ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™  
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




December-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 124360 & 127867 December 3, 1997 - FRANCISCO S. TATAD v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-9-98-MCTC December 4, 1997 - REQUEST OF JUDGE EDUARDO F. CARTAGENA

  • G.R. No. 116354 December 4, 1997 - HEIRS OF REYNALDO ANIBAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117624 December 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN L. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121508 December 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CABEL

  • G.R. No. 121628 December 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TURINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126560 December 4, 1997 - ALFONSO PAA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 108505 December 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 117196 December 5, 1997 - LADISLAO P. VERGARA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119078-79 December 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELVIN ARELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997 - RICARDO CANICOSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121878 December 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR ESTARES

  • G.R. No. 124456 December 5, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108722 December 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA CARREON


  • Adm. Matter SB-95-6-P December 10, 1997 - PEPITO GUILLEN v. LUIS CONSTANTINO

  • G.R. No. 108731 December 10, 1997 - DEL MAR DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121241 December 10, 1997 - FURUSAWA RUBBER PHIL., INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109169 December 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110715 December 12, 1997 - ELBERT TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997 - RENATO C. CORONA, ET AL. v. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSN. OF THE PHILS., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112287 & 112350 December 12, 1997 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114905 December 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONNIE PERALTA

  • G.R. Nos. 117483-84 December 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO CARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122487 December 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122653 December 12, 1997 - PURE FOODS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997 - SAMMY MALACAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126623 December 12, 1997 - ERNESTO MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129938 December 12, 1997 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109714 December 15, 1997 - BETTER BUILDINGS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110163 December 15, 1997 - EDUARDO A. ZANORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 111244 December 15, 1997 - ARTURO ALANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113466 December 15, 1997 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116487 December 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL CABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118086 December 15, 1997 - SUSAN G. CARUNGCONG v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118463 December 15, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122655 December 15, 1997 - REYNALDO B. ALFANTE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123648 December 15, 1997 - ABDULLAH A. JAMIL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130148 December 15, 1997 - JOSE BORDADOR, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA D. LUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1088 December 17, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ADMER L. FERRER

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1394 December 17, 1997 - ROMEO STA. ANA v. GRACIANO H. ARINDAY, JR.

  • G.R. No. 121736 December 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAPAL MIDTOMOD

  • Adm. Case No. 4349 December 22, 1997 - LOURDES R. BUSINOS v. FRANCISCO RICAFORT

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1395 December 22, 1997 - PEDRO A. SAN JUAN v. LORE V. BAGALASCA

  • G.R. No. 110097 December 22, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO ASTORGA

  • G.R. No. 117873 December 22, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERCY SANTOS


  • G.R. Nos. 120435 & 120974 December 22, 1997 - ESTATE OF THE LATE MERCEDES JACOB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124724 December 22, 1997 - RENE UY GOLANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125752 December 22, 1997 - IRENEO A. MANAHAN v. ARTURO M. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128369 December 22, 1997 - RODOLFO CAOILI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129783 December 22, 1997 - MARCELINO C. LIBANAN v. HRET, ET AL.



    G.R. No. 109714   December 15, 1997 - BETTER BUILDINGS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.



    [G.R. No. 109714. December 15, 1997.]


    D E C I S I O N

    ROMERO, J.:

    This petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunction seeks to annul the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated March 3, 1989 1 and resolution dated December 18, 1992, 2 directing petitioner Better Building, Inc. to reinstate private respondents Halim Ysmael and Eliseo Feliciano to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and benefits and to pay them backwages.

    Private respondent Halim Ysmael (Ysmael) was hired as a Sales Manager by petitioner Better Building, Inc. (BBI) on March 16, 1985. In addition to his monthly salary, he was given the free use of the company car, free gasoline and commission from sales. Private respondent Eliseo Feliciano (Feliciano), on the other hand, was employed as Chief Supervisor by the petitioner since January 1966.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    On May 3, 1988, Petitioner, through its Assistant General Manager, Leda A. Beaverford, showed to private respondents a memorandum regarding their termination from employment effective the same day, to

    "MEMO TO : Guard On Duty

    FROM : The Asst. General Manager

    DATE : May 03, 1988


    Please be advised that Mr. Halim Ysmael and Mr. Eliseo Feliciano have been terminated from their employment with our company as of the end of office hours today May 3, 1988.

    For the above reason they are not allowed to enter our premises.

    For your strict compliance.


    Unable to accept petitioner’s drastic action, on May 6, 1988, private respondents filed a complaint against BBI for illegal dismissal. 3

    On March 3, 1989, Labor Arbiter Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby ordered declaring that the complainants dismissal is illegal as discussed above hence, ordering the respondents to reinstate them to their former positions with full backwages and without loss of seniority and other benefits.

    Ordering further to pay the complainants their salary differentials computed from November 1, 1986 up to the time of actual reinstatement.

    And, to pay complainant Halim Ysmael moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000 and P50,000 respectively.

    With costs and attorneys fees against the respondents.

    SO ORDERED." 4

    Except for the reduction of the damages awarded by the Labor Arbiter, the said decision was affirmed by the NLRC, 5 to

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby modified insofar as the awards of moral and exemplary damages are concerned which are reduced to P50,000 and P20,000 respectively.

    In all other respects, the decision of the Labor Arbiter below is affirmed.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner, not satisfied with the decision, has filed the instant petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it rendered the decision of March 3, 1989 and the resolution of December 11, 1992.

    On September 4, 1996, this Court resolved to dismiss the case against private respondent Ysmael by virtue of the compromise agreement entered into between him and the petitioner. 6 Hence, the resolution of this case will only affect private respondent Feliciano.

    Petitioner argues that the private respondent was validly dismissed for engaging in the same line of business as that of his employer (petitioner). Thus, his act of engaging in a business in direct competition with his employer was, not only an act of disloyalty, but more specifically a willful breach of trust and confidence.

    In termination of employment cases, we have consistently held that two requisites must concur to constitute a valid dismissal: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Art. 282 of the Labor Code, and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, the elements of which are the opportunity to be heard and defend himself. 7cralawnad

    First, on the substantive aspect, petitioner contends that private respondent was dismissed from his employment for engaging in business in direct competition with its line of service. 8 Hence, said conduct constitutes a willful breach of trust which is justifiable cause for termination of employment. 9

    We sustain BBI.

    Deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that an employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. 10 The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was indeed for a valid and just cause. 11

    In the case at bar, petitioner has clearly established private respondent’s culpability by convincing evidence. First, it was never disputed that private respondent established another corporation, Reachout General Services, engaged in the maintenance/janitorial service, the same line of business as that of petitioner. In this regard, private respondent failed to adduce substantial evidence to disprove this allegation.

    Second, as Chief Supervisor of the petitioner, it was his duty to promote and offer the services of the petitioner to prospective clients; however, instead of so doing, private respondent offered the services of his own company to various clients, to the detriment of the petitioner. Notably, private respondent even had the temerity to induce two of BBI’s prominent clients, namely the United States Embassy and San Miguel Corporation, to transfer their respective service contracts to Reachout General Services, his own corporation.

    Third, private respondent’s disloyalty became more conspicuous when he hired as the employees of Reachout General Services the former employees of the petitioner. Clearly, this act has undercut petitioner’s business.

    Finally, we cannot help but notice that in all the pleadings submitted by the private respondent, he never discussed nor refuted the charge against him by the petitioner. By his silence, we conclude that he was indeed guilty of disloyalty to his employer. In fact, the records are devoid of any evidence to controvert the evidence presented by the petitioner regarding his alleged disloyalty. Such omission only strengthens the petitioner’s claim.

    While we find that private respondent was dismissed for cause, the same was however, effected without the requirements of due process.

    In this jurisdiction, we have consistently ruled that in terminating an employee, it is essential that the twin requirements of notice and hearing must be observed. 12 The written notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and at the same time informs the employee concerned of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

    In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing that private respondent was given notice of the charge against him. Nor was he ever given the opportunity under the circumstances to answer the charge; his termination was quick, swift and sudden.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    Interestingly, when this issue was brought up, all the petitioner could state in its Reply

    "Even if there was a notice to explain and notice of termination given to the private respondents, the petitioner was already convinced at that time that the private respondents were already engaged in disloyal acts. The result would be the same — dismissal." 13

    Evidently, the decision to dismiss respondent was merely based on the fact that petitioner was already convinced at the time that the private respondents were engaged in disloyal acts. As regards the procedural aspect, the failure to observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing taints the dismissal with illegality.

    In fine, we find that there was basis for petitioner’s loss of trust and confidence in private Respondent. For an employer cannot be compelled to retain in his service an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to its interest. 14 A company has the right to dismiss its employees as a measure of protection. 15 Corollarily, proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employee’s misconduct is not required in dismissing an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. 16 The quantum of proof required, being only substantial evidence, 17 we are convinced that there was an actual breach of trust committed by private respondent which was ample basis for petitioner’s loss of trust and confidence in him. We, therefore, hold that private respondent’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause. However, the manner of terminating his employment was done in complete disregard of the necessary procedural safeguards. A man’s job being a property right duly protected by our laws, for depriving private respondent the right to defend himself, petitioner is liable for damages consistent with Article 32 of the Civil Code, which

    "ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x

    (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

    x       x       x"

    In this regard, the damages shall be in the form of nominal damages 18 for the award is not for the purpose of penalizing the petitioner but to vindicate or recognize private respondent’s right to procedural due process which was violated by the petitioner.

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the NLRC and its accompanying resolution are hereby SET ASIDE and ANNULLED. However, for failure to observe procedural due process in effecting the dismissal, petitioner shall pay to the private respondent P5,000.00 as nominal damages. No costs.chanrobles law library : red


    Narvasa, C.J., Melo and Francisco, Panganiban, JJ., concur.


    1. Annex "A" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 26-37.

    2. Annex "B" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 38-43.

    3. Annex "F" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 63-66.

    4. Rollo, p. 37.

    5. Ibid., p. 48.

    6. Id., p. 181.

    7. Oania v. NLRC, 244 SCRA 688 (1995); AHSI Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319 (1996); Ranises v. NLRC, 261 SCRA 371 (1996).

    8. Ibid., pp. 10-18.

    9. Art. 282 (c) of Labor Code.

    10. PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 99030, July 31, 1997.

    11. Molave Tours Corporation v. NLRC, 250 SCRA 325 (1995); Pacific Timber Export Corporation v. NLRC, 224 SCRA 860 (1993).

    12. Wallem Maritime Service, Inc. v. NLRC, 263 SCRA 174 (1996); Marcelo v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 782 (1995).

    13. Rollo, p. 154.

    14. San Miguel Corp. v. Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, 145 SCRA 196 (1986).

    15. Dole Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 123 SCRA 673 (1983).

    16. Vallende v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 662 (1995).

    17. Villarama v. NLRC, 236 SCRA 287 (1994).

    18. ART. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

    G.R. No. 109714   December 15, 1997 - BETTER BUILDINGS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    Back to Home | Back to Main






      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™