Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 147 views

    German Machineries Corporation VS Endaya

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    Eddie Endaya filed a complaint against his employer, German Machineries Corporation, with the Social Security System for the company's failure to remit his social security premiums. After learning of the complaint, the company allegedly harassed and shouted at Endaya before terminating his employment. Endaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the company, stating Endaya abandoned his work, the Supreme Court denied the company's petition and affirmed the illegal dismissal. The Court found the company's evidence of suspension was an afterthought and there was no proof Endaya was suspended prior to his illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    German Machineries Corporation VS Endaya

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    147 views2 pages
    Eddie Endaya filed a complaint against his employer, German Machineries Corporation, with the Social Security System for the company's failure to remit his social security premiums. After learning of the complaint, the company allegedly harassed and shouted at Endaya before terminating his employment. Endaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the company, stating Endaya abandoned his work, the Supreme Court denied the company's petition and affirmed the illegal dismissal. The Court found the company's evidence of suspension was an afterthought and there was no proof Endaya was suspended prior to his illegal dismissal complaint.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    GERMAN MACHINERIES CORPORATION VS ENDAYA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eddie Endaya filed a complaint against his employer, German Machineries Corporation, with the Social Security System for the company's failure to remit his social security premiums. After learning of the complaint, the company allegedly harassed and shouted at Endaya before terminating his employment. Endaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the company, stating Endaya abandoned his work, the Supreme Court denied the company's petition and affirmed the illegal dismissal. The Court found the company's evidence of suspension was an afterthought and there was no proof Endaya was suspended prior to his illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    147 views2 pages

    German Machineries Corporation VS Endaya

    Uploaded by

    Sherimar Bongdoen
    Eddie Endaya filed a complaint against his employer, German Machineries Corporation, with the Social Security System for the company's failure to remit his social security premiums. After learning of the complaint, the company allegedly harassed and shouted at Endaya before terminating his employment. Endaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the company, stating Endaya abandoned his work, the Supreme Court denied the company's petition and affirmed the illegal dismissal. The Court found the company's evidence of suspension was an afterthought and there was no proof Endaya was suspended prior to his illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    GERMAN MACHINERIES CORPORATION, Petitioner,

    versus
    EDDIE D. ENDAYA, Respondent.
    2004 Nov 25 2nd DivisionG.R. NO. 156810

    FACTS:

    Complainant [Eddie Endaya] alleged that he was employed by respondent


    company on January 18, 1993, [as a] car painter. On March 29, 1999, he filed a
    complaint with the Social Security System against respondent company for failure
    to remit his SSS premiums; that when management learned about his complaint, he
    was reprimanded and became the object of harassment; that he was shouted at and
    belittled. Mr. Andy Junginger told complainant to get his separation pay from the
    Cashier and go home as he was already terminated.

    Complainant also alleged that on September 6, 1999, he reported for work


    but he was surprised that Mr. Joseph Baclig handed him letters of suspension,
    dated August 27, 1999 and September 6, 1999 and he was told to go home; that he
    reported for work several times thereafter but he was told to stop reporting for
    work since his services were already terminated as of August 27, 1999.
    Complainant contends that he was illegally dismissed but the Respondents
    contended that complainant was never dismissed.

    It has invariably been ruled by the Supreme Court that, in termination cases,
    the burden of proof rests on the respondent to show that the dismissal is for a just
    cause and when there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the
    termination of employment, the law considers that matter a case of illegal
    dismissal.  The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of herein respondent.
    The respondents contend that complainant abandoned his work and submitted in
    evidence a Memorandum. Aggrieved by the Labor Arbiter's decision, herein
    petitioner filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
    The NLRC affirmed, with modification, the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner
    filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC.

    Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary


    restraining order and/or preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing
    the aforementioned decision and resolution of the. The Court of Appeals issued the
    herein assailed resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari. The instant petition
    is hereby DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT and that the questions raised are too
    UNSUBSTANTIAL to require consideration. Petitioner filed a motion for
    reconsideration but the appellate court denied the same. Petitioner filed the present
    petition for review on certiorari with prayer for the issuance of temporary
    restraining order and/or preliminary injunction

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petition of the petitioner is granted?

    RULING:

    A perusal of the records at hand convinces the Supreme Court. They agree
    with the Labor Arbiter's conclusion that the Memorandum was simply an
    afterthought on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner failed to present proof that
    Endaya was indeed suspended prior to the filing of his complaint for illegal
    dismissal. If Endaya was in fact suspended, there should have been a record of
    proceedings taken by petitioner to investigate the latter's alleged infractions before
    suspending him; or at the least, petitioner should have handed out a memorandum,
    like the ones it subsequently issued, calling Endaya's attention for his shortcomings
    or directing him to explain his side. Despite petitioner's claim that there was an
    investigation, they find no evidence to this effect. Hence, they are led to no
    conclusion other than the fact that the letter of suspension and the memorandums
    were all issued as a means of validating the prior illegal dismissal of Endaya.

    The instant petition is DENIED and the temporary restraining order is forthwith
    LIFTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.

    You might also like