ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-48346   August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL<br /><br />084 Phil 280

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-48346. August 9, 1949.]

    DESTILERIA AYALA Y CIA., INC., Petitioner, v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

    Manuel V. San Jose for Petitioner.

    Eulogio R. Lerum for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES; CAUSES FOR DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE; MERE SUSPICION OF DANGER OR PREJUDICE INSUFFICIENT. — Mere suspicion or simple apprehension of danger or prejudice is insufficient to justify removal of the employee (39 C.J., pp. 80-81) and to dismiss an innocent employee who has an untarnished record in the company for many years, just because he has identified himself with the movement to obtain concessions from the company in the matter of salaries is to discourage legitimate union activities and frustrate the purpose of our labor laws.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari filed in 1941 to review an order of the Court of Industrial Relations. The record having been destroyed during the war, the case is now before us on a reconstituted record.

    It appears that under date of December 11, 1940, Destileria Ayala y Compañia, Inc., petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations for authority to dismiss its bill-collector, Antonio Valdez, and its cashier, Francisco Serrano, the first for embezzlement and the second for alleged negligence in connection with said embezzlement. At the time, there was pending before that court a dispute between the company and its employees concerning wages, and one of the employees affected by the dispute was the said Francisco Serrano for whom it was requested that his monthly salary, which was reduced in 1934, be restored to its former level. The employees were then represented by the labor union to which they were affiliated, the "Liga Nacional Obrera de Filipinas," one of the present respondents.

    After due hearing, the Industrial Court found Francisco Serrano to be "absolutely free from blame" and innocent of the charges imputed to him and, attributing his proposed dismissal to the company’s desire to get rid of him because of his union activities in connection with the movement for increase of salaries in the company, denied the petition for authority to dismiss him. It is this decision, as contained in the order of the court of March 13, 1941, that we are asked to review.

    It would be idle for us to review the findings of fact of the Industrial Court. This we are not supposed to do both under the Rules of Court and the law creating that body. It would likewise be useless to discuss the petitioner’s claim that the Industrial Court erred "when it held that the dismissal of Francisco Serrano would be a violation of section 19 of Act 143 and section 5 of Act 213." It does not appear from the order complained of that the Industrial Court has so held. The only question for determination is whether, with his innocence completely established, Francisco Serrano could still be dismissed by his employer on the ground that the latter had already lost confidence in him.

    It is contended that in a case where the relation between employer and employee is essentially one of trust, such as that existing between herein petitioner and its cashier, the employer is not bound to retain the employee after the former has lost confidence in the latter. And it is further urged that for the employer to have the right to dismiss such an employee, it is not necessary that the employer should have suffered injury from the employee’s misconduct, it being sufficient that such misconduct might reasonably lead to the employer’s injury. The argument thus assumes that the cashier in the present case has been guilty of misconduct. The assumption, however, is contrary to the express finding of the Industrial Court that this employee had not been in any way negligent and was entirely free from blame in connection with the embezzlement committed by the bill-collector. This conclusion is one of fact, and there being evidence to support it, the same cannot be altered by this Court.

    Our attention has been directed to the case of Miller v. Jones (178 Iowa, 168) where it was declared that if the employee’s "conduct was such as to indicate that his interests were hostile to those of his master, it was the right of the master to discharge him before any injury was in fact done." But it is obvious from this quotation that to give the employer the right to discharge his employee before actual injury has been caused, the employee’s conduct should indicate that his interests are hostile to those of his employer. Such, however, is not the case here. Mere suspicion or simple apprehension of danger or prejudice is insufficient to justify removal of the employee (39 C.J., pp. 80-81), and to dismiss an innocent employee, such as the cashier in the present case, who, as found by the Industrial Court, has an untarnished record in the company for many years, just because he has identified himself with the movement to obtain concessions from the company in the matter of salaries, is to discourage legitimate union activities and frustrate the purpose of our labor laws.

    The petition for review is, therefore, dismissed and the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-48346   August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL<br /><br />084 Phil 280


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED