %1 )&&8 letter advising petitioner that her letter *as or*arded to 9ernande, or comment. Prior to that1 on (ay )1 )&&81 during the #%th S6I >eaders Convention held in Panglao1 2ohol1 petitioner4s achievement as a Silver 0*ardee or the )&&8 S6I 3inners4 Circle 0*ards *as announced1 but she did not attend1 claiming that she *as too embarrassed to attend o*ing to the events leading to her transer1 *hich to her *as a demotion. S6I *ithheld petitioner4s pri,e ; a South Korea trip termed <6ravel Incentive 0*ard< or the 3inners4 Circle or S6I =scal year )&&'-)&&8 ;
6he >abor 0rbiter ound that the petitioner had been illegally constructively and in bad aith dismissed. 6he ?>!C and C0 reversed the decision o the >0. +ssue: 3hether or not petitioner is illegally constructively dismissed Ruling: JES.
Constructive dismissal e:ists *here there is cessation o *ork because continued employment is rendered impossible1 unreasonable or unlikely1 as an ofer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay4 and other bene=ts. 0ptly called a dismissal in disguise or anact amounting to dismissal but made to appear as i it *ere not1 constructive dismissal may1 like*ise1 e:ist i an act o clear discrimination1 insensibility1 or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part o the employee that it could oreclose any choice by him e:cept to orego his continued employment. In cases o a transer o an employee1 the rule is settled that the employer is charged *ith the burden o proving that its conduct and action are or valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity and that the transer is not unreasonable1 inconvenient or pre5udicial to the employee. I the employer cannot overcome this burden o proo1 the employee4s transer shall be tantamount to unla*ul constructive dismissal. 6here is no doubt that petitioner *as sub5ected to indignities and humiliated by the respondents. 0s correctly observed by the >abor 0rbiter1 she *as bullied1 threatened1 shouted at1 and treated insolently by 9ernande, on (ay #G1 )&&8 inside the latter4s o*n o@ce. She *as shamed *hen1 on her very =rst day at the School Compliance roup1 all o the employees o the department have gone on an o@cial out-o-to*n event *ithout her and1 as a result1 she *as let alone at the o@ce or several days. !espondents did not even have the courtesy to ofer her the opportunity to catch up *ith the group sothat she could makeit to the event1 even i belatedly. 6hen again1 on (ay )&1 )&&81 S6I made an o@cial company*ide announcement o "acob4s appointment as ne* S6I President and CE71 9ernande, as ne* S6I-(akati C771 and >u, asne* S6I-(akati School 0dministrator1 but petitioner4s appointment as ne* Compliance (anager *as inconsiderately e:cluded. !espondents made her go through the rigors o a contrived investigation1 causing her to incur unnecessary legal e:penses as a result o her hiring the services o counsel. /er *ell-deserved a*ards and distinctions *ere unduly *ithheld in the guise o continuing investigation ; *hich obviously *as taking too long to conclude investigation began ormally on (ay )G1 )&&8 Astart o audit1 yet by 0ugust #% Adate o memorandum inorming petitioner o the *ithholding o Korea travel a*ard1 the investigation *as still allegedly ongoing. She *as deprived o the privilege to attend company events *here she *ould have received her *ell-deserved a*ards *ith pride and honor1 and her colleagues *ould have been inspired by her in return. Certainly1
respondents made sure that petitioner sufered a humiliating ate and consigned to oblivion. Indeed1 petitioner could not be aulted or taking an inde=nite leave o absence1 and or altogether ailing to report or *ork ater 0ugust $1 )&&8. /uman nature dictates that petitioner should reuse to sub5ect hersel to urther embarrassment and indignitiesrom the respondents and her colleagues. 0ll told1 petitioner *as deemed constructively dismissed as o (ay #G1 )&&8. 9inally1 since the position o S6I-(akati C77 *as never abolished1 it ollo*s that petitioner should bereinstated to the very same position1 and there to receive e:actly *hat 9ernande, gets by *ay o salaries1 bene=ts1 privileges and emoluments1 *ithout diminution in amount and e:tent. Petitioner1 multi-a*arded1 deserving and loyal1 is entitled to *hat 9ernande, receives1 and is deemed merely to take over the o@ce rom him moreover1 the position o Chie 7perations 7@cer is not merely an ordinary managerial position1 asit is a senior managerial o@ce. In turn1 9ernande, ; or anyone *ho currently occupies the position o S6I(akati C77 ; must vacatethe o@ce and hand over the same to petitioner. ?onetheless1 the Court ailsto discern any bad aithor negligence on the part o respondent "acob. 6he principal character that =gures prominently in this case is 9ernande, he alone relentlessly caused petitioner4s hardships and sufering. /e alone is guilty o persecuting petitioner. Indeed1 some o his actions *ere *ithout sanction o S6I itsel1 and *ere committedoutside o the authority given to him by the school they bordered on the personal1 rather than o@cial. /is superior1 "acob1 may have been1 or the most part1 clueless o *hat 9ernande, *as doing to petitioner. 0ter all1 9ernande, *as the /ead o the 0cademic Services roup o the E(D1 and petitioner directly reported to him at the time his position enabled him to pursue a course o action *ith petitioner that "acob *as largely una*are o. 0 corporation1 as a 5uridical entity1 may act only through its directors1 o@cers and employees. 7bligations incurred as a result o the directors4 and o@cers4 acts as corporate agents1 are nottheir personal liability but the direct responsibility o the corporation they represent. 0s a rule1 they are only solidarily liable *ith the corporation or the illegal termination o serviceso employees i they acted *ith malice or bad aith. 6o hold a director or o@cer personally liable or corporate obligations1 t*o re+uisites must concurH A# it must be alleged in the complaint that the director or o@cer assented to patently unla*ul acts o the corporation or that the o@cer *as guilty o gross negligence or bad aith and A) there must be proo that the o@cer acted in bad aith.
Topic: +llegal Dismissal, ?one- Claims Ponente: ?ariano C. Del Castillo 'ngeles v. Euca0, G.R. o. !#&($#, Jul- (!, ()!$ *acts: 6he >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision ad5udging Petitioners guilty o illegal dismissal and ordered to them to pay the !espondents their respective money claims. Petitioners appealed to the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C atly denying the charges against them. 6he ?>!C held that the respondents ailed to submit su@cient evidence to *arrant the reversal o the =ndings o the >abor 0rbiter. 6he best evidence o payment is the payroll1 *hereas in this case1 respondents merely allege payment.
6he C0 held that there is no proo that respondent Ducusin abandoned his employment. Ducusin4s immediate =ling o the labor complaint indicated that he did not abandon his employment it characteri,es him as one *ho deeply elt *ronged by his employer. 3ith regard to respondents 2enite, and !eynante1 the C0 believed that they voluntarily let their 5obs *hen they *ere caught by management having an illicit afair. 6his sho*ed that they abandoned their employment1 *hich does not entitle 2enite, to an a*ard o back*ages and separation pay. 6he C0 urther held that petitioners did not commit illegal dismissal *ith respect to respondent 2erdin1 since 2erdin resigned rom his position ater management caught him sneaking ood out or his girlriend. 6here is thus no ground or a*arding 2erdin back*ages and separation pay as *ell. 7n the issue o money claims1 the C0 ruled that apart rom bare allegations o payment1 petitioners have not satisactorily sho*n ; by ade+uate documentary evidence *hich should be in its custody and possession ; that the salaries1 bene=ts and other claims due to the respondents have been accordingly paid that petitioners ailed to discharge the burden o proving payment that their deense that the relevant payroll and daily time records *ere stolen constitutes a lame e:cuse *hich cannot e:cuse them rom proving that they have paid *hat they o*ed respondents. +ssues: #. 3hether Ducusin *as illegally terminated. ). 3hether petitioners ailed to discharge the burden o proving that respondents have been paidt heir monetary claims. Ruling:
!. 45S. 6his Court is not a trier o acts. 6he =ndings o act o the C0 are conclusive and binding. 6his principle applies *ith greater orce in labor cases1 *here this Court has consistently held that =ndings o act o the ?>!C are accorded great respect and even =nality1 especially i they coincide *ith those o the >abor 0rbiter and are supported by substantial evidence. (. 45S. 6here e:ists serious doubt *ith respect to petitioners4 profered evidence1 considering that the relevant payroll and daily time records are missing as they *ere1 according to petitioners1 stolen. It *ould be di@cult i not impossible to validate and reconcile petitioners4 documentary evidence and unilateral claims o payment1 i the o@cial payroll and daily time records are not taken into account. 3ithout them1 there could be no su@cient basis or this Court to overturn the assailed Decision the Court can only rely on the =ndings o the >abor 0rbiter1 the ?>!C1 and the C0.
6he purpose o a time record is to sho* an employee4s attendance in o@ce or *ork and to be paid accordingly1 taking into account the policy o
6he Petition is DE?IED.
Topic: +llegal Dismissal
Ponente: ?artin S. 2illarama, Jr.
St. =uke
*acts: 0s part o its customer service1 petitioner provides ree andBor discounted parking privileges to its patients. 3ellness Center 0ssistants1 such as !espondent uebral1 are tasked *ith claiming pre-approved parking tickets rom the hospital4s Inormation and Concierge Section on behal o the patients.
uebral4s parking records sho* that he used the discounted parking privilege reserved or patients and their representatives or his personal use at least )& times. 6he Employee and >abor !elations Department AE>!D issued a ?otice to E:plain and Invitation to Conerence to uebral. uebral stated that he did not kno* that employees and staf *ere prohibited to get a validation ticket and all that he kne* *as that1 to be able to get a discount on their e:pensive parking1 he needed to get a validation.
6he E>!D rendered a decision terminating uebral4s employment. uebral1 through S>(CE0-0931 appealed his dismissal. 6hus1 as part othe au:iliary revie*1 the management looked into the =ner details o uebral4s perormance or the past #) months preceding his dismissal and noted other violations he committed. Petitioner reply stated that these incidents are already indicators that the (anagement has already e:tended its utmost consideration to uebral not only on one occasion but in several incidents and thus1 uebral4s dismissal is =nal and irrevocable.
+ssue: @hether Oue6ral as illegall- 0ismisse0.
Ruling: .
uebral cannot eign ignorance o the policy limiting to patients the privilege o the use o validated parking tickets. 9irst1 it is *ritten on the parking ticket itsel. It *as incumbent upon him to read the terms and conditions stated thereon. 0nd second1 even assuming he *as not able to read said policy1 this only serves as a testament o his ine@ciency in his 5ob as he is not a*are o his employer4s policies despite being employed or % years. (oreover1 as 3ellness Center 0ssistant *hose task is to e:tend all needed assistance to the ECF patients1 it is e:pected that he is a*are o all matters relating to patient rights and privileges.
6he C04s conclusion that he has been a dependable and reliable employee and thus deserving o petitioner4s compassion is *ithout basis. 6he au:iliary revie* o uebral4s employment record revealed violations o company rules he committed or the preceding t*elve months prior to his dismissal. 0nd or said violations1 petitioner e:tended consideration to uebral by lo*ering the penalty imposed on him. /ad uebral valued the considerations e:tended to him by his employer in the past1 he *ould have have been more careul in his actions. (oreover1 this Court recogni,es the prerogative o an employer to prescribe rules and regulations in its business operations and its right to e:act compliance *ith them by its employees.
6he record o an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out on him. 6hus1 petitioner cannot be obliged to disregard altogether uebral4s previous violations *hen determining the penalty to be imposed on him or his latest ofense as i it *as the =rst time he violated company rules. uebral has no vested right to petitioner4s compassion. "ust because petitioner *as compassionate to him numerous times in the past *hen he violated company rules does not give him the right to demand the same compassion this time on the ground o social 5ustice. Social 5ustice and e+uity are not magical ormulas to erase the un5ust acts committed by the employee against his employer.
0lso1 respondents ailed to prove that the violation o the policy on validation o tickets is tolerated by petitioner as they ailed to present any evidence that other employees *ere being issued validated tickets.
0 company has the right to dismiss its employees as a measure o selprotection. It need not *ait or it to sufer actual damage or loss beore it can rightully dismiss an employee *ho it has already ound to have been dishonest. 6he act that petitioner did not sufer losses rom the dishonesty o the respondent does not e:cuse the latter rom any culpability. 3hether he has already settled the amount he *as supposed to pay or parking i not or the validated parking tickets is o no conse+uence. 6he act remains that he *as dishonest in the perormance o his duties *hich is a valid ground or termination o employment.
6he petition is !0?6ED.
Topic: Reinstatement, Ouitclaim
Ponente: =ucas P. Eersamin
Castro v. 'teneo 0e aga 7niversit-, G.R. o. !>%(#H, Jul- (H, ()!$
*acts: Petitioner *as a regular and ull-time aculty member o the FniversityQs 0ccountancy Department in the College o Commerce. 6he Fniversity President inormed him that his contract *ould no longer be rene*ed. 6hus1 he brought this complaint or illegal dismissal.
6he >abor 0rbiter A>0 ruled that the dismissal o complainant is illegal1 and ordered respondents to reinstate complainant and to pay his money claims.
!espondents appealed to the ?>!C. Simultaneously1 they submitted a maniestation stating that neither actual nor payroll reinstatement o the petitioner could be efected because he had mean*hile been employed as a Presidential 0ssistant or Southern >u,on 0fairs *ith the position o Fndersecretary and that his reinstatement *ould result in dual employment and double compensation *hich *ere prohibited by e:isting civil service rules and regulations.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the C0. In the interim1 petitioner e:ecuted a receipt and +uitclaim in avor o the Fniversity respecting his claim or bene=ts. (ean*hile1 the ?>!C rendered its decision a@rming *ith modi=cation the ruling o the >0. 7n motion or reconsideration1 the ?>!C reversed its ruling. In 5ustiying its reversal o its decision1 the ?>!C held that his e:ecution o the receipt and +uitclaim respecting his bene=ts under the
Plan estopped the petitioner rom pursuing other claims arising rom his employer-employee relationship *ith the Fniversity.
6he C0 dismissed the petitionerQs petition or certiorari on the ground o its having been rendered moot and academic by the decision o the ?>!C.
+ssue: !. 3hether the petitionerQs claim or the payment o accrued salaries and bene=ts or the period that he *as not reinstated *as rendered moot and academic by his receipt o the retirement bene=ts and e:ecution o the corresponding receipt and +uitclaim in avor o the respondents
(. 3hether the petitionerQs claim or accrued salaries rom the time o the issuance o the order o reinstatement by the >0 until his actual reinstatement *as rendered moot and academic by the reversal o the decision o the >0.
Ruling: !. .
6he e:ecution o the receipt and +uitclaim *as not a settlement o the petitionerQs claim or accrued salaries. 6he payment petitioner had received in protest pertained only to his retirement bene=ts. 6he te:t o the receipt and +uitclaim *as clear and straightor*ard1 and it *as to the efect that the sum received by the petitioner represented QQull payment o bene=ts ... pursuant to the EmployeeQs retirement plan.< 0s such1 both the ?>!C and the C0 should have easily seen that the +uitclaim related only to the settlement o the retirement bene=ts1 *hich bene=ts could not be conused *ith the relies related to the complaint or illegal dismissal.
!etirement is o a diferent species rom the relies a*arded to an illegally dismissed employee. !etirement is a orm o re*ard or an employeeQs loyalty and service to the employer1 employer1 and is intended to help the employee en5oy the remaining years o his lie1 and to lessen the burden o *orrying about his =nancial support or upkeep. In contrast1 the relies a*arded to an illega illegally lly dismi dismisse ssed d emplo employe yee e are are in recog recognit nition ion o the conti continu nuing ing employer-employee relationship that has been severed by the employer *ithout 5ust or authori,ed cause1 or *ithout compliance *ith due process.
0rticle )%$ o the >abor Code1 as amended1 entitles an illegally dismissed employee to reinstatement. In Pioneer Te3turi;in' Corporation v !ational "a*or #elations Co11ission H
: : : 6he provisio sion o 0rticle ))' is clear that an a*ard or reinsta reinstateme tement nt shall shall be immedia immediately tely e:ecut e:ecutory ory even pendin pending g appeal appeal and the posting o a bond by the employer shall not stay the e:ecution e:ecution or reinstatement. 6o re+uire the application or and issuance o a *it o e:ecution as prere+uisites or the e:ecution o a reinstatement a*ard *ould betray and run counter to the very ob5ect and intent o 0rticle ))'. 6he reason is simple. 0n application or a *rit o e:ecution and its issuance could be delayed or numerous reasons. 0 mere continuance o postponement o a scheduled hearing1 or instance1 or an inaction on the the part part o the the >abo >aborr 0rbi 0rbite terr or the the ?>! ?>!C coul could d ea easi sily ly dela delay y the the issuance o the *rit thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by 0rticle ))'. I the re+uirements o 0rticle ))8 *ere *ere to gover govern1 n1 then then the e:ecu e:ecuto tory ry natu nature re o a reins reinstat tatem ement ent order or a*ard ard contemplated by 0rtic ticle ))' *ill be unduly circum circumscr scrib ibed ed and and rend render ered ed inefe inefectu ctual. al. In enact enacting ing the la* la*11 the the legislature is presumed to have ordained a valid and sensible la*1 one *hic *hich h oper operat ates es no urt urthe herr than than ma may y be nece necess ssar ary y to achi achiev eve e its its speci=c purpose.
9urth urther ermo morre1 the the rule rule is that that all all doub doubts ts in the the inte interp rprretat etatio ion n and and impl implem emen enta tati tion on o labo laborr la*s la*s shou should ld be res esol olve ved d in avo avorr o labo laborr. /ence /enceort orth1 h1 *e rule rule that that an a* a*ar ard d or orde orderr or rein reinsta statem tement ent is sel sel-
e:ec e:ecut utor ory y. 0ter ter recei eceipt pt o the the deci decisi sion on or res esol olut utio ion n orde orderi ring ng the the employeeQs reinstatement1 the employer has the right to choose *hether to re-admit the employee to *ork under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or to reinstate the employee in the payroll. In either instance1 the employer has to inorm the employee o his choice. 6he noti=cation noti=cation is based on practical considerations considerations or *ithout notice1 the employee has no *ay o kno*ing i he has to report or *ork or not.
/enc /ence1 e1 or or as long long as the the em empl ploy oyer er cont contin inuo uous usly ly ail ails s to actu actual ally ly impl implem emen entt the the reins einsta tate teme ment nt as aspe pect ct o the the deci decisi sion on o the the >01 >01 the the employerQs obligation to the employee or his accrued back*ages and other bene=ts continues to accumulate.
(. . 6he order o reinstatement o the petitioner *as not rendered moot and academic. /e remained entitled to accrued salaries rom notice o the Islri; Tra&in' v >0Qs order order o reins reinstat tateme ement nt until until rever reversal sal ther thereo eo.. In Islri; Capa&a1 the employee could be barred rom claiming accrued salaries only only *hen *hen the the ail ailur ure e to reins einsta tate te him him *a *as s *i *ith thou outt the the aul aultt o the the employer.
Consid Cons ider erin ing g that that the the res espo pond nden ents ts reins einsta tate ted d the the peti petiti tion oner er only only in ?ovember )&&)1 and that their inability to reinstate him *as *ithout valid ground1 they *ere liable to pay his salaries accruing rom the time o the deci decisi sion on o the the >0 ASep ASepte temb mber er '1 )& )& unti untill his his reins einsta tate teme ment nt in ?ove ?ovemb mber er )&&) )&&).. It did did not not ma matt tter er that that the the res espo pond nden ents ts had had yet yet to e:ercise their option to choose bet*een actual or payroll reinstatement at that point because the order o reinstatement *as immediately e:ecutory.
Topic: claim 1or 0eath 6ene;ts Ponente: Re-es, J. 5smari 5smarial alino ino v. 5mplo 5mplo-ee -ees< s< Compen Compensat sation ion Commis Commissio sion, n, G.R. G.R. o. o. !#(H%(, Jul- (H, ()!$ *acts: !osemarie4s husband1 Ed*in C. Esmarialino 1 *ith SS ?o. ''-#&81 *orked as a Security uard or "imene, Protective and Security 0gency since (ay1 #$$'. 9or the years )&&)1 )&&' and )&&81 Ed*in *as assigned at the (ercury Drug Store-agalangin 2ranch.
In (ay1 )&&81 Ed*in *as diagnosed through biopsy *ith 0cute (yelogenous >eukemiaat the Chinese eneral /ospital. In September1 )&&81 Ed*in *as also admitted admitted at the "ose !eyes (emorial (emorial /ospital /ospital because because o persisten persistentt pete petech chia iall rash rash11 ma mala lais ise e and and anor anore: e:ia ia.. In 7cto 7ctobe ber1 r1 )&&8 )&&811 he *a *as s agai again n hosp hospit ital ali, i,ed ed at the the Chin Chines ese e e ene nera rall /osp /ospit ital al.. 7n (ar (arch )&1 )&1 )&& )&&11 he succumb succumbed ed to Sepsis Sepsis secondar secondary y to Pneumo Pneumonia. nia. Ed*in4s Ed*in4s death death certi=ca certi=cate te indicates that the immediate cause o his death is Cardiopulmonary 0rrest. 0ntecede 0ntecedent nt cause cause is Sepsis Sepsis secondar secondary y to Pneumo Pneumonia nia and the underly underlying ing cause o *hich is Pneumonia. 7ther signi=cant condition contributing to his death is 0cute (yelogenous >eukemia.
Ed*in made his last premium contribution in (ay1 )&&8. 7n account o his ailment1 Ed*in *as granted the ollo*ing medical bene=ts under the SSS la*H a SSS 6emporary 6otal Disability A66D bene=ts o #)& days efective September #$1 )&&8 b SSS Permanent Partial Disability APPD bene=ts o t*enty-three A)' months efective 9ebruary ##1 )&& and c SSS Death *ith 9uneral 2ene=ts efective (arch )&1 )&& granted to his bene=ciaries. 6he SSS1 ho*ever1 denied the claim or EC death bene=ts on the ground that eukemiato the member4s 5ob as a security guard.< !osemarie appealed the SSS decision to the ECC. 6he ECC like*ise dismissed the claim. 6hereater1 !osemarie =led beore the C0 a petition or revie* under !ule 8' o the !ules o Court. !osemarie ascribed grave error on the part o the ECC *hen it concluded that leukemia1 *hich signi=cantly contributed to Ed*in4s death1 had no causal relation *ith the *ork o a security guard. 7n ?ovember #&1 )&&$1 the C0 rendered a Decision a@rming the ECC4s ruling. !osemarie =led a (otion or !econsideration1 but it *as denied. /ence1 this petition. +ssues: Did the Ca err in sustaining the Decision o the ECC *hich denied the claim or Ed*in4s death bene=ts Is the illness *hich caused the death o Ed*in *ork ; related Ruling:
It is settled that !ule 8 limits the Court to the revie* o +uestions o la* raised against the assailed C0 decision. 6he Court is generally bound by the C04s actual =ndings1 e:cept only in some instances1 among *hich is1 *hen the said =ndings are contrary to those o the trial court or administrative body e:ercising +uasi-5udicial unctions rom *hich the action originated. In the case at bar1 the issues are beyond the ambit o a petition =led under !ule 8 o the !ules o Court since they are actual in nature1 essentially revolving on the alleged increased risk or Ed*in to contract leukemia as a result o hardships incidental to his employment as a security guard. 6he C01 ECC and SSS uniormly ound that !osemarie cannot be granted death bene=ts as she had ailed to ofer substantial evidence to prove her claims. 2esides1 even i this Court *ere to e:ercise leniency and resort to re-
evaluating the actual =ndings belo*1 still1 the instant petition is susceptible to denial. 6he SSS1 ECC and C0 decisions are amply supported1 hence1 the Court =nds no compelling reason to order their reversal. 6he la*1 as it no* stands re+uires the claimant to prove a positive thing ; the illness *as caused by employment and the risk o contracting the disease is increased by the *orking conditions. 6o say that since the proo is not available1 thereore1 the trust und has the obligation to pay is contrary to the legal re+uirement that proo must be adduced. 6he e:istence o other*ise non-e:istent proo cannot be presumed. It is *ell to stress that the principles o
Topic: certi;cation election Ponente: Eersamin, J. The Leritage Lotel ?anila v. Secretar- o1 =a6or, G.R. o. !>(!H(, Jul- (H, ()!$ *acts:
7n 7ctober ##1 #$$1 respondent ?ational Fnion o 3orkers in /otel !estaurant and 0llied Industries-/eritage /otel (anila Supervisors Chapter A?F3/!0I?-//(SC =led a petition or certi=cation election1 seeking to represent all the supervisory employees o /eritage /otel (anila. 6he petitioner =led its opposition1 but the opposition *as deemed denied on 9ebruary #81 #$$L *hen (ed-0rbiter ?apoleon V. 9ernando issued his order or the conduct o the certi=cation election. 6he petitioner appealed the order o (ed-0rbiter 9ernando1 but the appeal *as also denied. 0 pre-election conerence *as then scheduled. 7n 9ebruary )&1 #$$G1 ho*ever1 the pre-election conerence *as suspended until urther notice because o the repeated non-appearance o ?F3/!0I?-//(SC. 7n "anuary )$1 )&&&1 ?F3/!0I?-//(SC moved or the conduct o the preelection conerence. 6he petitioner primarily =led its comment on the list o employees submitted by ?F3/!0I?-//(SC1 and simultaneously sought the e:clusion o some rom the list o employees or occupying either con=dential or managerial positions. 6he petitioner =led a motion to dismiss on 0pril #%1 )&&&1raising the prolonged lack o interest o ?F3/!0I?-//(SC to pursue its petition or certi=cation election. 7n (ay #)1 )&&&1 the petitioner =led a petition or the cancellation o ?F3/!0I?-//(SC4s registration as a labor union or ailing to submit its annual =nancial reports and an updated list o members as re+uired by 0rticle )'G and 0rticle )'$ o the "a*or Co&e1 docketed as Case ?o. ?C!-7D&&&-&&8-I!D entitled The :erita'e :otel Manila$ actin' throu'h its o+ner$ abor and Employment AD7>E issued a notice scheduling the certi=cation elections on "une )'1 )&&&.
Dissatis=ed1 the petitioner commenced in the C0 on "une #81 )&&& a special civil action or certiorari1 alleging that the D7>E gravely abused its discretion in not suspending the certi=cation election proceedings. 7n "une )'1 )&&&1 the C0 dismissed the petition or certiorari or non-e:haustion o administrative remedies. 6he certi=cation election proceeded as scheduled1 and ?F3/!0I?-//(SC obtained the ma5ority vote o the bargaining unit. 6he petitioner =led a protest A*ith motion to deer the certi=cation o the election results and the *inner1 insisting on the illegitimacy o ?F3/!0I?-//(SC. 6he (ed ; 0rbiter ruled that the petition or the cancellation o union registration *as not a bar to the holding o the certi=cation election. 0n appeal *as then =led beore the D7>E Secretary. 6he D7>E Secretary denied the appeal and a@rmed the ruling o the med ; arbiter. 0 motion or reconsideration *as =led but the same *as denied. 6he D7>E Secretary declared that the mi:ture or co-mingling o employees in a union *as not a ground or dismissing a petition or the certi=cation election under Section ##1 par. II1 !ule NI o Department 7rder ?o. $ that the appropriate remedy *as to e:clude the ineligible employees rom the bargaining unit during the inclusion-e:clusion proceedings that the dismissal o the petition or the certi=cation election based on the legitimacy o the petitioning union *ould be inappropriate because it *ould efectively allo* a collateral attack against the union4s legal personality and that a collateral attack against the personality o the labor organi,ation *as prohibited under Section 1 !ule V o Department 7rder ?o. $1 Series o #$$%. 6he matter *as elevated beore the C0. 6he C0 dismissed the petition. 6he act that the cancellation proceeding has not yet been resolved makes it obvious that the legal personality o the respondent union is still very much in orce. 6he D7>E has thus every reason to proceed *ith the certi=cation election and commits no grave abuse o discretion in allo*ing it to prosper because the right to be certi=ed as collective bargaining agent is one o the legitimate privileges o a registered union. It is or the petitioner to e:pedite the cancellation case i it *ants to put an end to the certi=cation case1 but it cannot place the issue o the union4s legitimacy in the certi=cation case1 or that *ould be tantamount to making the collateral attack the D7>E has staunchly argued to be impermissible. /ence1 this petition. +ssue: 3ill the certi=cation election prosper Ruling: 45S.
2asic in the realm o labor union rights is that the certi=cation election is the sole concern o the *orkers1 and the employer is deemed an intruder as ar as the certi=cation election is concerned. 6hus1 the petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings or the certi=cation election1 and should stand aside as a mere bystander *ho could not oppose the petition1 or even appeal the (ed-0rbiter4s orders relative to the conduct o the certi=cation election. E:cept *hen it is re+uested to bargain collectively1 an employer is a mere bystander to any petition or certi=cation election such proceeding is nonadversarial and merely investigative1 or the purpose thereo is to determine *hich organi,ation *ill represent the employees in their collective bargaining *ith the employer. 6he choice o their representative is the e:clusive concern o the employees the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein it cannot interere *ith1 much less oppose1 the process by =ling a motion to dismiss or an appeal rom it not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition or certi=cation election are actually managerial employees *ill lend an employer legal personality to block the certi=cation election. 6he employerQs only right in the proceeding is to be noti=ed or inormed thereo. 6he petitioner4s meddling in the conduct o the certi=cation election among its employees unduly gave rise to the suspicion that it intended to establish a company union. 9or that reason1 the challenges it posed against the certi=cation election proceedings *ere rightly denied. Fnder the long established rule1 too1 the ;ling o1 the petition 1or the cancellation o1 7@LR'+LL?SCabor Code1 as amended by !epublic 0ct ?o. $8G#1*hich readsH 'rticle (H"'. /&ect of a Petition for 3ancellation of 4e%istration ; 0 petition or cancellation o union registration shall not suspend the proceedings or certi=cation election nor shall it prevent the =ling o a petition or certi=cation election.
6hus1 !.0. ?o. $8G# amended 0rticle )'$ to readH 'RT. (H#. Groun0s 1or Cancellation o1 7nion Registration. --6he ollo*ing may constitute grounds or cancellation o union registrationH
Aa (isrepresentation1 alse statement or raud in connection *ith the adoption or rati=cation o the constitution and by-la*s or amendments thereto1 the minutes o rati=cation1 and the list o members *ho took part in the rati=cation Ab (isrepresentation1 alse statements or raud in connection *ith the election o o@cers1 minutes o the election o o@cers1 and the list o voters Ac Voluntary dissolution by the members. !.0. ?o. $8G# also inserted in the >abor Code 0rticle )8)-01 *hich providesH 'RT. ($('. Reportorial Reuirements .--6he ollo*ing are documents re+uired to be submitted to the 2ureau by the legitimate labor organi,ation concernedH
Aa Its constitution and by-la*s1 or amendments thereto1 the minutes o rati=cation1 and the list o members *ho took part in the rati=cation o the constitution and by-la*s *ithin thirty A'& days rom adoption or rati=cation o the constitution and by-la*s or amendments thereto Ab Its list o o@cers1 minutes o the election o o@cers1 and list o voters *ithin thirty A'& days rom election Ac Its annual =nancial report *ithin thirty A'& days ater the close o every =scal year and Ad Its list o members at least once a year or *henever re+uired by the 2ureau. *ailure to compl- ith the a6ove reuirements shall not 6e a groun0 1or cancellation o1 union registration 6ut shall su68ect the erring oFcers or mem6ers to suspension, e3pulsion 1rom mem6ership, or anappropriate penalt-.
6he ruling thereby *rote 2nis to the challenge being posed by the petitioner against the illegitimacy o ?F3/!0I?-//(SC.
Topic: Service Charges, egotiate0 Contracts, Special Rates Ponente: Justice 'rturo D. Erion 'T+'= 7+ * @RK5RS + LT5= R5ST'7R'T 'D '==+5D +D7STR+5S I7@LR'+'P=+7*, PL+=+PP+5 P='M' CL'PT5R v. PL+=+PP+5 P='M' L=D+GS, +C., G.R. o. !>>%($, Jul- (H, ()!$ *acts: 6he Fnion is the collective bargaining agent o the rank-and-=le employees o respondent Philippine Pla,a /oldings1 Inc. APP/I. 6he PP/I and the Fnion e:ecuted the W6hird !ank-and-9ile Collective 2argaining 0greement as 0mendedX AC20. 6he C20 provided1 among others1 or the collection1 by the PP/I1 o a ten percent A#&O service charge on the sale o ood1 beverage1 transportation1 laundry and rooms. 6he C20 provisions merely reiterated similar provisions ound in the PP/I-Fnion4s earlier collective bargaining agreement e:ecuted.
6he Fnion4s Service Charge Committee inormed the Fnion President1 through an audit report A#st audit report1 o uncollected service charges or the last +uarter o #$$G amounting to P)1$)18L%.L#. Speci=cally1 the audit report reerred to the service charges rom the ollo*ing itemsH A# W"ournal VouchersX A) W2an+uet 7ther !evenueX and A' WStaf and Promo.X 6he Fnion presented this audit report to the PP/I4s management during the >abor (anagement Cooperation (eeting A>(C(. 6he PP/I4s management responded that the /otel 9inancial Controller *ould need to veriy the audit report. 6hrough a letter1 the PP/I admitted liability or PG&1&L'.GG out o the P)1$)18L%.L# that the Fnion claimed as uncollected service charges. 6he PP/I denied the rest o the Fnion4s claims becauseH A# they *ere e:empted rom the service charge being revenues rom Wspecial promotionsX Arevenue rom the 3estin old Card sales or Wnegotiated contractsX Aalleged revenue rom the (a:i-(edia contract A) the revenues did not belong to the PP/I but to third-party suppliers and A' no revenue *as reali,ed rom these
transactions as they *ere actually e:penses incurred or the bene=t o e:ecutives or by *ay o good-*ill to clients and government o@cials. During the >(C(1 the Fnion maintained its position on uncollected service charges so that a deadlock on the issue ensued. 6he parties agreed to reer the matter to a third party or the solution. 6hey considered t*o options ; voluntary arbitration or court action ; and promised to get back to each other on their chosen option. In its ormal reply Ato the PP/I4s letter A)nd audit report1 the Fnion modi=ed its claims. It claimed uncollected service charges romH A# W"ournal Vouchers - 3estin old !evenue and (a:i-(ediaX A9R2 and !ooms 2arter A) W2an+uet and 7ther !evenueX and A' WStaf and Promo.X 6he Fnion4s Service Charge Committee made another service charge audit report or the years #$$%1 #$$G and #$$$ A'rd audit report. 6his 'rd audit report reected total uncollected service charges o P1LL1&&%.L) rom the ollo*ing entriesH A# W"ournal VouchersX A) Wuaranteed ?o Sho*X A' WPromotionsX and A8 W9 R 2 !evenue.X 6he Fnion President presented the 'rd audit report to the PP/I. 3hen the parties ailed to reach an agreement1 the Fnion1 =led beore the >0 A!egional 0rbitration 2ranch o the ?>!C a complaint or non-payment o speci=ed service charges and unair labor practice. >0 dismissed the Fnion4s complaint or lack o merit. ?>!C reversed the >04s decision and considered the speci=ed entriesBtransactions as Wservice chargeable.X 6he P//I *ent to the C0 on a petition or certiorari ater the ?>!C denied its motion or reconsideration. 6he C0 granted the PP/I4s petition. It a@rmed the >04s decision. 6he Fnion =led the present petition ater the C0 denied its motion or reconsideration in the C04s resolution. +ssue: 3hether or not service charges should have been collected Aand distributed to the covered employees or the speci=ed entriesBtransactions. Ruling: o.
?o service charges *ere due rom the speci=ed entriesBtransactions they either all *ithin the C20-e:cepted W?egotiated ContractsX and WSpecial !atesX or did not involve Wa sale o ood1 beverage1 etc.X 6he Fnion anchors its claim or services charges on Sections &" an0 o1 the CE', in relation ith 'rticle #& o1 the =a6or Co0e. Section LG states that the sale o ood1 beverage1 transportation1 laundry and rooms are su68ect to service charge at the rate o1 ten percent I!).53cepte0 rom the coverage o the #&O service charge are the so-called W negotiate0 contracts an0 Qspecial rates.
9ollo*ing the *ordings o Section LG o the C201 three re+uisites must be present or the provisions on service charges to operateH A# the transaction rom *hich service charge is sought to be collected is a sale A) the sale transaction covers ood1 beverage1 transportation1 laundry and roomsand A' the sale does not result rom negotiated contracts andBor at special rates. In plain terms1 all transactions involving a Qsale o1 1oo0, 6everage, transportation, laun0r- an0 rooms are generall- covere0. 53cepte0 rom the coverage are1 ;rst1 non-sale transactions or transactions that do not involve any sale even though they involve Wood1 beverage1 etc.X Secon01 transactions that involve a sale but do not involve Wood1 beverage1 etc.X 0nd thir01 transactions involving Wnegotiated contractsX and Wspecial ratesX i.e.1 a Wsale o ood1 beverage1 etc.X resulting rom Wnegotiated contractsX or at Wspecial ratesX non-sale transactions involving Wood1 beverage1 etc.X resulting rom Wnegotiated contractsX andBor Wspecial ratesX and sale transactions1 but not involving Wood1 beverage1 etc.1X resulting rom Wnegotiated contractsX and Wspecial rates.X ?otably1 the CE' 0oes not speci;call- 0e;ne the terms Qnegotiate0 contracts an0 Qspecial rates. ?onetheless1 the C20 like*ise does not e:plicitly limit the use o these terms to speci=ed transactions. 3ith particular reerence to Wnegotiated contracts1X the C20 does not con=ne its application to Wairline contractsX as argued by the Fnion. 6hus1 as correctly declared by the C01 the term Wnegotiated contractsX should be read as applying to all types o negotiated contracts and not to Wairlines contractsX only. 6his is in line *ith the basic rule o construction that hen the terms are clear an0 leave no 0ou6t upon the intention o1 the contracting parties, the literal meaning o1 its stipulations shall prevail . 0 constricted interpretation o this term1 i.e.1 as applicable to Wairlines contractsX only1 must be positively sho*n either by the *ordings o the C20 or by su@cient evidence o the parties4 intention to limit its application. The 7nion completel- 1aile0 to provi0e support 1or its constricte0 rea0ing o1 the term Qnegotiate0 contracts, either rom the *ordings o the C20 or rom the evidence. In reversing the ?>!C4s ruling and denying the Fnion4s claim1 the C0 ound the speci=ed entriesBtransactions as either alling under the e:cepted negotiated contracts andBor special rates or not involving a sale o ood1 beverage1 etc. Speci=cally1 it considered the entries W3estin old Cards !evenueX and W(a:i (edia 2arterX to be negotiated contracts or contracts under special rates1 and the entries W2usiness PromotionsX and Wit Certi=catesX as contracts that did not involve a sale o ood1 beverage1 etc. 6he C0 also ound no actual and evidentiary basis to support the Fnion4s claim or service charges on the entries Wuaranteed ?o sho*X and W9 R 2 !evenue.X
Topic: 5ntitlement to Death Eene;ts Ponente: Chie1 Justice ?aria =our0es P.'. Sereno JR'+' DR'G T'=S+G v. 7+T5D PL+=+PP+5 =+5S, +C., G.R. o. !#"H"", Jul- (", ()!$ *acts: Petitioner is the *ido* o Vladimir 6alosig1 a seaarer hired as an assistant butcher in the ship (S Yuiderdam. 6he vessel is o*ned by respondent /olland 0merican >ine 3astours1 Inc. through its local manning agent1 Fnited Philippine >ine1 Inc. 6alosig and respondent e:ecuted a Contract o Employment incorporating the Standard 6erms and Conditions overning the Employment o 9ilipino Seaarers on 2oard 7cean-oing Vessels AStandard Employment Contract as prescribed by the Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration AP7E0. 6he duration o the contract *as t*elve A#) months. 6alosig under*ent the re+uired Pre-Employment (edical E:amination APE(E prior to his deployment. /e passed the PE(E and *as declared <=t to *ork.< /e boarded (S Yuiderdamon )L 0ugust )&&.
During his employment *ith respondent1 he *as con=ned in the South (iami /ospital sometime ater sufering a month o rectal bleeding and lo*er abdominal pain. /e *as then diagnosed *ith a !C or death bene=ts1 damages and attorney4s ees. 6he labor arbiter rendered a Decision in avor o petitioner and ordered respondents to pay FSD &1&&& as death bene=ts1 FSD %1&&& as entitlement o one minorchild1 and FSD #1&&& as burial bene=ts. 6he >0 held that petitioner had ailed to establish that 6alosig4s death *as reasonably connected to his *ork ho*ever1 it took 5udicial notice o the act that the diet o the ship4s cre* seldomcontained vegetables and high-=ber oods1 likely contributing to the *orsening o petitioner4s condition. Fpon appeal1 the ?>!C reversed the ruling o the >0. It ruled that the >0 erred *hen it ormed its o*n scenarios1 surmises and conclusions on *hat could have caused petitioner4s colon cancer on board the vessel. 9urthermore1 the ?>!C ound that his death occurred ater the termination o his contract1 a act that should have been the ground or the outright dismissal o petitioner4s claim. 0 Petition or Certiorari *as =led by petitioner *ith the C0. 6he appellate court a@rmed the ?>!C and held that the death o a seaarer is compensable only i it occurs during the term o his contract o employment. Fpon 6alosig4s medical repatriation1 the obligation to pay the death bene=ts ceased in accordance *ith the parties4employment contract. 6he C0 urther held that 6alosig4s illness *as not one o the occupational diseases enumeratedin the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract or seaarers. It also stated that petitioner ailed to provide su@cient proo that the illness *as reasonably connected to 6alosig4s *ork1 or that colon cancer *as an accepted occupational disease. +ssue: 3hether or not the petitioner is entitled to the death bene=ts as claimed. Ruling: ?o. Petitioner is not entitled to the death bene=ts based on t*o groundsH A# that at the time o his death1 6alosig *as no longer under the employment o respondents and A) that there *as neither any sho*ing that the cause o his death *as one o those covered by the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract1 nor *as there any proo that it *as *ork-related. It is
undeniable that the death o a seaarer must have occurred during the term o his contract o employment or it to be compensable. !ecords sho* that the contract o 6alosig *as or the duration o #) months commencing on the date o his actual departure rom point o hire. /e *as1 ho*ever1 repatriated or medical reasons on )8 December )&&. 6he C0 ruled that upon his repatriation1 his employment *as efectively terminated pursuant to Section #G 2A#o the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract. Colon cancer is not one o those types o cancer that are compensable under Section ') o the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract. Fnder Section ')-0 o the P7E0 Standard Contract1 only t*o types o cancers are listed as occupational diseases ; A# Cancer o the epithelial lining o the bladder Apapilloma o the bladder and A) cancer1 epithellematous or ulceration othe skin or o the corneal surace o the eye due to tar1 pitch1 bitumen1 mineral oil or para@n1 or compound products or residues o these substances. Section )& o the same Contract also states that those illnesses not listed under Section ') are disputably presumed as *ork-related. Section )& should1 ho*ever1 be read together *ith Section ')-0 on the conditions to be satis=ed or an illness to be compensable. 9or an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable1 all the ollo*ing conditions must be establishedH #. 6he seaarer4s *ork must involve the risk described herein ). 6he disease *as contracted as a result o the seaarer4s e:posure to the described risks '. 6he disease *as contracted *ithin a period o e:posure and under such other actors necessary to contract it 8. 6here *as no notorious negligence on the part o the seaarer. 9urther1 the claimant must not merely rely on the disputable presumption1 but must be able to present no less than substantial evidence to support her claim. Substantial evidence ismore than a mere scintilla. It must reach the level o relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as su@cient to support a conclusion. 6he petitioner did not present any proo o a causal connection or at least a *ork relation bet*een the employment o 6alosig and his colon cancer. Petitioner merely relied on presumption o causality. She ailed either to establish or even to mention the risks that could have caused or1 at the very least1contributed to the disease contracted by 6alosig. 0bsent o any substantial proo o the causal connection bet*een the disease o 6alosig and his *ork1 the Court cannot grant death bene=ts to his heirs based on mere presumptions.
Topic: 2ali0 A Just Cause 1or Dismissal Ponente: Dios0a0o ?. Peralta, J. *=P 5T5RPR+S5S +C. *R'C5SC SL5S v. ?'. J5R'=4 D. D5=' CR7M an0 2+=?' ?'=75S, G.R. o. !#")#H, Jul- (", ()!$
*actsH Petitioner 9>PE hired respondent Dela Cru, in #$$# and respondent (alunes in #$$G as sales ladies and assigned them both at its 0labang 6o*n Center store in (untinlupa City. 2ecause o the several previous incidents o thet in its retail outlets1 petitioner ormulated a policy re+uiring its sales staf to keep the sales proceeds in the stockroom instead o the cash register. Petitioner alleged that said policy *as properly announced1 posted1 and implemented in all its retail outlets1 particularly in 0labang 6o*n Center.
7n (arch #&1 )&&G1 it *as discovered that the store4s sales proceeds or (arch % to (arch $1 )&&G1 amounting to )L1'%).%1 *ere missing. 6he investigating authorities ound that it resulted rom an PE thus re+uired respondents to e:plain in *riting *hy they should not be terminated. It contended that respondents clearly violated its company policy prohibiting sales proceeds rom being stored in the cash register. 0ccordingly1 Dela Cru, and (alunes submitted their respective *ritten e:planations. 6hey both denied the e:istence o such company policy and having kno*ledge thereo. 9>PE thereater removed respondents rom service. 0ggrieved1 respondents =led a complaint or illegal dismissal *ith money claims against the company. 6he >0 dismissed respondents4 claim and held that 9>PE *as able to su@ciently prove that respondents *ere guilty o habitually violating the company standard procedure on saekeeping o cash collection. Fpon appeal1 the ?>!C a@rmed the >0 Decision in its entirety. Subse+uently1 respondents elevated the case to the C01 imputing grave abuse o discretion on the ?>!C4s part. 6he C0 set aside the ?>!C ruling and pronounced respondents as having been illegally dismissed by 9>PE. +ssue: 3hether or not Dela Cru, and (alunes *ere illegally dismissed by 9>PE. Ruling: Jes. It is a undamental rule that an employee can be discharged rom employment only or a valid cause. /ere1 both the >0 and the ?>!C ound that respondents have been validly terminated or gross and habitual neglect o duties1 constituting 5ust cause or termination under 0rticle )G) o the >abor Code. 0s a valid ground or dismissal under said provision1 neglect o duty must be both gross and habitual. ross negligence entails *ant o care in the perormance o one4s duties1 *hile habitual neglect imparts repeated ailure to perorm such duties or a period o time1 depending on the circumstances.
Substantial evidence is also necessary or an employer to efectuate any dismissal. Fncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer *ould
not su@ce1 other*ise1 the constitutional guaranty o security o tenure *ould be put in 5eopardy. In this case1 as the C0 correctly ruled1 in order to sustain herein respondents4 dismissal1 9>PE must sho*1 by substantial evidence1 that the ollo*ing are e:tantH # the e:istence o the sub5ect company policy ) the dismissed employee must have been properly inormed o said policy ' actions or omissions on the part o the dismissed employee maniesting deliberate reusal or *iluldisregard o said company policy and 8 such actions or omissions have occurred repeatedly. 9>PE claims that its company policy that re+uires its sales managers and staf to keep the sales proceeds in a shoebo: in the stockroom and not inside the cash register1 have been in e:istence since 7ctober )'1 )&&'. /o*ever1 9>PE ailed to establish that such a company policy actually e:ists1 and i it does truly e:ist1 that it *as1 in act1 posted andBor disseminated accordingly. ?either is there anything in the records *hich reveals that the dismissed respondents *ere inormed o said policy. 6he company vehemently insists that it posted1 announced1 and implemented the sub5ect Saekeeping Policy in all its retail stores1 especially the one in 0labang 6o*n Center. It1 ho*ever1 ailed to substantiate said claim. It could have easily produced a copy o said memorandum bearing the signatures o Dela Cru, and (alunes to sho* that1 indeed1 they have been noti=ed o the e:istence o said company rule and that they have received1 read1 and understood the same. 9>PE could like*ise have simply called some o its employees to testiy on the rule4s e:istence1 dissemination1 and strict implementation. 2ut aside rom its sel-serving and uncorroborated declaration1 and a copy o the supposed policy1 9>PE adduced nothing more. In termination cases1 the burden o proo rests on the employer to sho* that the dismissal is or a 5ust cause. 6he one *ho alleges a act has the burden o proving it thus1 9>PE should prove its allegation that it terminated respondents or a valid and 5ust cause. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this act must be clear1 positive1 and convincing. 3hen there is no sho*ing o a clear1 valid1 and legal cause or the termination o employment1 the la* considers the matter a case o illegal dismissal. Fnortunately1 9>PE miserably ailed to discharge this burden. 6o rule other*ise and simply allo* the presumption as to the e:istence and dissemination o the supposed company policy *ould lead to a prolieration o abricated notices1 and entice urther abuse by unscrupulous persons. 3orkers could then be arbitrarily terminated *ithout much o an efort1 running aoul o the State4s clear duty to sho* compassion and aford the utmost protection to laborers.
6rue1 an employer has the discretion to regulate all aspects o employment and the *orkers have the corresponding obligation to obey company rules and regulations. Deliberately disregarding or disobeying the rules cannot be countenanced1 and any 5usti=cation that the disobedient employee might put orth is deemed inconse+uential. /o*ever1 the Court must emphasi,e that the prerogative o an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground o *illul disobedience to company policies must be e:ercised in good aith and *ith due regard to the rights o labor 9or lack o any clear1 valid1 and 5ust cause in terminating respondentsQ employment1 9>PE is indubitably guilty o illegal dismissal.
Topic: 53istence o1 5mplo-er 5mplo-ee Relationship Ponente: ?ariano C. 0el Castillo, J. R4'=5 L?5S ?'RK5T+G CRPR'T+ v. *+D5= P. '=C'T'R', G.R. o. !#%!#) Jul- (", ()!$ *acts: !oyale /omes1 a corporation engaged in marketing real estates1 appointed 0lcantara as its (arketing Director or a =:ed period o one year. /is *ork consisted mainly o marketing !oyale /omes4 real estate inventories on an e:clusive basis. !oyale /omes reappointed him or several consecutive years1 the last o *hich covered the period "anuary # to December '#1 )&&' *here he held the position o Division Vice-PresidentSales.
0lcantara =led a Complaint or Illegal Dismissal against !oyale /omes and its E:ecutives. 0lcantara alleged that he is a regular employee o !oyale /omes since he is perorming tasks that are necessary and desirable to its business and that the acts o the e:ecutive o@cers o !oyale /omes amounted to his dismissal rom *ork *ithout any valid or 5ust cause and in gross disregard o the proper procedure or dismissing employees. /e prayed to be reinstated to his ormer position *ithout loss o seniority rights and other privileges1 as *ell as to be paid back*ages1 moral and e:emplary damages. !oyale /omes1 on the other hand1 vehemently denied that 0lcantara is its employee. It argued that the appointment paper o 0lcantara is clear that it engaged his services as an independent sales contractor or a =:ed term o one year only. /e never received any salary1 #'th month pay1 overtime pay or holiday pay rom !oyale /omes as he *as paid purely on commission basis. In addition1 !oyale /omes had no control on ho* 0lcantara *ould accomplish his tasks and responsibilities as he *as ree to solicit sales at any time and by any manner *hich he may deem appropriate and necessary. /e is even ree to recruit his o*n sales personnel to assist him in pursuance o his sales target. 6he >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision holding that 0lcantara is an employee o !oyale /omes *ith a =:ed-term employment period rom "anuary # to December '#1 )&&' and that the pre-termination o his contract *as against the la*. Fpon appeal1 the ?>!C ruled that 0lcantara is not an employee but a mere independent contractor o !oyale /omes. It based its ruling mainly on the contract *hich does not re+uire 0lcantara to observe regular *orking hours. /e *as also ree to adopt the selling methods he deemed most efective and can even recruit sales agents to assist him in marketing the inventories o
!oyale /omes. 6he ?>!C also considered the act that 0lcantara *as not receiving monthly salary1 but *as being paid on commission basis as stipulated in the contract. 2eing an independent contractor1 the ?>!C concluded that 0lcantara4s Complaint is cogni,able by the regular courts. 0lcantara thus =led a Petition or Certiorari *ith the C0 *hich granted said petition and reversed the ?>!C4s Decision. 0pplying the our-old and economic reality tests1 it held that 0lcantara is an employee o !oyale /omes. !oyale /omes e:ercised some degree o control over 0lcantara since his 5ob1 as observed by the C01 is sub5ect to company rules1 regulations1 and periodic evaluations. /e *as also bound by the company code o ethics. +ssueH 3hether or not 0lcantara is an employee o !oyale /omes. Ruling: ?o. 0lcantara is not an employee o !oyale /omes1 but a mere independent contractor. 6he determination o *hether a party *ho renders services to another is an employee or an independent contractor involves an evaluation o actual matters *hich1 ordinarily1 is not *ithin the province o the Supreme Court. /o*ever1 in vie* o the conicting =ndings o the tribunals belo*1 the Court is constrained to go over the actual matters involved in this case.
In determining the e:istence o an employer-employee relationship1 the Court has generally relied on the our-old test1 to *itH A# the selection and engagement o the employee A) the payment o *ages A' the po*er o dismissal and A8 the employer4s po*er to control the employee *ith respect to the means and methods by *hich the *ork is to be accomplished. 0mong the our1 the most determinative actor in ascertaining the e:istence o employer-employee relationship is the Wright o control testX. WIt is deemed to be such an important actor that the other re+uisites may even be disregarded.X 6his holds true *here the issues to be resolved is *hether a person *ho perorms *ork or another is the latter4s employee or is an independent contractor1 as in this case. 9or *here the person or *hom the services are perormed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved1 but also the means by *hich such end is reached1 employeremployee relationship is deemed to e:ist. /o*ever1 not every orm o control is indicative o employer-employee relationship. 0 person *ho perorms *ork or another and is sub5ected to its rules1 regulations1 and code o ethics does not necessarily become an employee. 0s long as the level o control does not interere *ith the means and methods o accomplishing the assigned tasks1 the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor la* concept o control that is indicative o employer-employee relationship.
6he primary evidence o the nature o the parties4 relationship in this case is the *ritten contract that they signed and e:ecuted in pursuance o their mutual agreement. 3hile the e:istence o employer-employee relationship is a matter o la*1 the characteri,ation made by the parties in their contract as to the nature o their 5uridical relationship cannot be simply ignored1 particularly in this case *here the parties4 *ritten contract une+uivocally states their intention at the time they entered into it. In 6ongko v. 6he (anuacturers >ie Insurance Co. APhils.1 Inc.1 it *as held thatH <6o be sure1 the 0greement4s legal characteri,ation o the nature o the relationship cannot be conclusive and binding on the courts : :: the characteri,ation o the 5uridical relationship the 0greement embodied is a matter o la* that is or the courts to determine. 0t the same time1 though1 the characteri,ation the parties gave to their relationship in the 0greement cannot simply be brushed aside because it embodies their intent at the time they entered the 0greement1 and they *ere governed by this understanding throughout their relationship. 0t the very least1 the provision on the absence o employer-employee relationship bet*een the parties can be an aid in considering the 0greement and its implementation1 and in appreciating the other evidence on record.< In this case1 the contract1 duly signed and not disputed by the parties1 conspicuously provides that Wno employer-employee relationship e:ists bet*eenX !oyale /omes and 0lcantara1 as *ell as his sales agents. It is clear that they did not *ant to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time o the signing o the contract. >ike*ise1 the repeated hiring o 0lcantara does not prove the e:istence o employer-employee relationship. 6he absence o control over the means and methods disproves employer-employee relationship. 6he continuous rehiring o 0lcantara simply signi=es the rene*al o his contract *ith !oyale /omes1 and highlights his satisactory services *arranting the rene*al o such contract. 6he element o payment o *ages is also absent in this case. 0s provided in the contract1 0lcantara4s remunerations consist only o commission override o &.O1 budget allocation1 sales incentive and other orms o company support. 6here is no proo that he received =:ed monthly salary.
Topic: Termination 0ue to trust an0 con;0ence Ponente: PR5SE+T5R J. 25='SC, JR. @esle-an 7niversit-Philippines v. oella Re-es G.R. o. ()"H(!, Jul- H), ()!$ *acts: 7n (arch #L1 )&&81 respondent ?o*ella !eyes *as appointed as 3FPQs Fniversity 6reasurer on probationary basis. 0 little over a year ater1 she *as appointed as ull time Fniversity 6reasurer. 0 ne* 3FP 2oard o 6rustees *as constituted. 0mong its =rst acts *as to engage the services o ?epomuceno Suner R 0ssociates 0ccounting 9irm AE:ternal 0uditor to investigate circulating rumors on alleged anomalies in the contracts entered into by petitioner and in its =nances.
Discovered ollo*ing an audit *ere irregularities in the handling o petitioner4s =nances1 mainly1 the encashment by its 6reasury Department o checks issued to 3FP personnel1 a practice purportedly in violation o the imprest system o cash management1 and the encashment o various crossed checks payable to the Fniversity 6reasurer by Chinabank despite management4s intention to merely have the unds covered thereby transerred rom one o petitioner4s bank accounts to another. !espondent submitted her E:planation. 9ollo*ing *hich1 3FP4s /uman !esources Development 7@ce A/!D7 conducted an investigation. 9inding respondent4s E:planation unsatisactory1 the /!D71 submitted an Investigation !eport to the Fniversity President containing its =ndings and recommending respondent4s dismissal as Fniversity 6reasurer.
Fpon receipt o her notice o termination1 respondent post-haste =led a complaint or illegal dismissal *ith the 0rbitration 2ranch o the ?ational >abor !elations Commission. She contended that her dismissal *as illegal1 void and un5ust. >abor 0rbiter !eynaldo V. 0bdon rendered a Decision =nding that complainant *as illegally dismissed by respondent 3esleyan Fniversity Philippines. Petitioner =led an appeal *ith the ?ational >abor !elations Commission A?>!C *hich *as granted in the tribunal4s Decision1 declaring that respondent *as legally dismissed. 6he C01 through its assailed Decision ound the ?>!C4s ruling tainted *ith grave abuse o discretion and reinstated the Decision o the >abor 0rbiter. /ence1 the instant petition.
+ssueH 3hether respondent ?o*ella !eyesQ termination as Fniversity 6reasurer o petitioner 3esleyan Fniversity - Philippines A3FP on the ground o loss o trust and con=dence *as valid.
Ruling: 4es.
0rticle )G). 6ermination by employer. 0n employer may terminate an employment or any o the ollo*ing causesH ::::
c. 9raud or *illul breach by the employee o the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authori,ed representative
6he =rst re+uisite is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position o trust and con=dence1 thus1 one *ho is eitherH A# a managerial employee or A) a =duciary rank-and-=le employee1 *ho1 in the normal e:ercise o his or her unctions1 regularly handles signi=cant amounts o money or property o the employer. 6he second re+uisite is that the loss o con=dence must be based on a *illul breach o trust and ounded on clearly established acts.
6he presence o the =rst re+uisite is certain. So is as regards the second re+uisite. Indeed1 the Court =nds that petitioner ade+uately proved respondent4s dismissal *as or a 5ust cause1 based on a *illul breach o trust and ounded on clearly established acts as re+uired by 5urisprudence. 0t the end o the day1 the +uestion o *hether she *as a managerial or rank-and =le employee does not matter in this case because not only is there basis or believing that she breached the trust o her employer1 her involvement in the irregularities attending to petitioner4s =nances has also been proved.
/ere1 there *as an admitted1 actual and real breach o duty committed by respondent1 *hich translates into a breach o trust and con=dence in her. 0s it *ere1 respondent did not deny1 in act admitted1 the encashment o the three hundred thousand peso APhP '&&1&&& crossed check payable to the Fniversity 6reasurer *hich covered the total amount o the
"urisprudence has pronounced that the crossing o a check means that the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank. 0s 6reasurer1 respondent kne* or is at least e:pected to be a*are o and abide by this basic banking practice and commercial custom. Clearly1 the issuance o a crossed check reects management4s intention to saeguard the unds covered thereby1 its special instruction to have the same deposited to another account and its restriction on its encashment.
/ere1 respondent1 as aptly detailed in the auditor4s report1 disregarded management4s intentions and ignored the measures in place to secure the handling o 3FP4s unds. 2y encashing the crossed checks1 respondent put the unds covered thereby under the risk o being lost1 stolen1 co-mingled *ith other unds or spent or other purposes. 9urthermore1 the accommodation and encashment by the 6reasury Department o checks issued to 3FP personnel *ere highly irregular. 9irst1 3FP1 not being a bank1 had no business encashing the checks o its personnel. (ore importantly1 in encashing the said checks1 the 6reasury Department made disbursements
contrary to the *ishes o management because1 in issuing said checks1 management has made clear its intention that monies thereor *ould be sourced rom petitioner4s deposit *ith Chinabank1 under a speci=c account1 and not rom the cash available in the 6reasury Department.
6hat the encashment o crossed checks and payment o checks directly to 3FP personnel had been the practice o the previous and present administration o petitioner is o no moment. 6his *as simply respondent4s convenient e:cuse1 a poorly disguised aterthought1 *hen her unbecoming carelessness in managing 3FP4s =nances *as e:posed. (oreover1 the prevalence o this practice could have been contained i only respondent consistently observed the regular procedure or encashing crossed checks and properly handled re+uests or accommodation o checks issued to the 3FP personnel.
In employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee *ho is guilty o acts inimical to the interests o the employer. 0 company has the right to dismiss its employees i only as a measure o sel-protection. 6his is all the more true in the case o supervisors or personnel occupying positions o responsibility. In this case1 let it be remembered that respondent *as not an ordinary rank-and-=le employee as she *as no less the 6reasurer *ho *as in charge o the cofers o the Fniversity. It *ould be oppressive to re+uire petitioner to retain in their management an o@cer *ho has admitted to kno*ingly and intentionally committing acts *hich 5eopardi,ed its =nances and *ho *as untrust*orthy in the handling and custody o Fniversity unds.
Topic: Grievance Proce0ure Ponente: 'T+ T. C'RP+ 7niversit- o1 Santo Tomas *acult- 7nion v. 7niversit- o1 Sto. Tomas, G.R. o. ()H#%>, Jul- H), ()!$ *acts: In a letter dated 9ebruary L1 )&&%1 Fniversity o Santo 6omas 9aculty Fnion AFS69F demanded rom Fniversity o Sto. 6omas AFS61 through its !ector1 9r. Ernesto (. 0rceo1 7.P. A<9r. 0rceo<1 remittance o the total amount o PL1&&&1&&&.&& plus legal interest thereon1 representing de=ciency in its contribution to the medical and hospitali,ation und A<und< o FS64s aculty members. FS69F also sent FS6 a letter accompanied by a summary o its claims pursuant to their #$$L-)& C20.
9r. 0rceo inormed FS69F that the aoresaid bene=ts *ere not meant to be given annually but rather as a one-time allocation or contribution to the und. FS69F then sent FS6 another demand letter reiterating its position that FS6 is obliged to remit to the und1 its contributions not only or the years #$$L#$$% but also or the subse+uent years1 but to no avail. 6hus1 FS69F =led against FS61 a complaint or unair labor practice beore the arbitration branch o the ?>!C. FS6 sought the dismissal o the complaint on the ground o lack o 5urisdiction. It contended that the case alls *ithin the e:clusive 5urisdiction o the voluntary arbitrator or panel o voluntary arbitrators because it involves the interpretation and implementation o the provisions o the C20 and the conict bet*een the herein parties must be resolved as grievance under the C20 and not as unair labor practice. FS64s motion to dismiss *as
denied by the >0 in its 0ugust G1 )&&G order. FS6 appealed the 7rder to the ?>!C. 6he ?>!C Seventh Division1 ho*ever1 dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the >0. 6he >0 ruled in avor o FS69F. 6he ?>!C granted FS69F4s appeal and denied FS64s appeal or lack o merit. FS6 =led a motion or reconsideration o the ?>!C decision. FS6 again claimed that the Voluntary 0rbitrator1 and not >01 had 5urisdiction over the interpretation o the C20 the PG&1&&&1&&&.&& a*ard had no basis and the und should be remitted to the /ospital and (edical 2ene=ts Committee1 not to FS69F1 as stated in the C20. In a !esolution1 the ?>!C denied FS64s motion or reconsideration or lack o merit. 6he C0 disposed o the present case by agreeing *ith FS64s argument that the >0 and the ?>!C did not have 5urisdiction to hear and decide the present case. 6he C0 stated that since FS69F4s ultimate ob5ective is to clariy the relevant items in the C201 then FS69F4s complaint should have been =led *ith the voluntary arbitrator or panel o voluntary arbitrators. +ssue: 3hether the Court o 0ppeals departed rom the usual course o 5udicial proceedings in holding that the >abor 0rbiter and the ?>!C have no 5urisdiction over the complaint or unair labor practice AF>P =led by FS69F. Ruling: o.
6he SC a@rmed *ith modi=cation the ruling o the C0. 6he >abor 0rbiter has no 5urisdiction over the present case. 3e see that FS6 and FS69F4s misunderstanding arose solely rom their difering interpretations o the C204s provisions on economic bene=ts1 speci=cally those concerning the und. 6hereore1 it *as clearly error or the >0 to assume 5urisdiction over the present case. 6he case should have been resolved through the voluntary arbitrator or panel o voluntary arbitrators. 0rticle )#%Ac o the >abor Code provides that the >abor 0rbiter shall reer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as provided in the C20 those cases that involve the interpretation o said agreements. 0rticle )L# o the >abor Code urther provides that all unresolved grievances arising rom the interpretation or implementation o the C201 including violations o said agreement1 are under the original and e:clusive 5urisdiction o the voluntary arbitrator or panel o voluntary arbitrators. E:cluded rom this original and e:clusive 5urisdiction is gross violation o the C201 *hich is de=ned in 0rticle )L# as <agrant andBor malicious reusal to comply *ith the economic provisions< o the C20. Despite the allegation that FS6 reused to comply *ith the economic provisions o the #$$L-)& C201 *e cannot characteri,e FS64s reusal as
<agrant andBor malicious.< Indeed1 FS64s literal interpretation o the C20 *as1 in act1 *hat led FS69F to =le its complaint. 6o our mind1 FS69F actually *ent beyond the te:t o the #$$L-)& C20 *hen it claimed that the integrated tuition ee increase as described in Section #DA) is the basis or FS64s alleged de=ciency. 3e cannot subscribe to FS69F4s vie* that the #$$L-)& C204s 0rticle NH rievance (achinery is not applicable to the present case. 3hen the issue is about the grievance procedure1 FS69F insists on a literal interpretation o the #$$L-)& C20. Indeed1 the present case alls under Section #4s de=nition o grievanceH0 is proper in the absence o a voluntary arbitration clause in the #$$L-)& C204s 0rticle NNIIH Permanent Fniversity-Fnion Committee. /o*ever1 as provided in the #$$L-)& C201 PFFC is established or abor Code1 as *ell as Steps III and IV o Section ' o the #$$L-)& C20.
Topic: Permanent 0isa6ilit- 6ene;ts an0 sickness alloance Ponente: E+525+D =. R545S Status ?aritime Corp. v. Spouses Delalamon G.R. o. !#")#>, JulH), ()!$ *acts: (argarito *as hired by Status (aritime Corporation AStatus (aritime1 or and in behal o its principal1 9airdeal roup (anagement S.0. A9airdeal1 as Chie Engineer *ith a monthly basic salary o FSM#1'&&.&&. 6he employment contract *as originally or a period o nine A$ months rom "uly
)L1 )&& to 0pril )L1 )&&L but (argarito later on re+uested or1 and *as granted1 e:tension until 7ctober )&&L. (argarito let (anila to 5oin the vessel1 (B6 9air "olly1 on "uly )L1 )&& and orth*ith discharged his duties. In September )&&L1 *hile the vessel *as in Fnited 0rab Emirates AF0E1 (argarito complained o loss o appetite. /e *as sent to the ?ational (edical Center at the Port o 9u5airah1 F0E1 or diagnosis and treatment. In a (edical !eport1 (argarito *as diagnosed *ith abor 0rbiter A>0 or the payment o permanent disability bene=ts1 sickness allo*ance1 damages and attorney4s ees against 9airdeal1 (B6 9air "olly1 Status (aritime and its President1 >oma 2. 0guiman Apetitioners. 0ccording to the respondents1 (argarito *as physically *eak *hen he arrived in the Philippines. /e thus sought to rest athome and ailed to report to the petitioners. Priscilla nonetheless noti=ed the petitioners o (argarito4s condition through a certain 0llan >ope,. 3hen (argarito4s medical condition *orsened1 he *as brought to >as PiTas Doctor4s /ospital *here he under*ent a series o clinical and laboratory tests. /e *as again hospitali,ed. 2ased on the medical certi=cate issued by Dr. Eli,abeth 2. Sala,ar-(ontemayor dated "anuary #%1 )&&%1 (argarito *as ound to be suferingrom 01 (argarito died on September ##1 )&&%. /is cause o death *as 0 ound no merit in the respondents4 complaint or the reason that (argarito4s illness is not *ork-related. 6he ?>!C a@rmed the >04s ruling and added that (argarito did
not even bother to comply *ith the mandatory re+uirement o reporting to the petitioners4 o@ce *ithin three A' days rom his disembarkation or postemployment medical e:amination pursuant to Section )& A2U' o the P7E0SEC. 6he respondents elevated the case to the C0 and1 in support o their position that (argarito4s illness is *ork-related by a medical evaluation. 6he C0 reversed the =ndings o the labor tribunals. 6he C0 held that (argarito *as e:empt rom complying *ith the '-day mandatory reporting re+uirement because *hen he arrived in the Philippines1 his physical condition *as already deteriorating and *as in need o urgent medical attention. 6hus1 it could not be e:pected o him to prioriti,e the reporting re+uirement beore attending to his medical needs. 0lso1 his *ie actually noti=ed the petitioners o his medical condition1 through 0llan >ope,. 6he petitioners moved or reconsideration but the motion *as denied in the C0 !esolution. /ence1 the present appeal. +ssue: 3hether the C0 erred in =nding grave abuse o discretion on the part o the ?>!C *hen the latter a@rmed the >0Qs dismissal o (argaritoQs complaint or permanent disability bene=ts and sickness allo*ance Ruling: Jes. S5CT+ (). C?P5S'T+ 'D E55*+TS
:::: E. 0 seaarer *ho kno*ingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition1 disability and history in the pre-employment medical e:amination constitutes raudulent misrepresentation and shall dis+ualiy him rom any compensation and bene=ts. 6his may also be a valid ground or termination o employment and imposition o the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions. AEmphasis ours 6he act that (argarito passed his PE(E cannot e:cuse his *illul concealment nor can it preclude the petitioners rom re5ecting his disability claims. PE(E is not e:ploratory and does not allo* the employer to discover any and all pre-e:isting medical condition *ith *hich the seaarer is sufering and or *hich he may be presently taking medication. 6he PE(E is nothing more than a summary e:amination o the seaarer4s physiological condition it merely determines *hether one is <=t to *ork< at sea or <=t or