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
 

   
December-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 106949-50 December 1, 1995 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995 - EDILBERTO M. CUENCA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115243 December 1, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117577 December 1, 1995 - ALEJANDRO B. TY, ET AL. v. AURELIO C. TRAMPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 December 1, 1995 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1167 December 4, 1995 - NASIB D. YASIN v. AUGUSTO N. FELIX

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1028 December 4, 1995 - REYNATO MANLANGIT v. MELITO L. URGEL

  • G.R. No. 55134 December 4, 1995 - PEDRO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103567 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO G. SALLE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104114 December 4, 1995 - LEE CHUY REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107938 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABULKHAIR PATAMAMA

  • G.R. No. 108873 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAURENCE "LARRY" CAJILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120132 December 4, 1995 - CRISANTA GALAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1163 December 6, 1995 - DANILO M. SY v. ISABELITA M. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 80127 December 6, 1995 - ORIENTAL MEDIA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97401 December 6, 1995 - LUIS CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107729 December 6, 1995 - GEORGE D. JONES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115908-09 December 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANNY GODOY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-6-02-SB December 7, 1995 - IN RE: SANTOS GONZALES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 83812 December 7, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRICO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109281 December 7, 1995 - PHIL. TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995 - TEODORO ACAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995 - LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-951146 December 8, 1995 - ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA v. ELENA P. NIETO

  • G.R. No. 103301 December 8, 1995 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105720 December 8, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 110801 December 8, 1995 - MARIKINA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO

  • G.R. Nos. 111962-72 December 8, 1995 - MAXIMINO B. GAMIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-876 December 11, 1995 - STATE PROSECUTORS v. MANUEL T. MURO

  • G.R. Nos. 84985-86 December 11, 1995 - FOREMOST INCORPORATED v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112206 December 11, 1995 - GONZALO D. LABUDAHON, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114001 December 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY O. ALBERT

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-955 December 12, 1995 - LUCAS M. CASTAÑOS, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 100643 December 12, 1995 - ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105619 December 12, 1995 - MARIA ROSARIO DE SANTOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995 - JUAN M. HAGAD v. MERCEDES GOZODADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112438-39 & 113394 December 12, 1995 - CHEMPHIL EXPORT & IMPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL B. ALICANDO

  • G.R. No. 118701 December 12, 1995 - PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114848 December 14, 1995 - ALEX A. FALGUERA v. CORNELIO L. LINSANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115156 December 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO SHIU LING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93233 December 19, 1995 - JAO & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107756 December 19, 1995 - PAULINO BALBALEC, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107898 December 19, 1995 - MANUEL LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112592 December 19, 1995 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114950 December 19, 1995 - RAFAEL G. SUNTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115067 December 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115213 December 19, 1995 - WILSON DIU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108142 December 26, 1995 - ARCHBUILD MASTERS AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108153 December 26, 1995 - JUAN P. VILLENO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108175 December 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JHONIE POLANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109078 December 26, 1995 - WILSON P. YU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111459 December 26, 1995 - ROGELIO M. BANAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114343 December 28, 1995 - ANGELO CAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116702 December 28, 1995 - MUNICIPALITY OF CANDIJAY, BOHOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-88-269 December 29, 1995 - OSCAR ABETO v. MANUEL GARCESA

  • G.R. No. L-59255 December 29, 1995 - OLIVIA M. NAVOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73077 December 29, 1995 - ESCOLASTICA MONTESCLAROS SON, ET AL. v. CARMELINO SON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95770 December 29, 1995 - ROEL EBRALINAG, ET AL. v. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100092 December 29, 1995 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995 - EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103499 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY M. DENIEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109232 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANG CHUN KIT

  • G.R. No. 109244 December 29, 1995 - JUAN PULIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109764 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ASOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112982 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERUNDIO PRADO

  • G.R. No. 113212 December 29, 1995 - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122338 December 29, 1995 - IN RE: WILFREDO SUMULONG TORRES v. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 107729   December 6, 1995 - GEORGE D. JONES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 107729. December 6, 1995.]

    GEORGE D. JONES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4th Division, Cebu City; ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILS.), INC. AUBREY BOUT, and ELENITO P. TUAZON, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    The crux of this controversy is whether under the facts of the case petitioner may be considered to have abandoned his job as to warrant his dismissal.

    George D. Jones started working with Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. (ABBOTT) as a medical representative sometime in February 1971. In 1973 he was promoted as District Sales Manager for Western Visayas. At the time he was dismissed on 27 October 1989 he was receiving a monthly salary of P10,000.00 plus mid-year and Christmas bonuses equivalent to one month salary. Starting his eleventh year he was given, aside from the free use of a company car, six and a half (6-1/2) days vacation leave for every year of service. During his employment he was the recipient of various awards and commendations for his loyalty and exemplary performance.

    On 3 August 1989 petitioner applied for and was granted a vacation leave which he availed of on 11 to 28 September 1989. Shortly before his leave expired he applied for sick leave to take effect 29 September 1989. The reason he gave was that he was hypertensive as shown in his medical certificate issued by Dr. Wilfredo Salvador on 29 August 1989 attached to his application. On 10 October 1989 ABBOTT disapproved his application for sick leave and directed him instead to report to its Director of Administration within five (5) days.

    When petitioner failed to appear for work ABBOTT again wrote him on 25 October 1989 directing him to report on 27 October 1989, or two (2) days after, otherwise he would be dismissed for abandonment. Receiving no reply from petitioner, ABBOTT finally terminated his services on the day he was required to report. In the meantime, on 20 October 1989 petitioner wrote from Canada informing his employer that he would be reporting in the first week of December 1989 as he had been advised by his physician to rest and to undergo further medical examination. 1

    When he returned to the Philippines he was informed that he was already dismissed. Consequently, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages. Upon issues being joined, petitioner opted to rely on his position paper instead of adducing testimonial evidence. Private respondents, on the other hand, presented Dr. Mel Bacabac and private respondent Elenito P. Muazon, Administrator of ABBOTT. After trial the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of private respondents by sustaining the dismissal of petitioner.

    On appeal by petitioner, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC found that notwithstanding the scheme of petitioner in extending his stay in Canada through vacation and sick leaves it could not sustain the conclusion that petitioner abandoned his employment. 2

    Private respondents moved for reconsideration claiming that petitioner was not sick at the time of his application for sick leave; that at the time he was dismissed he had already been absent without leave for several months showing lack of interest in his work; and, that there was no dispute regarding his refusal to work despite company directives for him to report.

    Upon acting on the motion NLRC flip-flopped; it reversed itself. It ruled that petitioner was guilty of abandonment for going on sick leave without justifiable reason. 3

    Petitioner insists that he has not abandoned his job, and protests his dismissal without due process. He claims he was abroad for medical examination because of his hypertension and cardiovascular problems. Dr. Mel Bacabac confirmed that petitioner had artery coronary heart disease which would require rest and reduced normal activities. 4

    Respondents maintain otherwise. According to private respondent Tuazon, as early as 9 February 1989 petitioner informed him of petitioner’s intention to migrate to Canada together with his family; that petitioner wanted to resign and get a similar separation pay package extended to retrenched employees, i.e., three (3) months salary for every year of service, but that he informed petitioner that he could not get that much as he was not being retrenched. Tuazon also said that petitioner feigned illness to justify his unauthorized and prolonged trip to Canada in the hope that he could later exact benefits from the company through an action for illegal dismissal. Private respondents also contend that petitioner was guilty of misconduct when he lied about alleged ailment just so he could extend his leave. 5 With respect to due process, respondents assert that petitioner was given two opportunities to explain his side but failed. 6

    We rule in favor of petitioner. The requisites to constitute a valid dismissal are: (a) must be for any the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art. 282 of the Labor Code, and (b) only after the employee has been notified in writing and given the opportunity to be heard and defend himself, as required under Sec. 2 and 5, Rule XIV, Book V, of the Implementing Rules. 7

    Respondents’ allegation that petitioner abandoned his job is belied by the fact that after learning that his services had been terminated petitioner forthwith filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filling the complaint within the reglementary period. 8 An employee who takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work. Clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence is required to constitute abandonment as a valid ground for termination of employment. 9 The fact that petitioner informed his employer on 20 October 1989 that he would be reporting for work in the first week of December 1989 showed that his absence was merely temporary and reflected his intention to continue working.

    The reasons advanced by ABBOTT in disapproving the application for sick leave of petitioner were: (a) while petitioner was allegedly suffering from hypertension since 29 August 1989 he continued working until 11 September 1989 without any ill effect; (b) petitioner inappropriately applied on 3 August 1989 for a vacation leave instead of sick leave; (c) petitioner’s application was for an indefinite duration; and, (d) petitioner’s application for sick leave appeared to be a mere attempt to prolong his vacation leave.

    These reasons appear to be petty; they defy logic. The mere fact that petitioner was able to work from 29 August to 11 September 1989 without exhibiting any ill effect should not be taken against him. He should be commended in fact for working despite his physical condition. Again, there is nothing wrong with an application for sick leave which does not specify the date when the applicant would return for work. Certainly, private respondent could have granted the application and fixed the duration or limited the period of the leave. Besides, the choice of whether to avail of his sick leave belongs to the employee and he cannot be faulted for going on leave to seek adequate medical treatment.

    Under the circumstances, we cannot help concluding that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and severe if not unjust, unreasonable and unwarranted especially when viewed against his long years of dedicated service that merited awards and commendations. The records fail to disclose any incident in the past that would make his loyalty and dedication questionable. This seems to be the first time that he is in trouble with his employer.

    The records show that at the time he went on leave, which ended in his dismissal, he had eighty five and a half (85-1/2) days of leave credit. He was employed with respondent for eighteen (18) years during which, as adverted to earlier, he was the recipient of many awards and commendations from the company.

    Respondents would persuade us that petitioner was guilty of dishonesty for feigning illness, gross misconduct for intentional violation of company rules on leave applications, and gross insubordination for disobeying their return to work order. Fraud, serious misconduct or willful disobedience may constitute a just cause for termination of employment. But such grounds were never discussed in the proceedings below; only abandonment was raised. Unfortunately, contrary to private respondents’ thesis, the facts on record do not disclose that petitioner indeed abandoned his job. The testimony of respondent Tuazon that petitioner went to Canada to seek employment is at most self serving and hearsay. It cannot merit any probative value. But even if we assume the testimony to be true, petitioner has every right, if not a duty to himself and his family, to seek better opportunities.

    On the issue of due process raised by petitioner the law requires the employer to furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause or causes for termination and shall afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative. 10 Specifically, the employer must furnish the worker with two (2) written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (a) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (b) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. 11

    The only notice which contained the statement of the cause for termination was respondent ABBOTT’S letter of 25 October 1989. Its earlier letter of 10 October 1989 cannot be considered a notice of dismissal since it did not state the cause for petitioner’s termination. It merely informed petitioner that his application for sick leave was disapproved and that he should report for work five (5) days from receipt thereof. Actually, petitioner was dismissed on 27 October 1989, only two (2) days after the notice of 25 October 1989 was sent to him. Considering that the second letter was mailed from Manila to Bacolod City, and taking into account the condition of our postal service of which private respondents should be well aware, it was unreasonable for private respondents to expect petitioner to receive the letter and report work in Manila within two (2) days.

    Verily, the twin requirements of notice hearing constitute the essential elements of process. Neither of these elements can be without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty. 12 The dismissal of petitioner without giving him ample opportunity to adequately present his side is glaringly violative of his right to due process.

    WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission promulgated 20 August and 12 October 1992 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, private respondents are directed to REINSTATE petitioner GEORGE D. JONES to his former position immediately with back wages and without loss of seniority rights and other benefits to which he is entitled under the law.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Davide, Jr., Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision, NLRC, 14 July 1992, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 36-37.

    2. Id., pp. 3-6; Rollo, pp. 38-41.

    3. Resolution, NLRC, 20 August 1992, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 32-34.

    4. Petition, 25 November 1992, pp. 12-18; Rollo, pp. 20-26.

    5. Comment of Private Respondent 10-13; Rollo, pp. 81-84; Comment of June 1993, pp. 6-7, 13-14; Rollo, pp. 122-123, 129-130.

    6. Id., pp. 20-22; Rollo, pp. 91-93.

    7. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101527, 19 January 1993, 217 SCRA 237, 245 citing Shoemart, Inc. v. NLRC, 176 SCRA 385.

    8. Santos v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76991, 28 October 1988, 166 SCRA 759, 764, 765.

    9. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101858, 21 August 1992, 212 SCRA 792, 800.

    10. Art. 277, par. (b), Labor Code.

    11. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101900, 23 June 1992, 210 SCRA 277, 286.

    12. Pili v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96895, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 338, 345; Abiera v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102023, 6 November 1992, 215 SCRA 476, 480.

    G.R. No. 107729   December 6, 1995 - GEORGE D. JONES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.


    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