compiled cases

Case # 87 Agustilo vs CA et al. GR 142875 Facts: Petitioner Edgar Agustilo was hired by respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as a temporary employee at its Mandaue Brewery in Mandaue, Cebu. e was made permanent and designated as a sa!ety "ler#. $ater on he was trans!erred to the Engineering %epartment o! the SMC Mandaue Brewery as an administrati&e se"retary. Sometime in '', SMC Mandaue Brewery adopted a poli"y that managers would no longer be assigned se"retaries and that only dire"tor le&el positions may be gi&en se"retaries. As a result, petitioners position as administrati&e se"retary was abolished and he was trans!erred to the "ompanys Plant %ire"tors *+"e-uality mpro&ement /eam (P%*-/). Petitioner was told that his ser&i"es would be terminated e0e"ti&e Mar"h '1, '2 and that he would be paid his bene3ts 45 days a!ter he was "leared o! all a""ountabilities. n a letter, dated 6ebruary '4, '2, SMC noti3ed the %*$E o! its moderni7ation program. Petitioner then 3led a "omplaint against respondents !or un!air labor pra"ti"e, illegal dismissal, and payment o! separation pay, attorneys !ees, and damages. /he e8e"uti&e labor arbiter rendered a de"ision dismissing petitioners "omplaint !or la"# o! merit. 9espondents 3led a motion !or re"onsideration. *n anuary '', ', the ;$9C rendered a resolution a+rming its de"ision with modi3"ation. *n April '4, ', respondents 3led a petition !or "ertiorari with prayer !or the issuan"e o! a temporary restraining order and a Motion !or the ssuan"e o! a ?rit o! E8e"ution. *n May 4', ', the labor arbiter ordered the SMC to reinstate petitioner. owe&er, on motion o! respondents, the Court o! Appeals issued a temporary restraining order en=oining the e8e"ution o! the de"ision o! the ;$9C. /he /9* lapsed a!ter @5 days, but the labor arbiter re!used to en!or"e the writ o! e8e"ution he had pre&iously issued in &iew o! the une '', ' resolution o! the Court o! Appeals issuing the /9*. *n *"tober 22, ', the Court o! Appeals rendered its de"ision re&ersing the de"ision o! the ;$9C and reinstating that o! the labor arbiter. *n April @, 2555, it denied petitioners motion !or re"onsideration. en"e, this petition !or re&iew on "ertiorari.

Issue: ?hether or not the Court o! Appeals "annot re&ise the !a"tual 3ndings o! the ;$9C and substitute the same with its own. Held:n the "ase at bar, the Supreme Court 3nds the dismissal o! petitioner was a &alid management prerogati&e, thus, legal. Petitioner insists that the Court o! Appeals a"ted with gra&e abuse o! dis"retion when it re!used to dismiss the srcinal spe"ial "i&il a"tion o! "ertiorari 3led by pri&ate respondents be!ore it. e "laims that by substituting the !a"tual 3ndings o! the ;$9C, the Court o! Appeals disregarded the ruling laid down in the "ase o! amer &. ;$9C in whi"h it was held that mere &arian"e in the assessment o! the e&iden"e by the ;$9C resulting in its dismissal o! the "omplaints !or illegal dismissal and by the labor arbiter 3nding the "omplainants to ha&e been &alidly dismissed did not ne"essarily warrant another !ull re&iew o! the

!a"ts by the appellate "ourt pro&ided that the 3ndings o! the ;$9C are supported by the re"ords. Applying the ruling in that "ase, petitioner argues that whate&er error o! =udgment the ;$9C may ha&e "ommitted in this "ase is not "orre"tible through an srcinal spe"ial "i&il a"tion !or "ertiorari be!ore the Court o! Appeals. /he "ontention has no merit. n St. Martin 6uneral omes &. ;$9C, it was held that the spe"ial "i&il a"tion o! "ertiorari is the mode o! =udi"ial re&iew o! the de"isions o! the ;$9C either by this Court and the Court o! Appeals, although the latter "ourt is the appropriate !orum !or see#ing the relie! desired in stri"t obser&an"e o! the do"trine on the hierar"hy o! "ourts and that, in the e8er"ise o! its power, the Court o! Appeals "an re&iew the !a"tual 3ndings or the legal "on"lusions o! the ;$9C. /he "ontrary rule in amer was thus o&erruled.

Case # 88 Limketkai o!s "illi!g I!c. vs Llame$a GR !o 152514 Facts% Petitioner $im#et#ai Sons Milling, n". ($SM) with prin"ipal o+"e in Cagayan de *ro City is engaged in the manu!a"ture and pro"essing o! "orn oil and "o"onut oil*n une '@, '2, $SM hired respondent Editha $lamera as a laboratory analyst, assigned at the uality "ontrol department. Sometime in Mar"h ', $SM re"ei&ed reports that some o! its oil produ"ts, parti"ularly Mar"a $eon Coo#ing *il and Corn *il had &isible impurities and ran"id taste. en"e, it dire"ted some o! its employees, in"luding respondent, to e8plain the reported adulteration. /he "on"erned employees, e8"ept respondent who was then on maternity lea&e, submitted their respe"ti&e written e8planations. n the meanwhile, they were all pla"ed under pre&enti&e suspension. 6orthwith, $SM immediately "ondu"ted a !ormal in&estigation. %uring the in&estigation, respondent, who was ba"# !rom maternity lea&e, denied ha&ing anything to do with the adulteration o! $SMs oil produ"ts. *n une @, ', $SM terminated the ser&i"es o! the suspended employees. 9espondent "hallenged her dismissal and 3led against $SM, a "omplaint !or un!air labor pra"ti"e, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal, and demanded payment o! ba"#wages, separation pay, maternity bene3ts, ser&i"e in"enti&e lea&e pay, moral and e8emplary damages and attorneys !ees. $abor Arbiter Con"hita . Martine7 ruled in !a&or o! respondent 3nding petioner guilty o! un!air labor pra"ti"e and de"laring the dismissal illegal. *n appeal, the ;ational $abor 9elations Commission (;$9C) re&ersed the abo&e %e"ision. ;ot satis3ed with the ruling, resp ondent 3led a motion !or re"onsideration with the ;$9C. t was denied !or la"# o! merit. /hus, respondent 3led a spe"ial "i&il a"tion !or "ertiorari with the Court o! Appeals. /he appellate "ourt !ound respondents petition partly meritorious. Aggrie&ed by the CA %e"ision, $SM 3led a motion !or re"onsideration, whi"h the Court o! Appeals, in its assailed 9esolution, denied !or la"# o! merit. en"e, the instant petition Issue% ?hether or not the Court o! Appeals erred in not a""ording the ;$9Cs e&aluation o! e&iden"e due respe"t and 3nality. Held% /he general rule is that the 3ndings o! !a"t by the ;$9C are deemed binding and "on"lusi&e. owe&er, where, as in the instant "ase, the 3ndings o! !a"t by the

;$9C "ontradi"t those o! the $abor Arbiter, a departure !rom the general rule is warranted. n St. Martin 6uneral ome &s. ;$9C, the Supreme Court said that the Court o! Appeals "an re&iew the !a"tual 3ndings o! the ;$9C in a spe"ial "i&il a"tion !or "ertiorari. n this "ase, petitioners simply allege that respondents !ailure to report to the uality "ontrol head the bat"h that did not meet the minimum standard showed "onni&an"e to sabotage petitioners business. ;ot only is petitioners logi" Dawed, it is an instan"e o! arguing non seuitur. Said allegation alone, without pro&en !a"ts to ba"# it up, "ould not and did not su+"e as a basis !or a 3nding o! will!ul brea"h o! trust. /he Supreme Court are thus "onstrained to hold that petitioners !ailed to pro&e the e8isten"e o! a &alid "ause !or the dismissal o! respondent. /here!ore, the dismissal must be deemed "ontrary to the pro&isions o! the $abor Code, hen"e illegal. /he assailed CA %e"ision, its 9esolution are hereby a+rmed.

Case # 8& "a$alit vs '() Facts:

n its ' 6ebruary 2555 de"ision, P;Bs Administrati&e Ad=udi"ation Panel !ound Maralit guilty o! serious mis"ondu"t, gross &iolation o! ban# rules and regulations, and "ondu"t pre=udi"ial to the best interest o! the ban#. Maralit &iolated ban# poli"ies whi"h resulted in the return o! un!unded "he"#s amounting to P1,15,555. A""ordingly, P;B dismissed Maralit !rom the ser&i"e with !or!eiture o! her retirement bene3ts e0e"ti&e at the "lose o! business hours on 4' %e"ember '. P;B may right!ully terminate Maralits ser&i"es !or a =ust "ause, in"luding serious mis"ondu"t. Serious mis"ondu"t is improper "ondu"t, a transgression o! some established and de3nite rule o! a"tion, a !orbidden a"t, or a dereli"tion o! duty. /he $abor Arbiter held that P;B illegally dismissed Maralit and "ommitted an a"t oppressi&e to labor and that Maralit was entitled to retirement bene3ts, e8emplary damages, and attorneys !ees. *n appeal P;B "laimed that the $abor Arbiter gra&ely abused his dis"retion and erred in his !a"tual 3ndings, the ;$9C held that (') there was no gra&e abuse o! dis"retion on the part o! the $abor Arbiter, (2) the material !a"ts as !ound by the $abor Arbiter were "onsistent with the e&iden"e, and (4) the award o! e8emplary damages la"#ed basis. *n appeal by P;B, /he Court o! Appeals held that the ;$9C "ommitted gra&e abuse o! dis"retion when it a+rmed in toto the $abor Arbiters de"ision. /he Court o! Appeals !ound that Maralit was under preliminary in&estigation when she 3led her appli"ation !or early retirement and that she was a0orded due pro"ess. en"e, this petition.

Issue: ?hether or not the ;$9C "ommitted gra&e abuse o! dis"retion

Held: ra&e abuse o! dis"retion arises when a "ourt or tribunal e8er"ises powers granted by law "apri"iously, whimsi"ally, or arbitrarily. ndeed, the law grants the ;$9C the power to re&iew de"isions o! labor arbiters. owe&er, the !a"t that the law grants the ;$9C the power to re&iew de"isions o! labor arbiters does not automati"ally rule out the possibility o! gra&e abuse o! dis"retion. ra&e abuse o! dis"retion may arise i! the ;$9C e8er"ises su"h power in a "apri"ious, whimsi"al, arbitrary, or despoti" manner. Maralit "laims that the $abor Arbiters 3ndings that she was not under preliminary in&estigation when she 3led her appli"ation !or early retirement and that she was denied due pro"ess were errors o! =udgment, and thus the $abor Arbiter did not "ommit gra&e abuse o! dis"retion. /he Court is unimpressed. $abor o+"ials "ommit gra&e abuse o! dis"retion when their !a"tual 3ndings are arri&ed at arbitrarily or in disregard o! the e&iden"e. n the present "ase, the $abor Arbiter and the ;$9C a"ted with gra&e abuse o! dis"retion be"ause their !a"tual 3ndings were arri&ed at in disregard o! the e&iden"e. /he e&iden"e shows that Maralit was under preliminary in&estigation when she 3led her appli"ation !or early retirement. P;B "onsistently stated that payment o! Maralits retirement bene3ts shall be paid only a!ter 3nal resolution o! the administrati&e "ase against her, pro&ided that she is not disuali3ed to re"ei&e su"h bene3ts. P;Bs F uly ' eneral Cir"ular ;o. '411