Lawyerly

GR No. 215568

2015-08-03

RICHARD N. RIVERA v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE

LEONEN, J.

"Moral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[37] Also, to provide an "example or correction for the public good,"[38] exemplary damages may be awarded.

GR No. 200898

2015-06-15

BROWN MADONNA PRESS INC. v. MARIA ROSARIO M. CASAS

BRION, J.

Jurisprudence has established that employers interposing their employee's resignation as a defense from illegal dismissal cases have the burden of proving that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.[33] Resignation — the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office — is the voluntary act of an employee compelled by personal reason(s) to disassociate himself from employment.[34] It is done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act manifesting this intent.[35]

GR No. 198587

2015-01-14

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO

LEONEN, J.

Moreover, "[m]oral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[120] In this case, Saudia terminated respondents' employment in a manner that is patently discriminatory and running afoul of the public interest that underlies employer-employee relationships. As such, respondents are entitled to moral damages.

GR No. 171482

2014-03-12

ASHMOR M. TESORO v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS

ABAD, J.

Moreover, "[m]oral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[93] In this case, Bandag crafted a novel, inventive way of circumventing the requirement of security of tenure, thereby running afoul of public policy and acting in a manner that is patently oppressive to petitioners. As such, petitioners are entitled to moral damages. For the same reasons and, more specifically, to provide an "example or correction for the public good" as against innovative schemes that circumvent legally established standards and requirements, petitioners are likewise entitled to exemplary damages.

GR No. 200575

2014-02-05

INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

Resignation is the formal relinquishment of an office,[24] the overt act of which is coupled with an intent to renounce. This intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation.[25]

GR No. 202158

2013-09-25

ERIC ALVAREZ v. GOLDEN TRI BLOC

REYES, J.

At the outset, it bears emphasizing that the inconsistent factual findings and conclusions of the LA and NLRC have already been addressed and settled by the CA when it affirmed the latter tribunal.[26] Hence, the Court, not being a trier of facts, ought to accord respect if not finality to the findings of the CA especially when the same are amply substantiated by the records, [27] as in this case.

GR No. 187232

2013-04-17

ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA v. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION

SERENO, C.J.

On the other hand, if the termination of employment is by the employee, the resignation must show the concurrence of the intent to relinquish and the overt act of relinquishment, as held in San Miguel Properties v. Gucaban:[37]

GR No. 197353

2013-04-01

ALEXANDER B. BAÑARES v. TABACO WOMEN’S TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE

VELASCO JR., J.

Supervening events, however, had transpired which inexorably makes the reinstatement infeasible. For one, on November 12, 2007, TAWTRASCO already appointed a new general manager. Petitioner no less has raised this fact of appointment. As a matter of settled law, reinstatement and payment of backwages, as the normal consequences of illegal dismissal, presuppose that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee.[31]

GR No. 181738

2013-01-30

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. VIOLETA L. VIAJAR

REYES, J.

Finally, the Court agrees with the CA that the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. The Court has awarded moral damages in termination cases when bad faith, malice or fraud attend the employee's dismissal or where the act oppresses labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[49] We quote with favor the findings of the CA: We also award moral and exemplary damages to petitioner. While it is true that good faith is presumed, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of petitioner negate its existence. Moral damages may be recovered only where the dismissal of the employee was tainted by bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy while exemplary damages are recoverable only if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. To reiterate, immediately after receipt of her termination letter which was effective on 30 November 2003, petitioner was no longer treated as an employee of respondent as early as the 31st of October 2003; she was already barred from entering the company premises; she was deprived access to her office computer; and she was excluded from the bandy [sic] clock. She was also made to sign documents, including an "APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS" in the guise of payment of her separation pay. When petitioner confronted her immediate superior regarding her termination, the latter's shock aggravated her confusion and suffering. She also learned about the employment of a number of new employees, several of whom were even employed in her former department. Petitioner likewise suffered mental torture brought about by her termination even though its cause was not clear and substantiated.[50] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 175481

2012-11-21

DIONISIO F. AUZA v. MOL PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office."[50] The overt act of relinquishment should be coupled with an intent to relinquish, which intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation.[51]

	GR No. 215568 2015-08-03	RICHARD N. RIVERA v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE LEONEN, J.
"Moral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[37] Also, to provide an "example or correction for the public good,"[38] exemplary damages may be awarded.
	GR No. 200898 2015-06-15	BROWN MADONNA PRESS INC. v. MARIA ROSARIO M. CASAS BRION, J.
Jurisprudence has established that employers interposing their employee's resignation as a defense from illegal dismissal cases have the burden of proving that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.[33] Resignation — the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office — is the voluntary act of an employee compelled by personal reason(s) to disassociate himself from employment.[34] It is done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act manifesting this intent.[35]
	GR No. 198587 2015-01-14	SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO LEONEN, J.
Moreover, "[m]oral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[120] In this case, Saudia terminated respondents' employment in a manner that is patently discriminatory and running afoul of the public interest that underlies employer-employee relationships. As such, respondents are entitled to moral damages.
	GR No. 171482 2014-03-12	ASHMOR M. TESORO v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS ABAD, J.
Moreover, "[m]oral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy."[93] In this case, Bandag crafted a novel, inventive way of circumventing the requirement of security of tenure, thereby running afoul of public policy and acting in a manner that is patently oppressive to petitioners. As such, petitioners are entitled to moral damages. For the same reasons and, more specifically, to provide an "example or correction for the public good" as against innovative schemes that circumvent legally established standards and requirements, petitioners are likewise entitled to exemplary damages.
	GR No. 200575 2014-02-05	INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
Resignation is the formal relinquishment of an office,[24] the overt act of which is coupled with an intent to renounce. This intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation.[25]
	GR No. 202158 2013-09-25	ERIC ALVAREZ v. GOLDEN TRI BLOC REYES, J.
At the outset, it bears emphasizing that the inconsistent factual findings and conclusions of the LA and NLRC have already been addressed and settled by the CA when it affirmed the latter tribunal.[26] Hence, the Court, not being a trier of facts, ought to accord respect if not finality to the findings of the CA especially when the same are amply substantiated by the records, [27] as in this case.
	GR No. 187232 2013-04-17	ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA v. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION SERENO, C.J.
On the other hand, if the termination of employment is by the employee, the resignation must show the concurrence of the intent to relinquish and the overt act of relinquishment, as held in San Miguel Properties v. Gucaban:[37]
	GR No. 197353 2013-04-01	ALEXANDER B. BAÑARES v. TABACO WOMEN’S TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE VELASCO JR., J.
Supervening events, however, had transpired which inexorably makes the reinstatement infeasible. For one, on November 12, 2007, TAWTRASCO already appointed a new general manager. Petitioner no less has raised this fact of appointment. As a matter of settled law, reinstatement and payment of backwages, as the normal consequences of illegal dismissal, presuppose that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee.[31]
	GR No. 181738 2013-01-30	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. VIOLETA L. VIAJAR REYES, J.
Finally, the Court agrees with the CA that the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. The Court has awarded moral damages in termination cases when bad faith, malice or fraud attend the employee's dismissal or where the act oppresses labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[49] We quote with favor the findings of the CA: We also award moral and exemplary damages to petitioner. While it is true that good faith is presumed, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of petitioner negate its existence. Moral damages may be recovered only where the dismissal of the employee was tainted by bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy while exemplary damages are recoverable only if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. To reiterate, immediately after receipt of her termination letter which was effective on 30 November 2003, petitioner was no longer treated as an employee of respondent as early as the 31st of October 2003; she was already barred from entering the company premises; she was deprived access to her office computer; and she was excluded from the bandy [sic] clock. She was also made to sign documents, including an "APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS" in the guise of payment of her separation pay. When petitioner confronted her immediate superior regarding her termination, the latter's shock aggravated her confusion and suffering. She also learned about the employment of a number of new employees, several of whom were even employed in her former department. Petitioner likewise suffered mental torture brought about by her termination even though its cause was not clear and substantiated.[50] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 175481 2012-11-21	DIONISIO F. AUZA v. MOL PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office."[50] The overt act of relinquishment should be coupled with an intent to relinquish, which intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation.[51]

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES v. GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN