g.r. no. 185829 april 25, 2012

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

1/25

G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

ARMANDO ALILING, Petitioner,

vs.

JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSE! R. LARIOSA,

"#$ %IDE %IDE %ORLD E&RESS CORORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

'ELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails and sees to set

aside the !ul" #, $%%& De'ision( and De'e)*er (5, $%%& Resolution$ of the

Court of +ppeals C+-, in C+/.R. SP No. (%(#%0, entitled +r)ando +lilin1 v.National 2a*or Relations Co))ission, 3ide 3ide 3orld Epress Corporation,

!ose . 6eli'iano, 7anuel 6. San 7ateo III and !oseph R. 2ariosa. The assailed

issuan'es )odi8ed the Resolutions dated 7a" #(, $%%9# and +u1ust #(,

$%%94 rendered *" the National 2a*or Relations Co))ission N2RC- in N2RC

NCR Case No. %%(%(((::$%%4, a;r)in1 the De'ision dated +pril $5,

$%%:5 of the 2a*or +r*iter.

The 6a'ts

On !une ((, $%%4, +lilin1 and 333EC ined an E)plo")ent Contra't9 under

the followin1 ter)s, a)on1 others?

• Conversion to re1ular status shall *e deter)ined on the *asis of worperfor)an'eB and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt1

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

2/25

• E)plo")ent servi'es )a", at an" ti)e, *e ter)inated for ust 'ause orin a''ordan'e with the standards de8ned at the ti)e of en1a1e)ent.&

Trainin1 then started. owever, instead of a Seafrei1ht Sale assi1n)ent,

333EC ased +lilin1 to handle /round Epress /-, a new 'o)pan"

produ't laun'hed on !une (&, $%%4 involvin1 do)esti' 'ar1o forwardin1servi'e for 2uFon. 7aretin1 this produ't and 8ndin1 dail" 'ontra'ts for it

for)ed the 'ore of +lilin1Gs new assi1n)ent.

arel" a )onth after, 7anuel 6. San 7ateo III San 7ateo-, 333EC Sales and

7aretin1 Dire'tor, e)ailed +lilin10 to epress dissatisfa'tion with the latterGs

perfor)an'e, thus?

+r)and,

7" epe'tations is @si'A that / Shuttles should *e &%H full *" the #rd wee+u1ust 5- after laun'h !ul" (5-. Pls. )ae that happen. It has *een )ore

than a )onth sin'e "ou 'a)e in. I a) epe'tin1 sales to *e pu)pin1 in *"

now. Thans.

Nonon1

Thereafter, in a letter of Septe)*er $5, $%%4,(% !oseph R. 2ariosa 2ariosa-,

u)an Resour'es 7ana1er of 333EC, ased +lilin1 to report to the u)an

Resour'es Depart)ent to eplain his a*sen'e taen without leave fro)

Septe)*er $%, $%%4.

+lilin1 responded two da"s later. e denied *ein1 a*sent on the da"s in

uestion, atta'hin1 to his repl"letter(( a 'op" of his ti)esheet($ whi'h

showed that he wored fro) Septe)*er $% to $4, $%%4. +lilin1Gs eplanation

'a)e with a uer" re1ardin1 the withholdin1 of his salar" 'orrespondin1 to

Septe)*er (( to $5, $%%4.

In a separate letter dated Septe)*er $9, $%%4,(# +lilin1 wrote San 7ateo

statin1? >Pursuant to "our instru'tion on Septe)*er $%, $%%4, I here*"tender )" resi1nation e=e'tive O'to*er (5, $%%4.> 3hile 333EC too no

a'tion on his tender, +lilin1 nonetheless de)anded reinstate)ent and a

written apolo1", 'lai)in1 in a su*seuent letter dated O'to*er (, $%%4(4 to

)ana1e)ent that San 7ateo had for'ed hi) to resi1n.


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

3/25

2ariosaGs responseletter of O'to*er (, $%%4,(5 infor)ed +lilin1 that his 'ase

was still in the pro'ess of *ein1 evaluated. On O'to*er :, $%%4,(: 2ariosa

a1ain wrote, this ti)e to advise +lilin1 of the ter)ination of his servi'es

e=e'tive as of that date owin1 to his >nonsatisfa'tor" perfor)an'e> durin1

his pro*ationar" period. Re'ords show that +lilin1, for the period indi'ated,

was paid his outstandin1 salar" whi'h 'onsisted of?

PhP 4,0&&.(& salar" for the Septe)*er $5, $%%4 pa"roll-

(,0&9.$& salar" for 4 da"s in O'to*er $%%4-

PhP :,095.4: Total

Earlier, however, or on O'to*er 4, $%%4, +lilin1 8led a Co)plaint

(9

for ille1aldis)issal due to for'ed resi1nation, nonpa")ent of salaries as well as

da)a1es with the N2RC a1ainst 333EC. +ppended to the 'o)plaint was

+lilin1Gs +;davit dated Nove)*er ($, $%%4,(& in whi'h he stated? >5. +t the

ti)e of )" en1a1e)ent, respondents did not )ae nown to )e the

standards under whi'h I will ualif" as a re1ular e)plo"ee.>

Refutin1 +lilin1Gs *asi' posture, 333EC stated in its Position Paper dated

Nove)*er $$, $%%4(0 that, in addition to the lettero=er and e)plo")ent

'ontra't adverted to, 333EC and +lilin1 have si1ned a letter of

appoint)ent$% on !une ((, $%%4 'ontainin1 the followin1 ter)s ofen1a1e)ent?

+dditionall", upon the e=e'tivit" of "our pro*ation, "ou and "our i))ediate

superior are reuired to ointl" de8ne "our o*e'tives 'o)pared with the o*

reuire)ents of the position. ased on the prea1reed o*e'tives, "our

perfor)an'e shall *e reviewed on the #rd )onth to assess "our 'o)peten'e

and wor attitude. The 5th )onth Perfor)an'e +ppraisal shall *e the *asis in

elevatin1 or 'on8r)in1 "our e)plo")ent status fro) Pro*ationar" to

Re1ular.

6ailure to )eet the o* reuire)ents durin1 the pro*ation sta1e )eans that

"our servi'es )a" *e ter)inated without prior noti'e and without re'ourse

to separation pa".

333EC also atta'hed to its Position Paper a )e)o dated Septe)*er $%,

$%%4$( in whi'h San 7ateo ased +lilin1 to eplain wh" he should not *e


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

4/25

ter)inated for failure to )eet the epe'ted o* perfor)an'e, 'onsiderin1

that the load fa'tor for the / Shuttles for the period !ul" to Septe)*er was

onl" %.(&H as opposed to the alle1edl" a1reed upon load of &%H tar1eted

for +u1ust 5, $%%4. +''ordin1 to 333EC, +lilin1, instead of eplainin1

hi)self, si)pl" su*)itted a resi1nation letter.

In a Repl"+;davit dated De'e)*er (#, $%%4,$$ +lilin1 denied havin1

re'eived a 'op" of San 7ateoGs Septe)*er $%, $%%4 letter.

Issues havin1 *een oined, the 2a*or +r*iter issued on +pril $5, $%%:$# a

De'ision de'larin1 +lilin1Gs ter)ination as unusti8ed. In its pertinent parts,

the de'ision reads?

The 1rounds upon whi'h 'o)plainantGs dis)issal was *ased did not 'onfor)

not onl" the standard *ut also the 'o)plian'e reuired under +rti'le $&( of

the 2a*or Code, Ne'essaril", 'o)plainantGs ter)ination is not usti8ed for

failure to 'o)pl" with the )andate the law reuires. Respondents should *e

ordered to pa" salaries 'orrespondin1 to the unepired portion of the

'ontra't of e)plo")ent and all other *ene8ts a)ountin1 to a total of TIRTJ

6I

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

5/25

'o)puted at SI TOKS+ND 6I

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

6/25

petitioner +r)ando +lilin1? +- the su) of 6ort" Two Thousand Three undred

Thirt" Three 5%L(%% P4$,###.5%- as the total )one" ud1)ent, - the

su) of 6our Thousand Two undred Thirt" Three #5L(%% P4,$##.#5- as

attorne"Gs fees, and C- the additional su) euivalent to onehalf (L$-

)onth of petitionerGs salar" as separation pa".

SO ORDERED.$4 E)phasis supplied.-

The C+ an'hored its assailed a'tion on the stren1th of the followin1

pre)ises? a- respondents failed to prove that +lilin1Gs dis)al perfor)an'e

'onstituted 1ross and ha*itual ne1le't ne'essar" to ustif" his dis)issalB *-

not havin1 *een infor)ed at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent of the reasona*le

standards under whi'h he will ualif" as a re1ular e)plo"ee, +lilin1 was

dee)ed to have *een hired fro) da" one as a re1ular e)plo"eeB and '- the

strained relationship eistin1 *etween the parties ar1ues a1ainst thepropriet" of reinstate)ent.

+lilin1Gs )otion for re'onsideration was ree'ted *" the C+ throu1h the

assailed Resolution dated De'e)*er (5, $%%&.

en'e, the instant petition.

The Issues

+lilin1 raises the followin1 issues for 'onsideration?

+. The failure of the Court of +ppeals to order reinstate)ent despite

its 8ndin1 that petitioner was ille1all" dis)issed fro) e)plo")ent- is

'ontrar" to law and appli'a*le urispruden'e.

. The failure of the Court of +ppeals to award *a'wa1es even if it

did not order reinstate)ent- is 'ontrar" to law and appli'a*le

urispruden'e.

C. The failure of the Court of +ppeals to award )oral and ee)plar"da)a1es despite its 8ndin1 that petitioner was dis)issed to prevent

the a'uisition of his re1ular status- is 'ontrar" to law and appli'a*le

urispruden'e.$5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt25

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

7/25

In their Co))ent,$: respondents reiterated their position that 333EC hired

petitioner on a pro*ationar" *asis and 8red hi) *efore he *e'a)e a re1ular

e)plo"ee.

The CourtGs Rulin1

The petition is partl" )eritorious.

Petitioner is a re1ular e)plo"ee

On a pro'edural )atter, petitioner +lilin1 ar1ues that 333EC, not havin1

appealed fro) the ud1)ent of C+ whi'h de'lared +lilin1 as a re1ular

e)plo"ee fro) the ti)e he si1ned the e)plo")ent 'ontra't, is now

pre'luded fro) uestionin1 the appellate 'ourtGs deter)ination as to the

nature of his e)plo")ent.

Petitioner errs. The Court has, when a 'ase is on appeal, the authorit" to

review )atters not spe'i8'all" raised or assi1ned as error if their

'onsideration is ne'essar" in rea'hin1 a ust 'on'lusion of the 'ase. 3e said

as )u'h in So'iedad Europea de 6inan'ia'ion, S+ v. Court of +ppeals,$9 >It is

aio)ati' that an appeal, on'e a''epted *" this Court, throws the entire

'ase open to review, and that this Court has the authorit" to review )atters

not spe'i8'all" raised or assi1ned as error *" the parties, if their

'onsideration is ne'essar" in arrivin1 at a ust resolution of the 'ase.>

The issue of whether or not petitioner was, durin1 the period )aterial, a

pro*ationar" or re1ular e)plo"ee is of pivotal i)port. Its resolution is

dou*tless ne'essar" at arrivin1 at a fair and ust disposition of the

'ontrovers".

The 2a*or +r*iter 'r"pti'all" held in his de'ision dated +pril $5, $%%: that?

e that as it )a", there appears no showin1 that indeed the said Septe)*er

$%, $%%4 7e)orandu) addressed to 'o)plainant was re'eived *" hi).

7oreover, 'o)plainantGs tased where he was assi1ned was a newdeveloped servi'e. In this re1ard, it is noted?

>Due pro'ess di'tates that an e)plo"ee *e apprised *eforehand of the

'onditions of his e)plo")ent and of the ter)s of advan'e)ent therein.

Pre'isel", i)pli'it in +rti'le $&( of the 2a*or Code is the reuire)ent that

reasona*le standards *e previousl" )ade nown *" the e)plo"er to the


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

8/25

e)plo"ee at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent I*id, 'itin1 Sa)eer Overseas

Pla'e)ent +1en'", In'. vs. N2RC, /.R. No. (#$5:4, O'to*er $%, (000-.$&

6ro) our review, it appears that the la*or ar*iter, and later the N2RC,

'onsidered +lilin1 a pro*ationar" e)plo"ee despite 8ndin1 that he was not

infor)ed of the reasona*le standards *" whi'h his pro*ationar" e)plo")entwas to *e ud1ed.

The C+, on the other hand, 'itin1 Cielo v. National 2a*or Relations

Co))ission,$0 ruled that petitioner was a re1ular e)plo"ee fro) the outset

inas)u'h as he was not infor)ed of the standards *" whi'h his pro*ationar"

e)plo")ent would *e )easured. The C+ wrote?

Petitioner was re1ulariFed fro) the ti)e of the ee'ution of the e)plo")ent

'ontra't on !une ((, $%%4, althou1h respondent 'o)pan" had ar*itraril"

shortened his tenure. +s pointed out, respondent 'o)pan" did not )ae

nown the reasona*le standards under whi'h he will ualif" as a re1ular

e)plo"ee at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent. en'e, he was dee)ed to have

*een hired fro) da" one as a re1ular e)plo"ee.#% E)phasis supplied.-

333EC, however, e'epts on the ar1u)ent that it put +lilin1 on noti'e that

he would *e evaluated on the #rd and 5th )onths of his pro*ationar"

e)plo")ent. To 333EC, its e=orts translate to su;'ient 'o)plian'e with

the reuire)ent that a pro*ationar" worer *e apprised of the reasona*le

standards for his re1ulariFation. 333EC invoes the ensuin1 holdin1 in+l'ira v. National 2a*or Relations Co))ission#( to support its 'ase?

Conversel", an e)plo"er is dee)ed to su*stantiall" 'o)pl" with the rule on

noti8'ation of standards if he apprises the e)plo"ee that he will *e

su*e'ted to a perfor)an'e evaluation on a parti'ular date after his hirin1.

3e a1ree with the la*or ar*iter when he ruled that?

In the instant 'ase, petitioner 'annot su''essfull" sa" that he was never

infor)ed *" private respondent of the standards that he )ust satisf" in order

to *e 'onverted into re1ular status. This rans si'- 'ounter to the a1ree)ent*etween the parties that after 8ve )onths of servi'e the petitionerGs

perfor)an'e would *e evaluated. It is onl" *ut natural that the evaluation

should *e )ade visvis the perfor)an'e standards for the

o*.1âwphi1 Private respondent Trifona 7a)aradlo speas of su'h standard

in her a;davit referrin1 to the fa't that petitioner did not perfor) well in his

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt31

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

9/25

assi1ned wor and his attitude was *elow par 'o)pared to the 'o)pan"Gs

standard reuired of hi). E)phasis supplied.-

333ECGs 'ontention is untena*le.

+l'ira is 'ast under a di=erent fa'tual settin1. There, the la*or ar*iter, theN2RC, the C+, and even 8nall" this Court were one in their 8ndin1s that the

e)plo"ee 'on'erned new, havin1 *een dul" infor)ed durin1 his

en1a1e)ent, of the standards for *e'o)in1 a re1ular e)plo"ee. This is in

star 'ontrast to the instant 'ase where the ele)ent of *ein1 infor)ed of the

re1ulariFin1 standards does not o*tain. +s su'h, +l'ira 'annot *e )ade to

appl" to the instant 'ase.

To note, the !une $, $%%4 lettero=er itself states that the re1ulariFation

standards or the perfor)an'e nor)s to *e used are still to *e a1reed upon

*" +lilin1 and his supervisor. 333EC has failed to prove that an a1ree)ent

as re1ards thereto has *een rea'hed. Clearl" then, there were a'tuall" no

perfor)an'e standards to spea of. +nd lest it *e overlooed, +lilin1 was

assi1ned to / tru'in1 sales, an a'tivit" entirel" di=erent to the Seafrei1ht

Sales he was ori1inall" hired and trained for. Thus, at the ti)e of his

en1a1e)ent, the standards relative to his assi1n)ent with / sales 'ould

not have plausi*l" *een 'o))uni'ated to hi) as he was under Seafrei1ht

Sales. Even for this reason alone, the 'on'lusion rea'hed in +l'ira is of little

relevant to the instant 'ase.

ased on the fa'ts esta*lished in this 'ase in li1ht of etant urispruden'e,

the C+Gs holdin1 as to the ind of e)plo")ent petitioner eno"ed is 'orre't.

So was the N2RC rulin1, a;r)ator" of that of the la*or ar*iter. In the 8nal

anal"sis, one 'o))on thread runs throu1h the holdin1 of the la*or ar*iter,

the N2RC and the C+, i.e., petitioner +lilin1, al*eit hired fro) )ana1e)entGs

standpoint as a pro*ationar" e)plo"ee, was dee)ed a re1ular e)plo"ee *"

for'e of the followin1 selfeplanator" provisions?

+rti'le $&( of the 2a*or Code

+RT. $&(. Pro*ationar" e)plo")ent. Pro*ationar" e)plo")ent shall not

e'eed si :- )onths fro) the date the e)plo"ee started worin1, unless it

is 'overed *" an apprenti'eship a1ree)ent stipulatin1 a lon1er period. The

servi'es of an e)plo"ee who has *een en1a1ed on a pro*ationar" *asis )a"

*e ter)inated for a ust 'ause or when he fails to ualif" as a re1ular

e)plo"ee in a''ordan'e with reasona*le standards )ade nown *" the

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

10/25

e)plo"er to the e)plo"ee at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent. +n e)plo"ee who

is allowed to wor after a pro*ationar" period shall *e 'onsidered a re1ular

e)plo"ee. E)phasis supplied.-

Se'tion :d- of the I)ple)entin1 Rules of oo

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

11/25

6inall", the C+ a;r)ed the rulin1 of the N2RC and adopted as its own the

latters fa'tual 8ndin1s. 2on1esta*lished is the do'trine that 8ndin1s of fa't

of uasiudi'ial *odies are a''orded respe't, even 8nalit", if supported

*" su*stantial eviden'e. 3hen passed upon and upheld *" the C+, the" are

*indin1 and 'on'lusive upon this Court and will not nor)all" *e distur*ed.

Thou1h this do'trine is not without e'eptions, the Court 8nds that none are

appli'a*le to the present 'ase.

333EC also 'annot validl" ar1ue that >the fa'tual 8ndin1s *ein1 assailed

are not supported *" eviden'e on re'ord or the i)pu1ned ud1)ent is *ased

on a )isapprehension of fa'ts.> Its ver" own lettero=er of e)plo")ent

ar1ues a1ainst its a*ove posture. E'erpts of the lettero=er?

+dditionall", upon the e=e'tivit" of "our pro*ation, "ou and "our i))ediate

superior are reuired to ointl" de8ne "our o*e'tives 'o)pared with the o*reuire)ents of the position. ased on the prea1reed o*e'tives, "our

perfor)an'e shall *e reviewed on the #rd )onth to assess "our 'o)peten'e

and wor attitude. The 5th )onth Perfor)an'e +ppraisal shall *e the *asis in

elevatin1 or 'on8r)in1 "our e)plo")ent status fro) Pro*ationar" to

Re1ular.

6ailure to )eet the o* reuire)ents durin1 the pro*ation sta1e )eans that

"our servi'es )a" *e ter)inated without prior noti'e and without re'ourse

to separation pa". E)phasis supplied.-

Respondents further alle1e that San 7ateoGs e)ail dated !ul" (:, $%%4 shows

that the standards for his re1ulariFation were )ade nown to petitioner

+lilin1 at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent. To re'all, in that e)ail )essa1e, San

7ateo re)inded +lilin1 of the sales uota he ou1ht to )eet as a 'ondition for

his 'ontinued e)plo")ent, i.e., that the / tru's should alread" *e &%H

full *" +u1ust 5, $%%4. Contrar" to respondentsG 'ontention, San 7ateoGs

e)ail 'annot support their alle1ation on +lilin1 *ein1 infor)ed of the

standards for his 'ontinued e)plo")ent, su'h as the sales uota, at the ti)e

of his en1a1e)ent. +s it were, the e)ail )essa1e was sent to +lilin1 )ore

than a )onth after he si1ned his e)plo")ent 'ontra't with 333EC. The

aforeuoted Se'tion : of the I)ple)entin1 Rules of oo

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

12/25

I)ple)entin1 Rules of oo

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

13/25

a- Serious )is'ondu't or willful diso*edien'e *" the e)plo"ee of the

lawful orders of his e)plo"er or representative in 'onne'tion with his

worB

*- /ross and ha*itual ne1le't *" the e)plo"ee of his dutiesB

'- 6raud or willful *rea'h *" the e)plo"ee of the trust reposed in hi)

*" his e)plo"er or dul" authoriFed representativeB

d- Co))ission of a 'ri)e or o=ense *" the e)plo"ee a1ainst the

person of his e)plo"er or an" i))ediate )e)*er of his fa)il" or his

dul" authoriFed representativesB and

e- Other 'auses analo1ous to the fore1oin1. E)phasis supplied-

In 2i) v. National 2a*or Relations Co))ission,#5 the Court 'onsideredine;'ien'" as an analo1ous ust 'ause for ter)ination of e)plo")ent under

+rti'le $&$ of the 2a*or Code?

3e 'annot *ut a1ree with PEPSI that >1ross ine;'ien'"> falls within the

purview of >other 'auses analo1ous to the fore1oin1,> this 'onstitutes,

therefore, ust 'ause to ter)inate an e)plo"ee under +rti'le $&$ of the

2a*or Code. One is analo1ous to another if it is sus'epti*le of 'o)parison

with the latter either in 1eneral or in so)e spe'i8' detailB or has a 'lose

relationship with the latter. >/ross ine;'ien'"> is 'losel" related to >1rossne1le't,> for *oth involve spe'i8' a'ts of o)ission on the part of the

e)plo"ee resultin1 in da)a1e to the e)plo"er or to his *usiness. In uiser

vs. 2eo1ardo, this Court ruled that failure to o*served pres'ri*ed standards

to ine;'ien'" )a" 'onstitute ust 'ause for dis)issal. E)phasis supplied.-

It did so anew in 2eonardo v. National 2a*or Relations Co))ission#: on the

followin1 rationale?

+n e)plo"er is entitled to i)pose produ'tivit" standards for its worers, and

in fa't, non'o)plian'e )a" *e visited with a penalt" even )ore severe thande)otion. Thus,

@tAhe pra'ti'e of a 'o)pan" in la"in1 o= worers *e'ause the" failed to )ae

the wor uota has *een re'o1niFed in this urisdi'tion. Philippine +)eri'an

E)*roideries vs. E)*roider" and /ar)ent 3orers, $: SCR+ :#4, :#0-. In

the 'ase at *ar, the petitioners failure to )eet the sales uota assi1ned to


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

14/25

ea'h of the) 'onstitute a ust 'ause of their dis)issal, re1ardless of the

per)anent or pro*ationar" status of their e)plo")ent. 6ailure to o*serve

pres'ri*ed standards of wor, or to ful8ll reasona*le wor assi1n)ents due

to ine;'ien'" )a" 'onstitute ust 'ause for dis)issal. Su'h ine;'ien'" is

understood to )ean failure to attain wor 1oals or wor uotas, either *"

failin1 to 'o)plete the sa)e within the allotted reasona*le period, or *"

produ'in1 unsatisfa'tor" results. This )ana1e)ent prero1ative of reuirin1

standards )a" *e availed of so lon1 as the" are eer'ised in 1ood faith for

the advan'e)ent of the e)plo"ers interest. E)phasis supplied.-

In 8ne, an e)plo"eeGs failure to )eet sales or wor uotas falls under the

'on'ept of 1ross ine;'ien'", whi'h in turn is analo1ous to 1ross ne1le't of

dut" that is a ust 'ause for dis)issal under +rti'le $&$ of the Code.

owever, in order for the uota i)posed to *e 'onsidered a valid

produ'tivit" standard and there*" validate a dis)issal, )ana1e)entGsprero1ative of 8in1 the uota )ust *e eer'ised in 1ood faith for the

advan'e)ent of its interest. The dut" to prove 1ood faith, however, rests

with 333EC as part of its *urden to show that the dis)issal was for a ust

'ause. 333EC )ust show that su'h uota was i)posed in 1ood faith. This

333EC failed to do, per'epti*l" *e'ause it 'ould not. The fa't of the )atter

is that the alle1ed i)position of the uota was a desperate atte)pt to lend a

se)*lan'e of validit" to +lilin1Gs ille1al dis)issal. It )ust *e stressed that

even 333ECGs sales )ana1er, Eve +)ador +)ador-, in an internal e)ail

to San 7ateo, hed1ed on whether petitioner perfor)ed *elow or a*ove

epe'tation?

Could not uantif" level of perfor)an'e as he as was tased to handle a new

produ't /-. Revenue report is not "et ad)inistered *" IT on a )onthto

)onth *asis. 7oreover, this in a wa" is an eperi)ental a'tivit". Pra'ti'all"

"ou have a 'lose )onitorin1 with +r)and with re1ards to his perfor)an'e.

Jour assess)ent of hi) would *e )ore a''urate.

ein1 an eperi)ental a'tivit" and havin1 *een laun'hed for the 8rst ti)e,

the sales of / servi'es 'ould not *e reasona*l" uanti8ed. This would

eplain wh" +)ador i)plied in her e)ail that other *ases *esides sales

81ures will *e used to deter)ine +lilin1Gs perfor)an'e. +nd "et, despite su'h

a neutral o*servation, +lilin1 was still dis)issed for his dis)al sales of /

servi'es. In an" event, 333EC failed to de)onstrate the reasona*leness

and the *ona 8des on the uota i)position.

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

15/25

E)plo"ees )ust *e re)inded that while pro*ationar" e)plo"ees do not

eno" per)anent status, the" eno" the 'onstitutional prote'tion of se'urit"

of tenure. The" 'an onl" *e ter)inated for 'ause or when the" otherwise fail

to )eet the reasona*le standards )ade nown to the) *" the e)plo"er at

the ti)e of their en1a1e)ent.#9Respondent 333EC )isera*l" failed to

prove the ter)ination of petitioner was for a ust 'ause nor was there

su*stantial eviden'e to de)onstrate the standards were )ade nown to the

latter at the ti)e of his en1a1e)ent. en'e, petitionerGs ri1ht to se'urit" of

tenure was *rea'hed.

+lilin1Gs ri1ht to pro'edural due pro'ess was violated

+s earlier stated, to e=e't a le1al dis)issal, the e)plo"er )ust show not

onl" a valid 1round therefor, *ut also that pro'edural due pro'ess has

properl" *een o*served. 3hen the 2a*or Code speas of pro'edural duepro'ess, the referen'e is usuall" to the two $-written noti'e rule envisa1ed

in Se'tion $ III-, Rule III, oo < of the O)ni*us Rules I)ple)entin1 the

2a*or Code, whi'h provides?

Se'tion $. Standard of due pro'ess? reuire)ents of noti'e. In all 'ases of

ter)ination of e)plo")ent, the followin1 standards of due pro'ess shall *e

su*stantiall" o*served.

I. 6or ter)ination of e)plo")ent *ased on ust 'auses as de8ned in +rti'le

$&$ of the Code?

a- + written noti'e served on the e)plo"ee spe'if"in1 the 1round or

1rounds for ter)ination, and 1ivin1 to said e)plo"ee reasona*le

opportunit" within whi'h to eplain his sideB

*- + hearin1 or 'onferen'e durin1 whi'h the e)plo"ee 'on'erned,

with the assistan'e of 'ounsel if the e)plo"ee so desires, is 1iven

opportunit" to respond to the 'har1e, present his eviden'e or re*ut the

eviden'e presented a1ainst hi)B and

'- + written noti'e @ofA ter)ination served on the e)plo"ee indi'atin1

that upon due 'onsideration of all the 'ir'u)stan'e, 1rounds have

*een esta*lished to ustif" his ter)ination.

In 'ase of ter)ination, the fore1oin1 noti'es shall *e served on the

e)plo"eeGs last nown address.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt37

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

16/25

7// 7arine Servi'es, In'. v. N2RC#& tersel" des'ri*ed the )e'hani's of what

)a" *e 'onsidered a twopart due pro'ess reuire)ent whi'h in'ludes the

twonoti'e rule, > one, of the intention to dis)iss, indi'atin1 therein his

a'ts or o)issions 'o)plained a1ainst, and two, noti'e of the de'ision to

dis)issB and an opportunit" to answer and re*ut the 'har1es a1ainst hi), in

*etween su'h noti'es.>

in1 of in1s Transport, In'. v. 7a)a'#0 epounded on this pro'edural

reuire)ent in this )anner?

(- The 8rst written noti'e to *e served on the e)plo"ees should

'ontain the spe'i8' 'auses or 1rounds for ter)ination a1ainst the),

and a dire'tive that the e)plo"ees are 1iven the opportunit" to su*)it

their written eplanation within a reasona*le period. >Reasona*le

opportunit"> under the O)ni*us Rules )eans ever" ind of assistan'ethat )ana1e)ent )ust a''ord to the e)plo"ees to ena*le the) to

prepare adeuatel" for their defense. This should *e 'onstrued as a

period of at least 8ve 'alendar da"s fro) re'eipt of the noti'e

7oreover, in order to ena*le the e)plo"ees to intelli1entl" prepare

their eplanation and defenses, the noti'e should 'ontain a detailed

narration of the fa'ts and 'ir'u)stan'es that will serve as *asis for the

'har1e a1ainst the e)plo"ees. + 1eneral des'ription of the 'har1e will

not su;'e. 2astl", the noti'e should spe'i8'all" )ention whi'h

'o)pan" rules, if an", are violated andLor whi'h a)on1 the 1rounds

under +rt. $&& @of the 2a*or CodeA is *ein1 'har1ed a1ainst thee)plo"ees

$- +fter servin1 the 8rst noti'e, the e)plo"ees should s'hedule and

'ondu't a hearin1 or 'onferen'e wherein the e)plo"ees will *e 1iven

the opportunit" to (- eplain and 'larif" their defenses to the 'har1e

a1ainst the)B $- present eviden'e in support of their defensesB and

#- re*ut the eviden'e presented a1ainst the) *" the )ana1e)ent.

Durin1 the hearin1 or 'onferen'e, the e)plo"ees are 1iven the 'han'e

to defend the)selves personall", with the assistan'e of a

representative or 'ounsel of their 'hoi'e .

#- +fter deter)inin1 that ter)ination is usti8ed, the e)plo"er shall

serve the e)plo"ees a written noti'e of ter)ination indi'atin1 that? (-

all the 'ir'u)stan'es involvin1 the 'har1e a1ainst the e)plo"ees have


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

17/25

*een 'onsideredB and $- 1rounds have *een esta*lished to ustif" the

severan'e of their e)plo")ent. E)phasis in the ori1inal.-

ere, the 8rst and se'ond noti'e reuire)ents have not *een properl"

o*served, thus taintin1 petitionerGs dis)issal with ille1alit".

The adverted )e)o dated Septe)*er $%, $%%4 of 333EC supposedl"

infor)in1 +lilin1 of the lielihood of his ter)ination and dire'tin1 hi) to

a''ount for his failure to )eet the epe'ted o* perfor)an'e would have had

'onstituted the >'har1e sheet,> su;'ient to answer for the 8rst noti'e

reuire)ent, *ut for the fa't that there is no proof su'h letter had *een sent

to and re'eived *" hi). In fa't, in his De'e)*er (#, $%%4 Co)plainantGs

Repl" +;davit, +lilin1 1oes on to ta1 su'h letterL)e)orandu) as

fa*ri'ation. 333EC did not addu'e proof to show that a 'op" of the letter

was dul" served upon +lilin1. Clearl" enou1h, 333EC did not 'o)pl" withthe 8rst noti'e reuire)ent.

Neither was there 'o)plian'e with the i)peratives of a hearin1 or

'onferen'e. The Court need not dwell at len1th on this parti'ular *rea'h of

the due pro'edural reuire)ent. Su;'e it to point out that the re'ord is

devoid of an" showin1 of a hearin1 or 'onferen'e havin1 *een 'ondu'ted. On

the 'ontrar", in its O'to*er (, $%%4 letter to +lilin1, or *arel" 8ve 5- da"s

after it served the noti'e of ter)ination, 333EC a'nowled1ed that it was

still evaluatin1 his 'ase. +nd the written noti'e of ter)ination itself did not

indi'ate all the 'ir'u)stan'es involvin1 the 'har1e to ustif" severan'e ofe)plo")ent.

+lilin1 is entitled to *a'wa1es

and separation pa" in lieu of reinstate)ent

+s )a" *e noted, the C+ found +lilin1Gs dis)issal as havin1 *een ille1all"

e=e'ted, *ut nonetheless 'on'luded that his e)plo")ent 'eased at the end

of the pro*ationar" period. Thus, the appellate 'ourt )erel" a;r)ed the

)onetar" award )ade *" the N2RC, whi'h 'onsisted of the pa")ent of that

a)ount 'orrespondin1 to the unserved portion of the 'ontra't of

e)plo")ent.

The 'ase disposition on the award is erroneous.

+s earlier eplained, +lilin1 'annot *e ri1htfull" 'onsidered as a )ere

pro*ationar" e)plo"ee. +''ordin1l", the pro*ationar" period set in the

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

18/25

'ontra't of e)plo")ent dated !une ((, $%%4 was of no )o)ent. In net

e=e't, as of that date !une ((, $%%4, +lilin1 *e'a)e part of the 333EC

or1aniFation as a re1ular e)plo"ee of the 'o)pan" without a 8ed ter) of

e)plo")ent. Thus, he is entitled to *a'wa1es re'oned fro) the ti)e he

was ille1all" dis)issed on O'to*er :, $%%4, with a PhP (9,#%%.%% )onthl"

salar", until the 8nalit" of this De'ision. This disposition hews with the

CourtGs ensuin1 holdin1 in !avellana v. elen?4%

+rti'le $90 of the 2a*or Code, as a)ended *" Se'tion #4 of Repu*li' +'t

:9(5 instru'ts?

+rt. $90. Se'urit" of Tenure. In 'ases of re1ular e)plo")ent, the e)plo"er

shall not ter)inate the servi'es of an e)plo"ee e'ept for a ust 'ause or

when authoriFed *" this Title. +n e)plo"ee who is unustl" dis)issed fro)

wor shall *e entitled to reinstate)ent without loss of seniorit" ri1hts andother privile1es and to his full *a'wa1es, in'lusive of allowan'es, and to his

other *ene8ts or their )onetar" euivalent 'o)puted fro) the ti)e his

'o)pensation was withheld fro) hi) up to the ti)e of his a'tual

reinstate)ent. E)phasis supplied-

Clearl", the law intends the award of *a'wa1es and si)ilar *ene8ts to

a''u)ulate past the date of the 2a*or +r*iterGs de'ision until the dis)issed

e)plo"ee is a'tuall" reinstated. ut if, as in this 'ase, reinstate)ent is no

lon1er possi*le, this Court has 'onsistentl" ruled that *a'wa1es shall *e

'o)puted fro) the ti)e of ille1al dis)issal until the date the de'ision*e'o)es 8nal. E)phasis supplied.-

+dditionall", +lilin1 is entitled to separation pa" in lieu of reinstate)ent on

the 1round of strained relationship.

In /olden +'e uilders v. Talde,4( the Court ruled?

The *asis for the pa")ent of *a'wa1es is di=erent fro) that for the award

of separation pa".1âwphi1 Separation pa" is 1ranted where reinstate)ent is

no lon1er advisa*le *e'ause of strained relations *etween the e)plo"ee andthe e)plo"er. a'wa1es represent 'o)pensation that should have *een

earned *ut were not 'olle'ted *e'ause of the unust dis)issal. The *asis for

'o)putin1 *a'wa1es is usuall" the len1th of the e)plo"ees servi'e while

that for separation pa" is the a'tual period when the e)plo"ee was

unlawfull" prevented fro) worin1.


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

19/25

+s to how *oth awards should *e 'o)puted, 7a'asero v. Southern Industrial

/ases Philippines instru'ts?

@TAhe award of separation pa" is in'onsistent with a 8ndin1 that there was no

ille1al dis)issal, for under +rti'le $90 of the 2a*or Code and as held in a

'atena of 'ases, an e)plo"ee who is dis)issed without ust 'ause andwithout due pro'ess is entitled to *a'wa1es and reinstate)ent or pa")ent

of separation pa" in lieu thereof?

Thus, an ille1all" dis)issed e)plo"ee is entitled to two reliefs? *a'wa1es

and reinstate)ent. The two reliefs provided are separate and distin't. In

instan'es where reinstate)ent is no lon1er feasi*le *e'ause of strained

relations *etween the e)plo"ee and the e)plo"er, separation pa" is

1ranted. In e=e't, an ille1all" dis)issed e)plo"ee is entitled to either

reinstate)ent, if via*le, or separation pa" if reinstate)ent is no lon1ervia*le, and *a'wa1es.

The nor)al 'onseuen'es of respondentsG ille1al dis)issal, then, are

reinstate)ent without loss of seniorit" ri1hts, and pa")ent of *a'wa1es

'o)puted fro) the ti)e 'o)pensation was withheld up to the date of a'tual

reinstate)ent. 3here reinstate)ent is no lon1er via*le as an option,

separation pa" euivalent to one (- )onth salar" for ever" "ear of servi'e

should *e awarded as an alternative. The pa")ent of separation pa" is in

addition to pa")ent of *a'wa1es.

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

20/25

Strained relations )ust *e de)onstrated as a fa't, however, to *e

adeuatel" supported *" eviden'e su*stantial eviden'e to show that the

relationship *etween the e)plo"er and the e)plo"ee is indeed strained as a

ne'essar" 'onseuen'e of the udi'ial 'ontrovers".

In the present 'ase, the 2a*or +r*iter found that a'tual ani)osit" eisted*etween petitioner +Ful and respondent as a result of the 8lin1 of the ille1al

dis)issal 'ase. Su'h 8ndin1, espe'iall" when a;r)ed *" the appellate 'ourt

as in the 'ase at *ar, is *indin1 upon the Court, 'onsistent with the

prevailin1 rules that this Court will not tr" fa'ts anew and that 8ndin1s of

fa'ts of uasiudi'ial *odies are a''orded 1reat respe't, even 8nalit".

E)phasis supplied.-

+s the C+ 'orre'tl" o*served, >To reinstate petitioner @+lilin1A would onl"

'reate an at)osphere of anta1onis) and distrust, )ore so that he had onl"a short stint with respondent 'o)pan".>4$ The Court need not *ela*or the

fa't that the patent ani)osit" that had developed *etween e)plo"er and

e)plo"ee 1enerated what )a" *e 'onsidered as the ar*itrar" dis)issal of

the petitioner.

6ollowin1 the pronoun'e)ents of this Court Sa1ales v. RustanGs Co))er'ial

Corporation,4# the 'o)putation of separation pa" in lieu of reinstate)ent

in'ludes the period for whi'h *a'wa1es were awarded?

Thus, in lieu of reinstate)ent, it is *ut proper to award petitioner separationpa" 'o)puted at one)onth salar" for ever" "ear of servi'e, a fra'tion of at

least si :- )onths 'onsidered as one whole "ear. In the 'o)putation of

separation pa", the period where *a'wa1es are awarded )ust *e in'luded.

E)phasis supplied.-

Thus, +lilin1 is entitled to *oth *a'wa1es and separation pa" in lieu of

reinstate)entin the a)ount of one (- )onthGs salar" for ever" "ear of

servi'e, that is, fro) !une ((, $%%4 date of e)plo")ent 'ontra't- until the

8nalit" of this de'ision with a fra'tion of a "ear of at least si :- )onths to

*e 'onsidered as one (- whole "ear. +s deter)ined *" the la*or ar*iter, the

*asis for the 'o)putation of *a'wa1es and separation pa" will *e +lilin1Gs

)onthl" salar" at PhP (9,#%%.

6inall", +lilin1 is entitled to an award of PhP #%,%%% as no)inal da)a1es in

'onsonan'e with prevailin1 urispruden'e44 for violation of due pro'ess.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt44

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

21/25

Petitioner is not entitled to )oral and ee)plar" da)a1es

In NaFareno v. Cit" of Du)a1uete,45 the Court epounded on the reuisite

ele)ents for a liti1antGs entitle)ent to )oral da)a1es, thus?

7oral da)a1es are awarded if the followin1 ele)ents eist in the 'ase? (-an inur" 'learl" sustained *" the 'lai)antB $- a 'ulpa*le a't or o)ission

fa'tuall" esta*lishedB #- a wron1ful a't or o)ission *" the defendant as the

proi)ate 'ause of the inur" sustained *" the 'lai)antB and 4- the award of

da)a1es predi'ated on an" of the 'ases stated +rti'le $$(0 of the Civil

Code. In addition, the person 'lai)in1 )oral da)a1es )ust prove the

eisten'e of *ad faith *" 'lear and 'onvin'in1 eviden'e for the law alwa"s

presu)es 1ood faith. It is not enou1h that one )erel" su=ered sleepless

ni1hts, )ental an1uish, and serious aniet" as the result of the a'tuations of

the other part". Invaria*l" su'h a'tion )ust *e shown to have *een willfull"done in *ad faith or with ill )otive. ad faith, under the law, does not si)pl"

'onnote *ad ud1)ent or ne1li1en'e. It i)ports a dishonest purpose or so)e

)oral o*liuit" and 'ons'ious doin1 of a wron1, a *rea'h of a nown dut"

throu1h so)e )otive or interest or ill will that partaes of the nature of

fraud. E)phasis supplied.-

In alle1in1 that 333EC a'ted in *ad faith, +lilin1 has the *urden of proof to

present eviden'e in support of his 'lai), as ruled in Culili v. Eastern

Tele'o))uni'ations Philippines, In'.?4:

+''ordin1 to urispruden'e, >*asi' is the prin'iple that 1ood faith is

presu)ed and he who alle1es *ad faith has the dut" to prove the sa)e.> "

i)putin1 *ad faith to the a'tuations of ETPI, Culili has the *urden of proof to

present su*stantial eviden'e to support the alle1ation of unfair la*or

pra'ti'e. Culili failed to dis'har1e this *urden and his *are alle1ations

deserve no 'redit.

This was reiterated in Knited Clai)ants +sso'iation of NE+ KNIC+N- v.

National Ele'tri8'ation +d)inistration NE+-,49 in this wise?

It )ust *e noted that the *urden of provin1 *ad faith rests on the one

alle1in1 it. +s the Court ruled in Culili v. Eastern Tele'o))uni'ations, In'.,

>+''ordin1 to urispruden'e, U*asi' is the prin'iple that 1ood faith is

presu)ed and he who alle1es *ad faith has the dut" to prove the sa)e.G>

7oreover, in Spouses Palada v. Solid*an Corporation, the Court stated,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt47

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

22/25

>+lle1ations of *ad faith and fraud )ust *e proved *" 'lear and 'onvin'in1

eviden'e.>

Si)ilarl", +lilin1 has failed to over'o)e su'h *urden to prove *ad faith on

the part of 333EC. +lilin1 has not presented an" 'lear and 'onvin'in1

eviden'e to show *ad faith. The fa't that he was ille1all" dis)issed isinsu;'ient to prove *ad faith. Thus, the C+ 'orre'tl" ruled that >@tAhere was

no su;'ient showin1 of *ad faith or a*use of )ana1e)ent prero1atives in

the personal a'tion taen a1ainst petitioner.>4& In 2a)*ert Pawn*roers and

!ewelr" Corporation v. ina)ira,40 the Court ruled?

+ dis)issal )a" *e 'ontrar" to law *ut *" itself alone, it does not esta*lish

*ad faith to entitle the dis)issed e)plo"ee to )oral da)a1es. The award of

)oral and ee)plar" da)a1es 'annot *e usti8ed solel" upon the pre)ise

that the e)plo"er dis)issed his e)plo"ee without authoriFed 'ause and duepro'ess.

The o;'ers of 333EC 'annot *e held

ointl" and severall" lia*le with the 'o)pan"

The C+ held the president of 333EC, !ose . 6eli'iano, San 7ateo and

2ariosa ointl" and severall" lia*le for the )onetar" awards of +lilin1 on the

1round that the o;'ers are 'onsidered >e)plo"ers> a'tin1 in the interest of

the 'orporation. The C+ 'ited NJ International nitwear Corporation

Philippines NJ- v. National 2a*or Relations Co))ission5%

in support of itsar1u)ent. Nota*l", NJ in turn 'ited +.C. Ranso) 2a*or KnionCC2K v.

N2RC.5(

Su'h rulin1 has *een reversed *" the Court in +l*a v. Jupan1'o,5$ where the

Court ruled?

" Order of Septe)*er 5, $%%9, the 2a*or +r*iter denied respondentGs

)otion to uash the #rd alias writ. rushin1 aside respondentGs 'ontention

that his lia*ilit" is )erel" oint, the 2a*or +r*iter ruled?

Su'h issue re1ardin1 the personal lia*ilit" of the o;'ers of a 'orporation for

the pa")ent of wa1es and )one" 'lai)s to its e)plo"ees, as in the instant

'ase, has lon1 *een resolved *" the Supre)e Court in a lon1 list of 'ases

@+.C. Ranso) 2a*or KnionC2K vs. N2RC (4$ SCR+ $:0- and reiterated in the

'ases of Chua vs. N2RC (&$ SCR+ #5#-, /udeF vs. N2RC ( SCR+ :44-A. In

the afore)entioned 'ases, the Supre)e Court has epressl" held that the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_185829_2012.html#fnt52

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

23/25

irresponsi*le o;'er of the 'orporation e.1. President- is lia*le for the

'orporationGs o*li1ations to its worers. Thus, respondent Jupan1'o, *ein1

the president of the respondent J2 2and and Kltra 7otors Corp., is properl"

ointl" and severall" lia*le with the defendant 'orporations for the la*or

'lai)s of Co)plainants +l*a and De /uF)an.

+s reVe'ted a*ove, the 2a*or +r*iter held that respondentGs lia*ilit" is

solidar".

There is solidar" lia*ilit" when the o*li1ation epressl" so states, when the

law so provides, or when the nature of the o*li1ation so reuires. 7+7 Realt"

Develop)ent Corporation v. N2RC, on solidar" lia*ilit" of 'orporate o;'ers in

la*or disputes, enli1htens?

+ 'orporation *ein1 a uridi'al entit", )a" a't onl" throu1h its dire'tors,

o;'ers and e)plo"ees. O*li1ations in'urred *" the), a'tin1 as su'h

'orporate a1ents are not theirs *ut the dire't a''ounta*ilities of the

'orporation the" represent. True solidar" lia*ilities )a" at ti)es *e in'urred

*ut onl" when e'eptional 'ir'u)stan'es warrant su'h as, 1enerall", in the

followin1 'ases?

(. 3hen dire'tors and trustees or, in appropriate 'ases, the o;'ers of a

'orporation?

a- vote for or assent to patentl" unlawful a'ts of the 'orporationB

*- a't in *ad faith or with 1ross ne1li1en'e in dire'tin1 the 'orporate

a=airsB

In la*or 'ases, for instan'e, the Court has held 'orporate dire'tors and

o;'ers solidaril" lia*le with the 'orporation for the ter)ination ofe)plo")ent of e)plo"ees done with )ali'e or in *ad faith.

+ review of the fa'ts of the 'ase does not reveal a)ple and satisfa'tor" proof

that respondent o;'ers of 33EC a'ted in *ad faith or with )ali'e in

e=e'tin1 the ter)ination of petitioner +lilin1. Even assu)in1 ar1uendo that

the a'tions of 333EC are ill'on'eived and erroneous, respondent o;'ers

8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

24/25

'annot *e held ointl" and solidaril" with it. en'e, the rulin1 on the oint and

solidar" lia*ilit" of individual respondents )ust *e re'alled.

+lilin1 is entitled to +ttorne"Gs 6ees and 2e1al Interest

Petitioner +lilin1 is also entitled to attorne"Gs fees in the a)ount of tenper'ent (%H- of his total )onetar" award, havin1 *een for'ed to liti1ate in

order to see redress of his 1rievan'es, pursuant to +rti'le ((( of the 2a*or

Code and followin1 our rulin1 in Eodus International Constru'tion

Corporation v. is'o'ho,5# to wit?

In Rutauio v. National 2a*or Relations Co))ission, this Court held that?

It is settled that in a'tions for re'over" of wa1es or where an e)plo"ee was

for'ed to liti1ate and, thus, in'ur epenses to prote't his ri1hts and interest,

the award of attorne"Gs fees is le1all" and )orall" usti8a*le.

In Produ'ers an of the Philippines v. Court of +ppeals this Court ruled that?

+ttorne"Gs fees )a" *e awarded when a part" is 'o)pelled to liti1ate or to

in'ur epenses to prote't his interest *" reason of an unusti8ed a't of the

other part".

3hile in 2a)*ert Pawn*roers and !ewelr" Corporation,54 the Court

spe'i8'all" ruled?

owever, the award of attorne"Gs fee is warranted pursuant to +rti'le ((( of

the 2a*or Code. Ten (%H- per'ent of the total award is usuall" the

reasona*le a)ount of attorne"Gs fees awarded. It is settled that where an

e)plo"ee was for'ed to liti1ate and, thus, in'ur epenses to prote't his

ri1hts and interest, the award of attorne"Gs fees is le1all" and )orall"

usti8a*le.

6inall", le1al interest shall *e i)posed on the )onetar" awards herein

1ranted at the rate of :H per annu) fro) O'to*er :, $%%4 date ofter)ination- until full" paid.

3ERE6ORE, the petition is P+RTI+22J /R+NTED. The !ul" #, $%%& De'ision

of the Court of +ppeals in C+/.R. SP No. (%(#%0 is here*" 7ODI6IED to

read?


8/20/2019 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

25/25

3ERE6ORE, the petition is P+RTI+22J /R+NTED. The assailed Resolutions of

respondent Third Division- National 2a*or Relations Co))ission are

+66IR7ED, with the followin1 7ODI6IC+TIONLC2+RI6IC+TION? Respondent

3ide 3ide 3orld Epress Corp. is lia*le to pa" +r)ando +lilin1 the followin1?

a- *a'wa1es re'oned fro) O'to*er :, $%%4 up to the 8nalit" of this

De'ision *ased on a salar" of PhP (9,#%% a )onth, with interest at :H per

annu) on the prin'ipal a)ount fro) O'to*er :, $%%4 until full" paidB *- the

additional su) euivalent to one (- )onth salar" for ever" "ear of servi'e,

with a fra'tion of at least si :- )onths 'onsidered as one whole "ear *ased

on the period fro) !une ((, $%%4 date of e)plo")ent 'ontra't- until the

8nalit" of this De'ision, as separation pa"B '- PhP #%,%%% as no)inal

da)a1esB and d- +ttorne"Gs 6ees euivalent to (%H of the total award.

SO ORDERED.

g.r. no. 185829 april 25, 2012

Documents