Lawyerly

GR No. 165381

2011-02-09

NELSON A. CULILI v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In illegal dismissal cases, moral damages are awarded only where the dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[62] Exemplary damages may avail if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner to warrant an award for exemplary damages.[63]

GR No. 180123

2010-02-18

KULAS IDEAS v. JULIET ALCOSEBA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus a first notice informing and bearing on the charge must be sent to the employee. Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[35] emphasizes that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal.

GR No. 147633

2008-07-28

ALDEGUER v. HONEYLINE TOMBOC

CARPIO MORALES, J.

This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail [of] all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb[,] his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. x x x[52]

GR No. 159625

2008-01-31

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[19] the Court held that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, thus:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.[20]

GR NO. 156964

2007-07-04

MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[26] the Court held that the first notice must inform the employee outright that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, thus:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.[27]

GR NO. 148021

2006-12-06

SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC

TINGA, J.

Petitioners claim that the alleged failure of the company to notify them of their termination renders their dismissal illegal, and thus they should be reinstated and paid with full backwages or given separation pay, following the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Court of Appeals. The argument does not hold. The ruling in Serrano has already been superseded by the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relation Commission.[43] The Agabon enunciates the new doctrine that if the dismissal is for just cause but statutory due process was not observed, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.[44] But in any case, the issue of illegal dismissal had already been resolved by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which both found that the company had an authorized cause and had complied with the requirements of due process when it dismissed petitioners.

GR NO. 158707

2006-11-27

COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Recent decisions of this Court distinguished the treatment of managerial from that of rank-and-file personnel insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. Thus, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient.[47] But as regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal [48] because:[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A company's resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.[49]

GR NO. 160509

2006-03-10

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO

CARPIO, J.

In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., [25] the Court held that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the reason for this rule as follows:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. [26]

GR NO. 146367

2005-12-14

SILVERIO PICAR v. SHANGRI-LA HOTEL

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

"It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee." In Maquiling vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[6] we held:"Recent decisions of this Court distinguish the treatment of managerial from that of rank-and-file personnel insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice. But as regards a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal." In sum, we find that the dismissal of petitioner from the service is in accordance with the law.

GR NO. 165282

2005-10-05

ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. NLRC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Also, in Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[10] it was stressed that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his employment if the charges are proven to be true. The rationale for this rule was explained by the Court as follows:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

	GR No. 165381 2011-02-09	NELSON A. CULILI v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In illegal dismissal cases, moral damages are awarded only where the dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[62] Exemplary damages may avail if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner to warrant an award for exemplary damages.[63]
	GR No. 180123 2010-02-18	KULAS IDEAS v. JULIET ALCOSEBA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus a first notice informing and bearing on the charge must be sent to the employee. Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[35] emphasizes that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal.
	GR No. 147633 2008-07-28	ALDEGUER v. HONEYLINE TOMBOC CARPIO MORALES, J.
This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail [of] all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb[,] his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. x x x[52]
	GR No. 159625 2008-01-31	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[19] the Court held that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, thus:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.[20]
	GR NO. 156964 2007-07-04	MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[26] the Court held that the first notice must inform the employee outright that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, thus:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.[27]
	GR NO. 148021 2006-12-06	SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
Petitioners claim that the alleged failure of the company to notify them of their termination renders their dismissal illegal, and thus they should be reinstated and paid with full backwages or given separation pay, following the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Court of Appeals. The argument does not hold. The ruling in Serrano has already been superseded by the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relation Commission.[43] The Agabon enunciates the new doctrine that if the dismissal is for just cause but statutory due process was not observed, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.[44] But in any case, the issue of illegal dismissal had already been resolved by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which both found that the company had an authorized cause and had complied with the requirements of due process when it dismissed petitioners.
	GR NO. 158707 2006-11-27	COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Recent decisions of this Court distinguished the treatment of managerial from that of rank-and-file personnel insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. Thus, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient.[47] But as regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal [48] because:[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A company's resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.[49]
	GR NO. 160509 2006-03-10	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO CARPIO, J.
In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., [25] the Court held that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges specified in such notice which, if proven, will result in the employee's dismissal. The Court explained the reason for this rule as follows:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. [26]
	GR NO. 146367 2005-12-14	SILVERIO PICAR v. SHANGRI-LA HOTEL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee." In Maquiling vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[6] we held:"Recent decisions of this Court distinguish the treatment of managerial from that of rank-and-file personnel insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice. But as regards a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal." In sum, we find that the dismissal of petitioner from the service is in accordance with the law.
	GR NO. 165282 2005-10-05	ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Also, in Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,[10] it was stressed that the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his employment if the charges are proven to be true. The rationale for this rule was explained by the Court as follows:This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One's work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

DR. ERNESTO I. MAQUILING v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY