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
 

   
July-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6121 - TRINIDAD H. CAMARA, ET AL. v. ATTY. OSCAR AMONDY REYES

  • A.C. No. 7199 Formerly CBD 04-1386 - Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr.

  • A.C. No. 7815 - Dolores C. Belleza v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa

  • A.C. No. 8243 - Rolando B. Pacana, Jr. v. Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez

  • A.C. No. 8252 - Natividad Uy v. Atty. Braulio RG Tansisin

  • A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan De Oro City

  • A.M. No. 03-7-170-MCTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit in Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Jiminez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental/ Judge Pricilla Hernandez

  • A.M. No. 08-3-73-MeTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City

  • A.M. No. 08-4-4-SC - Re: Request of the Police Director General Avelino I. Razon for authority to delegate the endorsement of application for search warrant

  • A.M. No. 2008-24-SC - Re: Fighting incident between two(2) SC shutle bus drivers, namely, Messrs. Edilbert L. Idulsa and Ross C. Romero

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1651 - Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal v. Judge Wenceslao B. Vanilla, MTCC, Br. 2, Tacloban City

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1225-MTJ - Lanie Cervantes v. Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan, and Clerk of Court III Carmencita P. Baloco, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1677 & A.M. No. P-07-2317 - Liberty M. Toledo v. Liza Perez, Court Stenographer III, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila

  • A.M. No. P-06-2212 - Geronimo Francisco v. Sebastian Bolivar, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2217 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2375-P - Concerned Employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan v. Larizza Paguio-Bacani, Branch COC II, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2219 Formerly A.M. No. 06-7-392-RTC - Office of the Court Administrator v. Officer-in-charge and Legal Researcher Nilda Cinco, RTC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar

  • A.M. No. P-06-2245 Formerly OCA IPI NO. 06-2373-P and A.M. NO. MTJ-09-1741 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-1853-MTJ : July 31, 2009 - Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr. v. Concepcion Z. Ching, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2578 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2924-P - Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayona

  • A.M. No. P-09-2644 Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2787-P - Edgardo A. Quilo v. Rogelio G. Jundarino, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trail Court, Branch 19, Manila

  • A.M. No. P-08-2132 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2549-RTJ - Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay v. Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2158 Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ - Alfredo Favor v. Judge Cesar O. Untalan, RTC, Branch 149, Makati City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175 - Venancio Inonog v. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 135, Makati City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2346-RTJ - Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Presiding Judge Pornillos, RTC Br. 10, Malolos City.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2186 Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 03-1893-RTJ and A.M. No. RTJ-09-2187 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1993-RTJ - Atty. Nelson T. Antolin, et al. v. Judge Alex L. Quiroz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 141888 - Melba Rose R. Sasot v. Amado Yuson, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147957 - Privatization Management Office v. Legaspi Towers 300, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 148600 - Atty. Emmanuel Pontejos v. Hon. Aniano Desierto and Restituto Aquino

  • G.R. No. 149763 - Eduardo J. Mari o, Jr. et al. v. Gil Y. Gamilla, et al.

  • G.R. No. 150228 - Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club

  • G.R. No. 151424 - Eagle Realty Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 151973 - National Power Corporation v. Sps. Lorenzo L. Laohoo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 152263 - Arthur Zarate v. Regional Trial Court, Br. Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

  • G.R. No. 152496 - Sps. German Anunciacion, et al. v. Perpetua M. Bocanegra, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155491 - Smart Communications, Inc., v. The City of Davao, represented by its Mayor Hon. Rodrigo Duterte and the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Davao City

  • G.R. No. 156946 - Secretary of Finance v. Oro Maura Shipping Lines

  • G.R. No. 157607 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rowena O. Paden

  • G.R. No. 159131 - Heirs of Toribio Waga, represented by Merba A. Waga v. Isabelo Sacabin

  • G.R. No. 159358 - Eureka Personnel and Management Corp., and Nari K. Gidwani v. The Hon. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159624 - Cebu Mactan Members Center, Inc. v. Masahiro Tsukahara

  • G.R. NOS. 160243-52 - Romeo D. Lonzanida v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 160265 - Nely T. Co. v. People of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160380 - Sps. Eduardo & Leticia Monta o v. Rosalina Francisco, et al

  • G.R. No. 160772 - Hilario P. Soriano v. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161051 - Compania General de Tabacos De Filipinas and La Flor De La Isabela, inc. v. Hon. Virgilio A. Sevandal, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161062 - Republic of the Philippines v. Ferventino U, Tango

  • G.R. No. 161238 - Heirs of Jose G. Santiago, namely: Julia G. Santiago, et al. v. Aurea G. Santiago, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161748 - Spouses Francisco and Betty Wong and Spouses Joaquin and Lolita Wong v. City of Iloilo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162074 - Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation v. Spouses Tito Acu a, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162540 - Gemma T. Jacinto v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 162721 - Petronila Maylem v. Carmelita Ellano and Antonia Morciento

  • G.R. No. 162738 - Sps. Elizabeth S. Tagle Ernesto R. Tagle v. Hon. Court of Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and Shriff Carol Bulacan

  • G.R. No. 162836 - Cerefina Argallon-Jocson and Rodolfo Tuising v. Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation and/or Marcelo Steel Corporation

  • G.R. No. 164244 - National Housing Authority v. Reynaldo Magat

  • G.R. No. 164315 - Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v. Rene R. Relos

  • G.R. No. 164560 - Ana De Guia San Pedro, et al. v. Hon. Fatima G. Asdala (etc.), et al.

  • G.R. No. 164800 - Republic of the Philippines v. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 164817 - Digna A. Najera v. Eduardo J. Najera

  • G.R. No. 164968 - Gloria Ocampo, et al. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165448 - Ernesto Aquino v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165568 - Government Service Insurance System v. Abraham Lopez

  • G.R. No. 165678 - Rosario Panuncio v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165907 - Spouses Dominador R. Narvaez and Lilia W. Narvaez v. Spouses Rose Ogas Alciso and Antonio Alciso

  • G.R. No. 166198 - Marcelino A. Magdadaro v. Philippine National Bank

  • G.R. No. 166553 - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the National Power Corporation v. Sps. Ruperto and Sonia S. Libuano, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166640 - Herminio Mariano, Jr. v. Ildefonso C. Callejas and Edgar De Borja

  • G.R. No. 166705 - Mantle Trading Services, Incorporated and/or Bobby Del Rosario v. National Labor Relations Commission and Pablo S. Madriaga

  • G.R. No. 166734 - Mandy Commodities Co., Inc. v. The International Commercial Bank of China

  • G.R. No. 166988 - Heirs of Emiliano San Pedro, etc. v. Pablito Garcia and Jose Calderon

  • G.R. No. 167232 - D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction Incorporated v. Ricaredo Panes, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167546 - Sonny Romero y Dominguez v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 167809 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Josefina R. Dumlao, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168406 - Club Filipino, Inc. and Atty. Roberto F. De Leon v. Benjamin Bautista, et al.

  • G.R. No. 169519 - Irenorio B. Balaba v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 169700 - In the Matter of the Allowance of the Will of Moises F. Banayad Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 169878 - People of the Philippines v. Jesus Obero

  • G.R. No. 170014 - Renita Del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170472 - People of the Philippines v. Jojo Musa y Santos, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 170615-16 - The Repuclic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Rufino V. Maijares, Roberto G. Ferrera, Alfredo M. Ruba and Romeo Querubin.

  • G.R. No. 171275 - Victor Meteoro, et al. v. Creative Creatures, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171386 - Gloria R. Motos and Martin Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171586 - National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon and Municipality of Pabgilao

  • G.R. No. 171655 - People of the Philippines v. Pablo L. Estacio, Jr. and Maritess Ang

  • G.R. No. 171842 - Gloria S. Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171968 - XYST Corporation v. DMC Urban Properties Development, Inc., Fe Aurora C. Castro (Intervenor)

  • G.R. No. 172174 - Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO), represented by Chairman of the Board Engr. L. Chavez v. Marilyn A. Pasawa.

  • G.R. No. 172212 - Rafael Rondina v. Court of Appeals formet special 19th Division, unicraft Industries International Corp., Inc. Robert Dino, Cristina Dino, Michael Lloyd Dino, Allan Dino and Mylene June Dino.

  • G.R. No. 172342 - LWV Construction Corporation v. Marcelo B. Dupo

  • G.R. No. 172574 - Noli Lim v. Angelito Delos Santos, etc., Denia R. Adoyo, et al., (Intervenors) Gloria Murillo, et al., (Protestants)

  • G.R. No. 172640 - Victoriano Dela Pe a, et al. v. Spouses Vicente Alonzo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172796 - Sps. Artemio and Esperanza Aduan v. Levi Chong

  • G.R. No. 173252 - Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation v. Joseph Chung, et al.

  • G.R. No. 173654-765 - People of the Philippines v. Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras

  • G.R. No. 174154 - Jesus Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sprots Complex, Incorporated and Matias B. Aznar III

  • G.R. No. 174238 - Anita Cheng v. Souses William and Tessie Sy

  • G.R. No. 174364 - Northwest Airlines v. Delfin S. Catapang

  • G.R. No. 174370 - People of the Philippines v. Willy Mardo Ganoy y Mamayabay

  • G.R. No. 174610 - Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc., et al. v. Sprint Transport Services, inc. etc.

  • G.R. No. 174803 - Marywin Albano-Sales v. Mayor Reynolan T. Sales and Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 174830 - Isabelita Vda. De Dayao and Heirs of Vicente Dayao v. Heirs of Gavino Robles, namely: Placida vda. De Robles, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174986, G.R. NO. 175071 and G.R. NO. 181415 - Armand O. Raquel-Santos, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175352 - Dante Liban, et al. v. Richard J. Gordon

  • G.R. No. 175551 - Republic of the Philippines represented by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Hon. Francisco G. Mendioal, etc.

  • G.R. No. 175677 and G.R. NO. 177133 - Spouses Azucena B. Corpuz and Renato S. Corpuz v. Citibank, N.A. et al.

  • G.R. No. 175910 - Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba v. Fe vda De Te, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Casta eda

  • G.R. No. 177007 - Sansio Philippines, Inc. v. Sps. Alicia Leodegario Mogol, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 177181 - Rabaja Ranch and Development Corporation v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System

  • G.R. No. 177430 and G.R. NO. 178935 - Rene M. Francisco v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 177594 - University of San Agustin, Inc. v. University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW

  • G.R. No. 177624 - Modesta Luna v. Juliana P. Luna, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177728 - Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz, et al., etc., v. Ronald Paul S. Gracia, etc.

  • G.R. No. 177766 - People of the Philippines v. Claro Jampas

  • G.R. No. 177768 - People of the Philippines v. Charmen Olivo y Along, Nelson Danda y Sambuto and Joey Zafra y Reyes

  • G.R. No. 177847 - Laurence M. Sison v. Eusebia Cariaga

  • G.R. No. 178058 - People of the Philippines v. Jessie Maliao y Masakit, Norberto Chiong y Discotido and Luciano Bohol y Gamana, Jessie Maliao y Masakit(Accused-Appellant)

  • G.R. No. 178205 - People of the Philippines v. Leo Quemeggen, Juanito De Luna

  • G.R. No. 178330 - Martin T. Sagarbarria v. Philippine Business Bank

  • G.R. No. 178490 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands

  • G.R. No. 178760 - Carmen B. Dy-Dumalasa v. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 178831-32, G.R. No. 179120, G.R. NOS. 179132-33 and G.R. NOS. 179240-41 - Limkaichong v. Comission on Election

  • G.R. No. 178976 - Abelardo P. Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation represented by Fernando Agustin

  • G.R. No. 179061 - Sheala P. Matrido v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 179154 - People of the Philippines v. Roger Perez and Danilo Perez

  • G.R. No. 179177 - Carlos N. Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179187 - People of the Philippines v. Renato Talusan y Panganiban

  • G.R. No. 179430 - Jamela Salic Maruhom v. Commssion on Elections and Mohammad Ali "Mericano" A. Abinal

  • G.R. No. 179271 and G.R. No. 179295 - BANAT v. Commission on Election

  • G.R. No. 179512 - Eagle Star Security Services, Inc. v. Bonifacio L. Mirando.

  • G.R. No. 179546 - Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. Alan M. Agito, Regolo S. Oca III, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179653 - United Muslim and Christian Urban Poor Association, Inc., etc. v. BRYC-V Development Corporation, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 179674 - Pyro Coppermining Corporation v. Mines Adjudication Board-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179807 - Ramy Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 179937 - The People of the Philippines v. Gerald Librea y Camitan

  • G.R. No. 180043 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airline, Inc. (PAL)

  • G.R. No. 180055 and G.R. No. 183055 - Franklin M. Drilon, et al. v. Hon. Jose de Venecia, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 180066 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 180458 - Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Spouses Juliano and Catalina Centeno

  • G.R. No. 180465 - Eric Dela Cruz and Paul M. Lacuata v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.

  • G.R. No. 180528 - Civil Service Commission v. Nelia O. Tahanlangit

  • G.R. No. 180568 - Lydia Montebon a.k.a. Jingle Montebon v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180675 - Virgilio Bote v. San Pedro Cineplex Properties Corporation

  • G.R. No. 181235 - Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc. v. John Tansipek

  • G.R. No. 181393 - Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. and Abelardo M. Gonzales v. Edna Margallo

  • G.R. No. 181478 - Eddie T. Panlilio v. Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda

  • G.R. No. 181531 - National Union of Workers in Hotels Restaurant and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182420 - People of the Philippines v. Elsie Barba

  • G.R .No. 182454 - People of the Philippines v. Felix Wasit

  • G.R. No. 182485 - Sps. Henry O and Pacita Cheng v. Sps. Jose Javier and Claudia Dailisan

  • G.R. No. 182567 - Guillermo M. Telmo v. Luciano M. Bustamante

  • G.R. No. 182687 - People of the Philippines v. Warlito Martinez

  • G.R. No. 182941 - Roberto Sierra y Caneda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 183105 - Erna Casals, et al. v. Tayud Golf and Country Club, et al..

  • G.R. No. 183819 - People of the Philippines v. Arsenio Cortez y Macalindong a.k.a. "Archie"

  • G.R. No. 184586 - Rafael Flauta, Jr., et al. v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184801 - Jonas Taguiam v. Commission on Election, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184948 - Cong. Glenn A. Chong, Mr. Charles Chong, and Mr. Romeo Arribe v. Hon. Philip L. Dela Cruz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185035 - Government Service Insurance System v. Salvador A. De Castro

  • G.R. No. 185063 - Sps. Lita De Leon, et al. v. Anita B. De Leon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185095 - Maria Susan L. Ra ola, et al. v. Spouses Fernando & Ma. Concepcion M. Ra ola

  • G.R. No. 185220 - Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Aries C. Caalam and Geraldine Esguerra

  • G.R. No. 185389 - People of the Philippines v. Benjie Resurrection

  • G.R. No. 185401 - Henry "June" Due as, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Angelito "Jett" P. Reyes

  • G.R. NO. 186007 and G.R. No. 186016 - Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Alex A. Centena

  • G.R. No. 187152 - People of the Philippines v. Teodulo Villanueva, Jr.

  • UDK-14071 - Martin Gibbs Fletcher v. The Director of Bureau of Corrections or his representative

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 170014 - Renita Del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation

      G.R. No. 170014 - Renita Del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 170014 : July 3, 2009]

    RENITA DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA EISMA, ROSARIO TEAÑO, ELSIE JAVINEZ, EDERLINDA YCONG and MERCEDES MASANGKAY, Petitioners, v. MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE CORPORATION, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    CORONA, J.:

    This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 of the March 4, 2004 decision2 and October 7, 2005 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 64271.

    Petitioners Renita del Rosario, Teresita Eisma, Rosario Teaño, Elsie Javinez, Ederlinda Ycong and Mercedes Masangkay were all regular employees of respondent Makati Cinema Square Corporation as ticket sellers or portresses, and were also officers and members of the Makati Cinema Square Employees Union-FFW Chapter (union).4

    Respondent was a domestic corporation engaged in the business of exhibiting cinematographic films to the public for a fee.5

    On January 20, 1995, respondent requested the National Bureau of Investigation6 (NBI) to investigate an alleged systematic fraud involving the recycling of admission tickets being perpetrated at the respondent's movie houses. On March 12, 1995, at around 6:15 p.m., the NBI agents7 arrested Victoria Diaz and Thelma Tesoro.8 The agents executed an affidavit wherein they stated that they conducted a series of covert operations at the cinemas and found out that sold theater tickets presented to the portress by the moviegoers upon admission were not mutilated (torn) or dropped into the box of used tickets. Instead, the portress, with the connivance of the production checker, kept some of the tickets. After a while, the portress gave them back to the ticket seller for resale for their own personal benefit and gain.9

    It appears that there was a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the respondent and the union which took effect on May 1, 1992 and should remain in full force and effect for the period or five years or until April 30, 1997.10 As the third year of the CBA had expired on May 22, 1995, the union informed respondent of its intention to renegotiate the economic provisions for the remaining two years of the CBA. On May 26, 1995, respondent informed the union that the proposed amendments to the CBA were being considered by a committee whose recommendations would be forthcoming by July 9, 1995. On June 19, 1995, respondent requested clarification on the proposed amendments. Thus, the parties met on June 23, 1995.11

    However, on July 7, 1995, respondent filed a criminal complaint12 for qualified theft against petitioners.13 On the same date, Anthony Gimena, respondent's ticket auditor, executed an affidavit detailing petitioners' participation in the ticket-recycling scheme covering the period January 6, 1995 to March 12, 1995. He specified the date and time, names of the ticket sellers and portresses who handed to him his share of their modus operandi and the corresponding amounts each of them gave him. He tendered these amounts to respondent's vice president for administration.14 Respondent's other witnesses were William Welsh and Erlinda Derupe, assistant floor manager and portress respectively.15

    On July 8, 1995, the board of directors of respondent agreed to cease its theater operations and lease the same to third parties.16

    On July 10, 1995, respondent served a notice of cessation of operations on the union and its members. At the same time, petitioners were placed under preventive suspension and administrative hearings were conducted in relation to the alleged scheme of recycling of tickets.17

    Meanwhile, on July 11, 1995, the union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice (ULP) stating that respondent refused to negotiate the terms of the CBA.18

    On July 28, 1995, respondent entered into a contract of lease with Victor Villegas over the movie theaters of the former.19 ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    On August 1, 1995, the union's members were not allowed to report for work anymore and were told that they would be paid only until August 10, 1995.20

    On August 10, 1995, petitioners were dismissed by respondent.21

    On November 25, 1995, petitioners filed another complaint for ULP alleging union-busting, discrimination, coercion, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.22 This was consolidated with the first case filed by the union.23

    The employees who were affected by the cessation of the operation of respondent received their separation pay on October 17, 1995.24

    The charge of qualified theft against petitioners was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence on October 23, 1995.25 This was reversed on reconsideration in a resolution dated April 26, 1999.26 Consequently, an information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 133. Petitioners were acquitted by the RTC on September 4, 2002 as the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.27

    In the meantime, on August 31, 1998, labor arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion (LA) rendered a decision dismissing the ULP charge but declared respondent guilty of illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.28 He found that there was no basis for the dismissal of petitioners because there was no showing in the NBI agents' affidavit of their involvement in the ticket recycling scheme.29

    On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially affirmed the LA's decision in a resolution dated June 21, 1999 but reversed itself upon reconsideration on June 23, 2000. It ruled that petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. It declared that aside from the findings of the NBI, respondent conducted its own investigation and the statements of its witnesses were replete with details of the involvement of petitioners in the fraudulent scheme.30

    Aggrieved, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC in a resolution dated January 4, 2001.31 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the CA which was denied in a decision dated March 4, 2004. Reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution dated October 7, 2005. According to the CA, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners were validly dismissed. Hence, this petition.

    The main issue for our resolution is whether petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

    At the outset, we note that this petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, petitioners allege that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.32 Therefore, the petition ought to be dismissed outright for being procedurally infirm. A Petition for Review under Rule 45 must present questions of law, not questions of jurisdiction.

    Nevertheless, even on the merits, the petition must fail. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence:

    ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

    x x x x x x x x x

    (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

    x x x x x x x x x

    Loss of confidence applies only to cases involving employees who occupy positions of trust and confidence, or to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property. To be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach.33 A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.34

    In dismissing an employee on the ground of loss of confidence, it is sufficient that the employer has a reasonable ground to believe, based on clearly established facts, that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.35 If the employer has ample reason to distrust the employee, the labor tribunal cannot justly deny the former the authority to dismiss the latter.36

    Petitioners argue that there was no proof that they were involved in the alleged ticket recycling scheme which was the basis of the respondent's loss of trust and confidence in them. They insist that the NBI agents' affidavit did not point to any participation on their part.37

    We disagree.

    It may be true that the NBI agents' affidavit did not directly implicate petitioners in the scheme. However, their co-employees Gimena, Welsh and Derupe, who had personal knowledge of petitioners' activities, narrated in their affidavits the nature, dates and time of their (petitioners') participation.38 Petitioners did not refute these sworn statements. Neither did they explain why their former colleagues would unjustly and falsely testify against them even if they had the opportunity to defend themselves during the administrative investigations conducted by respondent. These pieces of evidence, when taken together, constituted substantial evidence to prove petitioners' culpability.39 It is of no moment that they were acquitted in the criminal case. Petitioners' infractions were willful and serious, thus their dismissal was proper under the circumstances.

    Petitioners maintain that the ground of loss of trust and confidence was simulated, a subterfuge or a mere afterthought of respondent as shown by the following circumstances: (1) respondent suspended and dismissed them when the union was renegotiating the economic terms of the CBA; (2) respondent would not have offered them a hefty separation package of 35 days for every year of service if respondent believed they were guilty of the charge against them and (3) respondent was already planning to cease operations and lease out the cinemas.40

    Again, we disagree.

    Petitioners never substantiated their allegations. In a similar case, Schering Employees Labor Union (SELU) et al. v. Schering Plough Corporation,41 petitioner Sereneo, the president of SELU, charged respondent with ULP and illegal dismissal because she was in the process of renegotiating the CBA with respondent when she was dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. We said:

    Petitioners' accusation of union busting is bereft of any proof. We scanned the records very carefully and failed to discern any evidence to sustain such charge.

    In Tiu v. NLRC, we held:

    . . . . It is the union, therefore, who had the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support its allegations (of unfair labor practices committed by management).

    x x x x x x x x x

    . . ., but in the case at bar the facts and the evidence did not establish even at least a rational basis why the union would wield a strike based on alleged unfair labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate during the conciliation proceedings. It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief.

    The same is true here. Petitioners failed to prove their accusations. In contrast, respondent was able to prove the guilt of petitioners.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

    Costs against petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.


    Endnotes:


    1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rollo, p. 3.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Sergio L. Pestaño (retired) and Aurora Santiago-Lagman (retired) of the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals. Id., pp. 49-62.

    3 Associate Justice Pestaño was replaced by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa. Id., pp. 86-87.

    4 Id., p. 50.

    5 Id.

    6 Through then Director Epimaco Velasco.

    7 Ferdinand M. Lavin, Cynthia L. Mariano and Sixto D. Espenesin, Jr.

    8 The former was a ticket seller and the latter, a portress. Also arrested were the production outfit's checkers, Marcos Mariano and Joy Ong.

    9 Rollo, pp. 50-51.

    10 In accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code.

    11 Rollo, p. 51.

    12 In the Office of the Prosecutor of Makati and docketed as I.S. No. 95-1662.

    13 Rollo, pp. 51-52.

    14 Id., pp. 513-520.

    15 Id., p. 175.

    16 Id., p. 52.

    17 Id.

    18 Docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No. 07-04806-95. On the same date, the union filed a preventive mediation case before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for the alleged illegal suspension of petitioners.

    19 Rollo, p. 52.

    20 Id.

    21 Id.

    22 Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 11-07522-95. Id., p. 135.

    23 Id., pp. 135-136.

    24 Id., p. 53.

    25 Id., p. 173.

    26 Id., pp. 174-177.

    27 Decision was penned by Judge Napoleon E. Inoturan. Id., pp. 333-336, 433.

    28 The dispositive portion read:

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

    1. Dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice being the subject involved in NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-04013-95 now for review by the Commission;

    2. Declaring the respondents as guilty of illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. The respondents are ordered to immediately reinstate individual complainants to their respective positions without loss of seniority rights, privileges and with full backwages which to this date has reached P174,956.40 for each. However, if reinstatement is not possible, to pay individual complainants their respective separation pay computed at one (1) month latest salary for every year of service in addition to the backwages awarded;

    3. Ordering respondents to pay individual complainant attorney's fees in the amount of P17,495.64 equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total benefits awarded. All other charges and claims of complainants are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED." (Id., pp. 144-145.)

    29 Id., p. 143.

    30 Id., p. 173.

    31 Id., p. 183.

    32 Id., pp. 3-4, 27, 36, 39.

    33 Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. v. King, G.R. No. 145901, 15 December 2005, 478 SCRA 102, 111, citing Asia Pacific Chartering (Phils.), Inc. v. Farolan, 441 Phil. 776 (2002) and National Bookstore, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 235 (2002).

    34 National Bookstore, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, id., p. 246.

    35 Cañeda v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 152232, 26 February 2007, 516 SCRA 668, 671.

    36 Id., pp. 671-672, citing Reynolds Philippines Corporation v. Eslava, G.R. No. L-48814, 27 June 1985, 137 SCRA 259.

    37 Rollo, pp. 430-433.

    38 The affidavit of Gimena stated:

    "1. I am a Ticket Auditor of Makati Cinema Square (MCS) since May 16, 1994 whose duty and responsibility it is to make an hourly round of the four (4) cinemas and conduct an audit of the ticket boxes by counting the number of tickets found therein and list them in the MCS Ticket Used Count Forms.

    2. In one such round, I saw a portress hold onto some tickets instead of tearing it and putting the torn portions inside the ticket boxes except that when the said portress saw me she immediately tore the said tickets.

    3. On January 6, 1995, I was approached by Teresita Eisma, Mercedes Masangkay and Thelma Tesoro, in order to include me in their ticket recycling operations since, they said, I knew of the activity.

    4. I told them not to include me even as I issued a warning against my catching them engaging in this illicit activity.

    5. Later, at around 5:30 PM, I received P110.00 from Eisma which amount I turned over to Mr. Ros Rufino, who kept them inside an MCSC envelope as evidence.

    6. On January 7, 1995, I received the following amounts from the following persons at around the following time:

    2:00 PM P225.00 from Eisma
    2:45 PM 110.00 from Masangkay
    5:05 PM 277.00 from Eisma
    7:30 PM 110.00 from Eisma

    P722.00
    ========

    7. I turned over the money to Mr. Ros Rufino who kept it inside a separate MCSC envelope.

    8. On January 8, 1995, I received the following amounts from the following persons at around the following time:

    3:00 PM P110.00 from Eisma
    5:30 PM 257.00 from Masangkay (told me P57 from Elsie
    P100 from Thelma, & P100 from Masangkay.)
    6:20 PM 100.00 from Masangkay (told me from Del Rosario)
    8:45 PM 115.00 from Teano

    P582.00
    ========

    9. I turned over the money to Mr. Ros Rufino, who kept it inside a separate MCSC envelope.

    10. On January 9, 1995, I received the following amounts from the following persons at around the following time:

    6:00 PM P100.00 from Masangkay (told me from Tesoro)
    9:00 PM 115.00 from Teano
    9:00 PM 57.00 from Javines

    P262.00
    ========

    11. I turned over the money to Mr. Ros Rufino, who kept in inside a separate envelope.

    x x x x x x x x x

    21. On January 17, 1995, I received the following amounts from the following persons at around the following time:

    8:00 PM 100.00 from Ycong (C-4) xxxx" (Id., pp. 513-515.)

    39 See John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation v. Davis, G.R. No. 169549, 3 September 2008.

    40 Rollo, pp. 45, 437, 443.

    41 G.R. No. 142506, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 689, 695, citing Tiu v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123276, 18 August 1997, 277 SCRA 680, 687.

    G.R. No. 170014 - Renita Del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation


    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