1) The case involved an employee who was dismissed for forming a union in violation of the employer's warnings. The NLRC found the dismissal to be illegal, as abandonment of work does not automatically sever the employment relationship under Philippine law.
2) A second case involved a security guard who was dismissed after 13 years for two minor infractions of company policy. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was illegal and without valid cause, as the infractions caused no damage and the employee's long service and performance history weighed in his favor.
3) Philippine law entitles employees who are illegally dismissed to reinstatement and full back wages to alleviate the economic hardship suffered.
1) The case involved an employee who was dismissed for forming a union in violation of the employer's warnings. The NLRC found the dismissal to be illegal, as abandonment of work does not automatically sever the employment relationship under Philippine law.
2) A second case involved a security guard who was dismissed after 13 years for two minor infractions of company policy. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was illegal and without valid cause, as the infractions caused no damage and the employee's long service and performance history weighed in his favor.
3) Philippine law entitles employees who are illegally dismissed to reinstatement and full back wages to alleviate the economic hardship suffered.
1) The case involved an employee who was dismissed for forming a union in violation of the employer's warnings. The NLRC found the dismissal to be illegal, as abandonment of work does not automatically sever the employment relationship under Philippine law.
2) A second case involved a security guard who was dismissed after 13 years for two minor infractions of company policy. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was illegal and without valid cause, as the infractions caused no damage and the employee's long service and performance history weighed in his favor.
3) Philippine law entitles employees who are illegally dismissed to reinstatement and full back wages to alleviate the economic hardship suffered.
1) The case involved an employee who was dismissed for forming a union in violation of the employer's warnings. The NLRC found the dismissal to be illegal, as abandonment of work does not automatically sever the employment relationship under Philippine law.
2) A second case involved a security guard who was dismissed after 13 years for two minor infractions of company policy. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was illegal and without valid cause, as the infractions caused no damage and the employee's long service and performance history weighed in his favor.
3) Philippine law entitles employees who are illegally dismissed to reinstatement and full back wages to alleviate the economic hardship suffered.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Case no. 6.
G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999
DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, AND/OR MILAGROS CHUAKAY and WILLIAM GO, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), et al. Facts: Private respondents are employees of petitioners. They formed a labor organization, affiliating themselves with Federation of Free Workers, calling themselves FFW-kapatirang Manggagawa sa De Paul/King Philip customs Tailor. On march 1993, the union filed a notice of strike due to unfair labor practice. On 6 April 1993, the union president, private respondent Victoriano Santos, stopped working. This was followed by the "walk out" of the other private respondents from their jobs on 12 April 1993. On 13 May 1993, the union filed against the petitioners a case for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime pay before the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch. On 21 June 1993, private respondents disaffiliated from the FFW. The disaffiliation was caused by the failure of FFW to send a representative in two hearings of the case of the private respondents before the labor arbiter. Private respondents claimed that they were previously warned by the petitioners not to organize a union, nor be a member of the same. Otherwise, they will be dismissed. Nevertheless, they still formed the said union. Petitioners denied dismissing the respondents, arguing further that the respondents walked out from their jobs to prepare for a strike to extort money from them. Petitioners contend that they sent notices to respondents to return to work, save two workers who refused to accept the same. Respondents denied having received any notice to return to work. They alleged that they were even prevented to enter the premises of the work place and were threatened by hired policemen who possessed fake warrants of arrest. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint of the respondents for illegal dismissal. Appeal, however, was granted to respondents, making the petitioners liable for illegal dismissal. Thus, requiring the petitioners to pay back wages plus actual reinstatement of the dismissed employees. Issue: W/N the petitioners are liable for illegal dismissal. Held: Yes. It must be stressed that abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is in turn a just cause for termination of employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the employee after complying with the procedure prescribed by law. If the employer does not follow this procedure, there is illegal dismissal. The findings negate the claim interposed by the petitioners that private respondents abandoned their jobs. Abandonment, as a just and valid ground for dismissal means the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. The burden of proof is the employer to show an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment. The intent cannot be lightly inferred or legally presumed from certain ambivalent acts. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must be proved: the intention of an employee to abandon, coupled with an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee has no more intent to resume his work. Case no. 21 G.R. No. 156893 June 21, 2005 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., NATALE DI COSMO, RENE HORILLENO, and BENITO A. DE LEON, petitioners, vs. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL, respondent. Facts: Respondent is a security guard in the Calamba plant for 13 years for petitioner company. Two incidents happened that lead to his dismissal. First was when he failed to inspect a van before leaving the plant, which was his duty and a company policy. Second was when he allowed a van to leave the plant without a tarpaulin cover, thus endangering the quality of the goods of the petitioner. Petitioners contend that Daniel is guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of company rules and regulations, or serious misconduct, or wilful breach of trust and confidence, thus, respondents employment was terminated. Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against Coca-Cola which the latter denied committing the same. Issue: 1) whether a valid cause existed to justify the dismissal of respondent; (2) whether he is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Ruling: 1) None. Neither of the two infractions committed by Daniel caused substantive loss or damage. Their company policy does not warrant dismissal for such infractions. Also worth stressing are the following facts: Daniel has served the company for 13 years; he was previously granted a scholarship given only to employees with high performance ratings; his infractions were minor; and there has been no showing that he acted in bad faith or with malice. Under the circumstances, there is every justification for tilting the scales of justice in favor of the employee. 2) Yes. Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that illegally dismissed employees are entitled to both 1) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and 2) full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. Both reliefs are rights granted by substantive law to alleviate the economic hardships suffered by an illegally dismissed employee. The grant of one does not preclude the other. Also, there is no showing that the relationship between the parties are strained so as to not reinstate Daniel as an employee. From these facts, we hold that the doctrine of strained relations finds no application in the case at bench. As the NLRC observed, not only were [respondents] infractions merely minor, he did not act in bad faith or with malice when he committed the same; neither did Coca-Cola sustain material damage or injury as a result thereof.
The 5 Elements of the Highly Effective Debt Collector: How to Become a Top Performing Debt Collector in Less Than 30 Days!!! the Powerful Training System for Developing Efficient, Effective & Top Performing Debt Collectors