Labor Case Digests

CAOILE V LNRC 115491 Nov 24, 1998 Coca-Cola Bottlers hired Alejandro Caoile as an Electrician Data Processing (EDP) Supervisor in its Zamboanga plant, but was later dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence for his involvement in the anomalous encashment of check payments to a contractor. The allegation goes: Mr. Redempto de Guzman was hired as a contractor for the installation of a private automatic branch exchange house wiring in the plant premises for the sum of P 65, 000.00. Since Caoile was the supervisor, all transactions for the payment of Mr. Redempto de Guzman was coursed through him. The facts revealed that Caoile cashed more than what was asked in different instances and reasoned the payment of the services of Mr. de Guzman. In the payment for the initial cash advance, Mr. de Guzman requested for 10,000 and the petitioner prepared a payment request memo in the amount of 15,000 retaining the 5,000 for himself. When queried by Mr. De Guzman about theP5,000.00, complainant replied that it was for the higher ups as arranged by Mr. Arthur Soldevilla, an alleged partner of Mr. de Guzman. The same scenario also happened in the succeeding second and third cash advances, also a few other instances. On September 4, 1992, Mr. de Guzman executed an affidavit exposing the fraudulent acts of the petitioner, which was investigated by the company. Although the petitioner denied the allegations, different witnesses confirmed that petitioner indeed cashed the checks and handled the payment for the contractor. As a result, the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequently, Caoile filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Coca-Cola and its officers. The labor arbiter found that petitioner was illegally dismissed and ruled that he be reinstated with back wages. Upon appeal of the respondent, the NLRC reversed the Labor arbiter’s decision. ISSUE: whether or not coca cola is guilty of illegal dismissal? DECISION There is no reason to reverse the decision of the NLRC. The cause “loss of confidence” as a ground for termination is usually applicable to employees wherein a great amount of trust and confidence in entrusted to. It is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. Usually, delicate matters are entrusted to these employees. For rank and file employees, proof of involvement in allegations but be present in order to be deemed a legal cause of dismissal. But, for managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. In the present case, the petitioner is considered a managerial employee; therefore proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The finding is based on the sworn declaration of the witnesses and de Guzman. Therefore, the petition is dismissed and the resolutions of the NLRC affirmed.

Cocoland Development Corp v NLRC Cocoland development is engages in the production of coffee, coconut, cacao and black pepper at its plantation in Lamitan, Basilan. Cocoland hired private respondent, as a field supervisor compensated for days actually worked and was offduty during Sundays, rest days and holidays. On January 1989, Cocoland found out that Mago was engaged in extending technical services and advice to small farmers without prior clearance. Cocoland then charged Mago for “imparting company technology in coffee propagation techniques by rendering professional services to outside parties without the knowledge or consent of the management.” Which is in violation of policy: unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets. This violation was said to be a ground for termination, Mago was advised to immediately refrain from such consultancy activities. Mago denied violating the policy and explained that its technology on coffee propagation techniques were no longer a secret as the same had been learned and applied by outside parties of small farm owners since 1986 and that this consultancy practice was also done by the manager Edgardo M. Sena. Furthermore, the private respondent contested that a majority of the staff refused to sign a proposed memorandum of agreement for protecting the company’s “Confidentiality of Technology” because outsiders already know this, and that he had knowledge of the techniques even before he started working for the company. De la Cruz was then advised that the private respondent’s explanations

Complex Electronics v NLRC 121315 Jul 19 1999 Complex Electronics Corporation (Complex) was a subcontractor of electronic products where its customers gave their job orders, sent their own materials and cosigned their equipment with different foreign companies. The rank and file workers of Complex organized into a union known as the Complex Electronics Employees Association (Union). Subsequently, Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co. required Complex to lower its prices by 10%, then Complex replied that this is not feasible because they were already incurring losses. Because of this, Complex was forced to close down the operations of Lite-On and issue a retrenchment after one month while trying to prolong the work done by employees. Complex filed a notice of foreclosure with the Department of Labor and Employment also the retrenchment of ninety-seven employees. Because of this, the union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The machinery, equipment and materials were then pulled out from the factory and transferred, then Complex was compelled to cease operations. The machineries were transferred to Ionics where in the president was one and the same. The Union filed for unfair labor practice and claimed for vacation leave, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter ordered reinstatement and the NLRC affirmed and ordered the payment of one month pay and separation pay. ISSUE was there ULP against the employees? DECISION The factory plant transferred the equipment from one location to another because of it’s inability to lower the prices in order to meet the demands of mainland China. The union failed to show that there was a motive to discriminate against employees or stop union relations in doing so. It was not proven that there was a “runaway shop” and that the mere fact that the same person controls one or more corporations does not mean that they are trying to escape their legal roles as employers. Subsequently, neither illegal lockout nor illegal dismissal happened. This proves that the closure of the factory was not due to union activities of the employees.

De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor 129824 Mar 10, 1999 De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor (Company) employees formed a labor organization affiliating with Federation of Free Workers and was called FFWKapatirang Manggagawa sa De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor. They subsequently filed for certification election then filed for a notice of strike due to the dismissal of its union officers 13 days later. The union president stopped working and walked out followed by his other colleagues. The union filed a case of Unfair Labor Practice against petitioners alongside illegal dismissal, and non-payment of overtime pay before the NLRC. On May 26, the petition for certification election was dismissed on the ground that the union cannot be the bargaining agent of two companies. Since then, private respondents disaffiliated with the FFW. The petitioners averred that the employees were not serious in organizing a union and just made it a ploy to extort money from their employers. They also claimed that majority of the workers did not follow the union leaders in the walk out. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the private respondent’s complaint for unfair labor practice because of the failure of the private respondents to present letters of dismissal, while the motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC. Issue: was there unfair labor practice?

Domingo v Rayala 155831 feb 18, 2008 Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Lourdes) worked as a Stenographer for NLRC wherein Chairman Rayala was NLRC Chairman. She filed for a sexual harassment complaint against the latter and shared her experience. At the start, the chairman would always complement her looks by whispering, “Lot, gumaganda ka ata.” He would proceed to go near her and sometimes squeeze her shoulders while she is doing her job. These actions were said to frighten her and make her anxious. Especially upon hearing that he acted this way towards his former secretaries which made them quit. On Sept 10, 1998, Lourdes was asked to go to the Chairman’s office and she was asked if she had a boyfriend. When she said no, the Chairman offered to pay for pay for her schooling and gave her money. She accepted it in fear. After hearing of the complaint filed against him, Rayala asked to be immediately transferred and filed for a leave of absence. DOLE Secretary asked for an investigation and the committee found Rayala guilty of the offense charged and was suspended for six months. He contests that he did not demand for any sexual favors which was the requirement for sexual harassment. Issue: was there sexual harassment? DECISION The forms of sexual harassment include overt sexual advances, unwelcome or improper gestures of affection, request or demand for sexual favors, and any other act or conduct of a sexual nature for purposes of sexual gratification which is generally annoying, disgusting or offensive to the victim. The republic deems Rayala’s actions as constituting sexual harassment under AO 250. His acts constitute unwelcome or improper gestures of affection and are acts or conduct of a sexual nature, which are generally annoying or offensive to the victim.

Edge Apparel v NLRC 121314 Feb 12 1998 FACTS Edge Apparel, Inc dismissed private respondents Joseph Antipuesto, Norina Ando, et al pursuant to its retrenchment program. Feeling aggrieved, the affected employees sought for the help of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) who advised them to concede and accept the separation pay. Even with the separation pay, the private respondents still filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the corporation. They claimed that the retrenchment was used as a subterfuge to validly dismiss the complainants. Edge Apparel showed their financial statements and averred that its financial obligations have been eating up most of its capital outlays and have been resulting in losses. Satisfied with the reason of the company, the Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint of the private respondents. Private respondents appealed the decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC and further claimed that the that the documents submitted by the company were tampered. The NLRC explained that in cases when there is termination due to redundancy of work, or the installation of labor saving devices, the employees are entitled to atleast 1 month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. NLRC held that the dismissal of the employees are considered redundancy done by the company, and affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision adding that the company pay the monetary consequences of redundancy. The company filed the petition herein. Issue: was there illegal dismissal of the employees DECISION Procedurally, in order to validly effect retrenchment, the employer must observe two or more requirements: prior notice of at least one month, payment of due separation pay, and other monetary requirements. The court agrees with the company that NLRC committed grave abuse in discretion in ruling redundancy in this case. The law acknowledges the right of every business entity to reduce its workforce if compelled by economic factors that would otherwise endanger its stability or existence. The company has the right to legally retrench within the meaning of section 283© of the labor code. The court sustained the position of the Labor Arbiter and modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the additional award of separation pay to private respondents decreed by the NLRC.

FASAP v PAL 178083 July 22 2008 On July 15, 1998 Philippine Airlines retrenches 5,000 employees as a cost-cutting measure in order to regain the loss suffered during the 1997 Financial Crisis that amounted to 90 Billion pesos. Subsequently, the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) files a complaint against PAL and Patria Chiong, the assistant vice president for cabin services of PAL, for illegal retrenchment at the national labor relations commission. The labor arbiter then rules in favor of FASAP and issues a preliminary injunction stopping PAL from pushing through with the retrenchment. Two months later, PAL chairman offers to give shares of stock to the employees and three seats in the board of directors in exchange for the suspension of the collective bargaining agreement for ten years. This offer was dismissed by the employee. After this, PAL stops operation and terminates its employees but then starts to reinstate some. PAL claimed to have reinstated 820 personnel already but FASAP contends that only 80 have been reinstated. In 2000, Labor arbiter rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. PAL appeals this petition to the NLRC and NLRC reverses the decision due to lack of merit. FASAP elevates the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirms the NLRC’s decision saying that PAL has the right to retrenchment. FASAP filed a petition for certiorari with the supreme court. ISSUE was there illegal dismissal? DECISION The Supreme Court’s decision rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. By discarding the cabin crew personnel’s previous years of service and taking into consideration only a year’s worth of evaluation. PAL did away with the concept of seniority, loyalty and past efficiency leading to an illegal retrenchment that was based on the wrong premise. The set or rating variables were unfair and unreasonable when they were implemented. It failed to take into account the years or service, the cabin personnel worked. Regarding Unfair labor practice, the court failed to see the same committed against the petitioners. There was no specific instance of union busting, oppression, or harassment as against the employees. Therefore, the instant petition is granted, finding that PAL is guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering PAL to reinstate the cabin crew personnel covered by the retrenchment scheme in 1998, without loss in seniority rights and other privileges, with back wages and allowances. When reinstatement does not exist, separation pay and backwages shall be in order.

General Miling Corp v 936666 Apr 22 1991 (refer to book)

Sixta Lim vs NLRC 118434 July 26 1996 PEPSI, a manufacturer of concentrates to be sold to Pepsi-Cola Bottlers Co., Inc., employed 19 employees, including the petitioner as a secretary for Pepsi Bottling Co. and was then promoted to the position of Staff Accountant. She worked closely with the Plant accountant and did work involving cost accounting-production accounting records; cost accounting-financial reporting – to prepare accurate and timely, periodic, quarterly, and annual records, also Payroll Reporting. Over time, the petitioner’s overall performance appraisals rated as follows: Superior on May 1984, Commendable from December 1987 to August 1988 then a C minus for the period from September 1988 to May 1989. Upon changing the rating nomenclature of the company, the petitioner received a rating of Below Target in the latter years of her service. This rating was heavily influenced by her performance in production reporting, which accounted for forty percent of the overall rating. This was said to be the result of her appraisal because the management feels that her performance needs a lot of improvement. In response thereto, the petitioner wrote her superior asking for a reevaluation of her performance while questioning the weights appropriated in the evaluation. She pointed out anomalies such as the appraisal singled out her year-end financial report, forgetting other financial reports she submitted during the appraisal period. After the second appraisal, she still received a Below Target rating. She then terminated. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with back wages with the Labor Arbiter. The labor arbiter ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner along with full benefits and seniority rights. Pepsi appealed the decision with the NLRC, which reversed the decision of the labor arbiter. NLRC validated the dismissal of the petitioner. ISSUE was there illegal dismissal? DECISION Yes, the court contended that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion n reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter because her alleged inefficiency was not among the just causes prescribed by the law for the dismissal from employment was not justified. Moreover, PEPSI never called the attention of the petitioner regarding said inefficiency.