Remerco Garments Mfg. v. Minister of Labor

 Weekly Rest Periods   After 3 consecutive warning and finally a suspension, Remerco applied for clearance to terminate the employment of Bustamante, Raymundo, and Corpuz. The 3 had refused to render work on Sundays, despite being required to do so. The Acting Director of the NCR MOLE had granted the application – but this was reversed by the Minister of Labor and Employment, who declared that the dismissal of Bustamante, et al. had been illegal. Remerco thus filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. The Court held that there was no showing that the terminations were for a valid cause – and in any case the penalty of termination was too severe for the act complained of. [DOCTRINE] The Constitution mandates SECURITY OF TENURE and JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK. Labor Code: Duty of EVERY EMPLOYER – for profit or otherwise – to provide each of his employees a rest period of not less than 24 hours after every 6 consecutive normal work days. This is true EVEN if there really existed an urgency to require work on a rest day.







Note: Prof. Sobreviñas was said to be facts-heavy last semester. Zenaida Bustamante, Luz Raymundo, and Ruth Corpuz (BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.) were employees of Remerco Garments Mfg. (REMERCO) – engaged in the manufacture and export of clothing. Bustamante, et al. each had gotten 3 consecutive warnings, and then finally a suspension, for allegedly . Remerco filed 3 separate applications for clearance to terminate the employment of Bustamante, et al – for the following reasons: (NOTE: all 3 filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, in opposition.) o Corpuz: allegedly defaced company property (in violation of Remerco’s Rules and Regulations) – placed a check mark on a jacket with a chalk. o : for insubordination – .  – when she specifically requested for exemption on that day (which was initially approved by her immediate supervisor, but was ultimately disapproved by top management). o  for abandonment, since she failed to report r eport for work after the expiration of her suspension – such . 



 set aside the decision of the Acting Ac ting Director –





. o Ordered reinstatement w/o loss of seniority rights and privileges, w/ full backwages. Hence, this petition for certiorari filed before the SC.

1.

(NOTE: Corpuz had withdrawn her complaint )

2.

LATIN PHRASE MENTIONED: Labor law determinations should not only be secundum sec undum rationem (according to reason) but also s ecundum caritatem (according to a charitable heart).”

DODOT

CASE #14



To dismiss or lay-off an employee is the sole prerogative of management, however  – what is at stake is not only the positions of Bustamante, et al. but also their means of livelihood. o Right to dismiss differs from manner in which that right is exercised – the manner must NOT be oppressive and abusive.



o

She had a valid ground not to work on Sunday: the day before,  from working on Sunday by her immediate supervisor. Ultimate disapproval of request creates the impression of a hostile attitude characterizing the efforts Remerco to ease out w/ undue haste. Also, no showing that the failure to report constituted one of the causes that justify termination. 

o 

o o

Was ill on the Sunday in question (fever, stomach ache). Also, abandonment of work by an employee is inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal – which Bustamante did.



(SC: These militate against the severity of the sanction of dismissal from service – for merely failing to work on a Sunday.) o



DODOT

This is true EVEN if there really existed an urgency to require work on a rest day.

CASE #14