Lawyerly

GR No. 208890

2014-12-08

JOEL N. MONTALLANA v. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE MANILA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Besides, even on the assumption that there was willful disobedience, still, the Court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh. It bears to stress that not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal.[70] The penalty to be imposed on an erring employee must be commensurate with the gravity of his offense.[71] To the Court's mind, the case of an employee who is compelled to apologize for a previous infraction but fails to do so is not one which would properly warrant his termination, absent any proof that the refusal was made in brazen disrespect of his employer. While there is no question that teachers are held to a peculiar standard of behavior in view of their significant role in the rearing of our youth, educational institutions are, in the meantime, held against a legal standard imposed against all employers, among which, is the reservation of the ultimate penalty of dismissal for serious infractions enumerated as just causes under Article 296 of the Labor Code. Unfortunately, respondents herein failed to prove the seriousness of Montallana's omission by the evidentiary benchmark of substantial evidence. And to add, on a related note, while La Consolacion's Administrative Affairs Manual[72] discloses that acts of insubordination (particularly, that of refusing or neglecting to obey the school's lawful directive) are dismissible violations, they are only so if imposed as a third sanction. In the same vein, records are bereft of any showing that Montallana's failure to apologize was being punished as such.

GR No. 186344

2013-02-20

LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY

PEREZ, J.

As a relief granted in lieu of reinstatement, however, it consequently goes without saying that an award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Standing alone, the doctrine of strained relations will not justify an award of separation pay, a relief granted in instances where the common denominator is the fact that the employee was dismissed by the employer.[35] Even in cases of illegal dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations is not applied indiscriminately as to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to work[36] or does not occupy a position of trust and confidence in[37] or has no say in the operation of the employer's business.[38] Although litigation may also engender a certain degree of hostility, it has likewise been ruled that the understandable strain in the parties' relations would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule rather than the exception in illegal dismissal cases.[39]

GR No. 170454

2012-10-11

CECILIA T. MANESE v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION

PERALTA, J.

In this case, the acts and omissions enumerated in the respective memorandum with notice of termination of petitioners Cruz and Peñano were valid bases for their termination, which was grounded on gross negligence and/or loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all found that the dismissal of petitioners Manese and Peñano from employment was justified. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, where there is absolute agreement with those of the NLRC, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[35] The Court has carefully reviewed the records of this case and finds no reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals that the dismissal of petitioners Manese and Peñano from employment due to loss of trust and confidence is valid.

GR No. 153982

2011-07-18

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES v. GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN

PERALTA, J.

Prefatorily, we note in this case the inconsistency in the factual findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, yet the incongruence has already been addressed and settled by the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC. Not being a trier of facts, this Court then ought to accord respect if not finality to the findings of the Court of Appeals, especially since, as will be shown, they are substantiated by the availing records. [41] Hence, we deny the petition.

GR No. 143511

2010-11-15

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. JOEY B. TEVES

PERALTA, J.

Even assuming that respondent's absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, such offense does not warrant respondent's dismissal.[20] Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal.[21] There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.[22]

GR NO. 160863

2006-09-27

NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and its intent in protecting his rights.[33] A worker's employment is property in a constitutional sense[34] and while the Court recognizes the right of an employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of an employee must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play.[35] An employer's power to discipline his employees must not be exercised in an arbitrary

GR NO. 160863

2006-09-27

NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.[36]

GR NO. 160863

2006-09-27

NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

If petitioners however no longer desire to be reinstated, they should be awarded separation pay at the rate of one (1) month for every year of service as an alternative.[56]

GR NO. 146174

2006-07-12

DR. DANILO T. TING v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Third. We take occasion to stress that there must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the gravity of the penalty.[47] At the time of the dismissal, private respondent had worked for the petitioner-spouses and/or GST Fishing Enterprises for 24 years, beginning on March 1974 as laborer, and rising from the ranks to become patron. Verily, not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee of a lawful work-connected order of the employer is reasonably penalized with dismissal.[48] Dismissal has always been regarded as the ultimate penalty.[49] Security of tenure is one of the highest rights of workers aptly protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically embodied in Section 3, Article XIII[50] thereof.

GR NO. 161158

2005-05-09

PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. PABLITO V. MOLDEZ

PUNO, J.

Second. The complaint for damages filed by petitioner against respondent, which was decided in favor of the petitioner, does not by itself justify the non-reinstatement of respondent due to the alleged antagonism engendered by the suit. The evidence reveals that the civil case did not entail prolonged litigation between the parties as respondent was declared in default. For failure of respondent's counsel to appear on the date of hearing, the case was decided solely on the basis of the evidence of the petitioner.[12] Hence, the existence of strained relations between the parties is not clearly established. We have ruled that the doctrine of "strained relations" cannot be used recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. While the Court acknowledges that, in the natural course of events, a certain degree of hostility is engendered by litigation, it will not by itself constitute sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations to rule out the possibility of reinstatement.[13]

	GR No. 208890 2014-12-08	JOEL N. MONTALLANA v. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE MANILA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Besides, even on the assumption that there was willful disobedience, still, the Court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh. It bears to stress that not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal.[70] The penalty to be imposed on an erring employee must be commensurate with the gravity of his offense.[71] To the Court's mind, the case of an employee who is compelled to apologize for a previous infraction but fails to do so is not one which would properly warrant his termination, absent any proof that the refusal was made in brazen disrespect of his employer. While there is no question that teachers are held to a peculiar standard of behavior in view of their significant role in the rearing of our youth, educational institutions are, in the meantime, held against a legal standard imposed against all employers, among which, is the reservation of the ultimate penalty of dismissal for serious infractions enumerated as just causes under Article 296 of the Labor Code. Unfortunately, respondents herein failed to prove the seriousness of Montallana's omission by the evidentiary benchmark of substantial evidence. And to add, on a related note, while La Consolacion's Administrative Affairs Manual[72] discloses that acts of insubordination (particularly, that of refusing or neglecting to obey the school's lawful directive) are dismissible violations, they are only so if imposed as a third sanction. In the same vein, records are bereft of any showing that Montallana's failure to apologize was being punished as such.
	GR No. 186344 2013-02-20	LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY PEREZ, J.
As a relief granted in lieu of reinstatement, however, it consequently goes without saying that an award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Standing alone, the doctrine of strained relations will not justify an award of separation pay, a relief granted in instances where the common denominator is the fact that the employee was dismissed by the employer.[35] Even in cases of illegal dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations is not applied indiscriminately as to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to work[36] or does not occupy a position of trust and confidence in[37] or has no say in the operation of the employer's business.[38] Although litigation may also engender a certain degree of hostility, it has likewise been ruled that the understandable strain in the parties' relations would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule rather than the exception in illegal dismissal cases.[39]
	GR No. 170454 2012-10-11	CECILIA T. MANESE v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
In this case, the acts and omissions enumerated in the respective memorandum with notice of termination of petitioners Cruz and Peñano were valid bases for their termination, which was grounded on gross negligence and/or loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all found that the dismissal of petitioners Manese and Peñano from employment was justified. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, where there is absolute agreement with those of the NLRC, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[35] The Court has carefully reviewed the records of this case and finds no reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals that the dismissal of petitioners Manese and Peñano from employment due to loss of trust and confidence is valid.
	GR No. 153982 2011-07-18	SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES v. GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN PERALTA, J.
Prefatorily, we note in this case the inconsistency in the factual findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, yet the incongruence has already been addressed and settled by the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC. Not being a trier of facts, this Court then ought to accord respect if not finality to the findings of the Court of Appeals, especially since, as will be shown, they are substantiated by the availing records. [41] Hence, we deny the petition.
	GR No. 143511 2010-11-15	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. JOEY B. TEVES PERALTA, J.
Even assuming that respondent's absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, such offense does not warrant respondent's dismissal.[20] Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal.[21] There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.[22]
	GR NO. 160863 2006-09-27	NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and its intent in protecting his rights.[33] A worker's employment is property in a constitutional sense[34] and while the Court recognizes the right of an employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of an employee must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play.[35] An employer's power to discipline his employees must not be exercised in an arbitrary
	GR NO. 160863 2006-09-27	NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.[36]
	GR NO. 160863 2006-09-27	NELSON ZAGALA v. MIKADO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
If petitioners however no longer desire to be reinstated, they should be awarded separation pay at the rate of one (1) month for every year of service as an alternative.[56]
	GR NO. 146174 2006-07-12	DR. DANILO T. TING v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Third. We take occasion to stress that there must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the gravity of the penalty.[47] At the time of the dismissal, private respondent had worked for the petitioner-spouses and/or GST Fishing Enterprises for 24 years, beginning on March 1974 as laborer, and rising from the ranks to become patron. Verily, not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee of a lawful work-connected order of the employer is reasonably penalized with dismissal.[48] Dismissal has always been regarded as the ultimate penalty.[49] Security of tenure is one of the highest rights of workers aptly protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically embodied in Section 3, Article XIII[50] thereof.
	GR NO. 161158 2005-05-09	PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. PABLITO V. MOLDEZ PUNO, J.
Second. The complaint for damages filed by petitioner against respondent, which was decided in favor of the petitioner, does not by itself justify the non-reinstatement of respondent due to the alleged antagonism engendered by the suit. The evidence reveals that the civil case did not entail prolonged litigation between the parties as respondent was declared in default. For failure of respondent's counsel to appear on the date of hearing, the case was decided solely on the basis of the evidence of the petitioner.[12] Hence, the existence of strained relations between the parties is not clearly established. We have ruled that the doctrine of "strained relations" cannot be used recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. While the Court acknowledges that, in the natural course of events, a certain degree of hostility is engendered by litigation, it will not by itself constitute sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations to rule out the possibility of reinstatement.[13]

PROCTER v. EDGARDO BONDESTO