Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

203 Phil. 639:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-52325. November 15, 1982.]

CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TRANQUILINO O. NICDAO, Respondents.

Caparas, Tabios, Ilagan, Alcantara & Gatmaytan for Petitioner.

Prencesito M. Pascual for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner company terminated the services of private respondent effective September 4, 1976 on the ground that the aircraft assigned to the latter, which had been indefinitely grounded, was to be sold. Petitioner’s application for clearance to terminate private respondent was, however, filed only on September 28, 1976. Subsequently, private respondent sued petitioner company for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, finding the dismissal justified, granted private respondent separation pay equivalent to his salary for one month or P3,500.00. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled that the dismissal was not justified, but because of the strained relations between the company and respondent employee, the latter could not be reinstated, hence, the NLRC ordered the company to pay him severance pay equivalent to his 18 months salary or P63,000.00. Hence, this petition.

On review, the Supreme Court held that the company’s decision to sell the plane specifically assigned to respondent employee, after it had been grounded for more than five months, during which time he was idle, is analogous to the closure or cessation of a business enterprise which constitutes sufficient justification for terminating respondent employee’s employment which is not, for a definite period.

Assailed NLRC decision, set aside. Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting separation pay equivalent to one month salary is affirmed.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR CODE; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; GROUNDS; EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT DEFINITE PERIOD AND CESSATION OF OPERATION OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OR FOR SOME ANALOGOUS CAUSES; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner company’s decision, arrived at in good faith and in the ordinary course of business, to sell the Golden Eagle, the Cessna plane specifically assigned to private respondent, after it had been grounded for more than five months, during which time he was idle, is analogous to the closure or cessation of a business enterprise, which is a sufficient justification for terminating respondent’s employment which was not for a definite period.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLEARANCE TO TERMINATE; PENALTY FOR LATE FILING; SEPARATION PAY OF ONE MONTH SALARY AWARDED IN CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, respondent employee was dismissed from employment effective September 4, 1976. Petitioner company, however, filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to terminate his services only on September 28, 1976. Petitioner company should have secured clearance to terminate private respondent’s services at least ten days before September 4, 1976. Hence, despite the existence of a lawful cause for the termination of private respondent’s services, the Labor Arbiter’s decision granting him separation pay of P3,500.00, his salary for one month, is affirmed.

3. ID.; ID.; BACKWAGES; AWARD NOT JUSTIFIED IN CASE AT BAR. — There is no legal and factual justification for the NLRC’s award of backwages amounting to private respondent’s salary for eighteen months when he did not render service whatsoever. He had, in effect, been retired due to the sale of the Cessna plane or the discontinuance of its operation.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is the case of Captain Tranquilino O. Nicdao whose employment as plane pilot was terminated by the Canlubang Sugar Estate (after having rendered service for about twenty months) because the plane was to be sold, and whom the Labor Arbiter granted P3,500 as one month’s separation pay but whom the National Labor Relations Commission granted separation pay equivalent to his backwages for eighteen months amounting to P63,000.

So, the issue is whether Nicdao should be granted P3,500 or P63,000 as severance pay or dismissed without any termination compensation whatsoever, as prayed for by the employer.

Nicdao was hired on December 6, 1974 as pilot for the company’s Cessna plane, Golden Eagle 421-B RP-C 7524, at a monthly salary of P3,500. He functioned as an executive pilot in the company’s aviation department.

After working for more than sixteen months, Nicdao brought the Cessna plane to Singapore for repair. It was grounded for more than five months. During that period Nicdao was idle. After the plane was brought back to the Philippines by another pilot, the company decided to sell it.

According to the company, during the time that Nicdao operated the plane, he committed some errors or improper acts, such as flying when the weather was bad, making test flights without the company’s authorization and ignoring instructions when he brought the plane to Singapore.

Acknowledging his mistakes, Nicdao made the following written apology to his superior.

"Sir: Please accept my apology for being the cause of your problems and troubles in the past months.

"With the kindness you have shown me in the past, I regret my mistakes and I am too embarrassed to personally approach you when I can feel that my presence is not wanted.

"My only intent was to put some sense into the head of Ely Yango.

"I hope you can believe me that the past painful events will not happen again. — Nick" (p. 31, Rollo).

In a letter dated August 2, 1976, the head of the aviation department advised Nicdao that in view of the management’s decision to sell the Cessna plane, which had been indefinitely grounded, Nicdao’s services as pilot were no longer needed. Nicdao received that dismissal notice on August 4 (p. 32, Rollo).

In his letter dated August 9, he inquired from his superior about the effectivity of his dismissal. He was informed that his separation would take effect on September 4, 1976 or one month from his receipt of the notice terminating his services. He was told to report to the office for his clearance and separation pay (pp. 33 and 34, Rollo).

On August 28, 1976, he turned over to the aircraft mechanic the things and properties which had come into his possession as company pilot (p. 13, Rollo).

On September 28, 1976 the company, with notice to Nicdao, filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to terminate his services. He did not oppose the application.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Seventy days later, or on December 7, 1976, Nicdao filed with the Department of Labor a complaint against the company for illegal dismissal. In answer to that complaint, the company cited the sale of the plane and loss of trust and confidence as the grounds for Nicdao’s dismissal.

After the submission of position papers, affidavits and documentary evidence, the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated January 31, 1978 found Nicdao’s dismissal to be justified because he had forfeited the trust and confidence of the company allegedly due to unauthorized flights, disobedience and insubordination and because the plane had been sold to the National Grains Authority.

The Labor Arbiter found that the negotiations for the sale of the plane to the NGA had been terminated, that the plane had been delivered to Captain Abrenica of the NGA on October 30, 1976 and that the NGA was only awaiting Presidential authorization to consummate the sale.

As a matter of compassionate justice, the Labor Arbiter ordered the company to pay Nicdao separation pay equivalent to his salary for one month or P3,500, less whatever amounts he might be owing to the company (p. 40, Rollo).

Nicdao appealed to the NLRC which in a decision dated August 22, 1979 ruled that the dismissal was not justified. However, because of his strained relations with the company, he could not be reinstated. So, the NLRC ordered the company to pay Nicdao the sum of P63,000 which is equivalent to his salary for eighteen months (p. 46, Rollo). (Nicdao has been employed by the Ayala Corporation as pilot since October 1, 1978.)

The NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that Nicdao was a managerial employee. It ruled that he was a rank-and-file employee. It doubted that the sale of the plane had been consummated because there was no deed of sale. It held that Nicdao’s dismissal was premature, that he was not guilty of insubordination and disobedience and that the alleged unauthorized flights were "negligible offenses." (The plane was eventually sold, not to the NGA, but to Shoemart, Inc. in August, 1980, p. 112, Rollo).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The company filed in this Court on May 5, 1980 a petition for certiorari wherein it assailed the NLRC decision. It contends that Nicdao’s employment was terminated for a just cause, that the company complied with the clearance requirement under the Labor Code and that Nicdao was a managerial employee.

Paragraphs (a) and (f) of Article 283 of the Labor Code provide that "an employer may terminate an employment without a definite period" by reason of "the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or enterprise" or for some cause analogous thereto.

We hold that the company’s decision, arrived at in good faith and in the ordinary course of business, to sell the Golden Eagle, the Cessna plane specifically assigned to Nicdao, after it had been grounded for more than five months, during which time Nicdao was idle, is analogous to the closure or cessation of a business enterprise. It was a sufficient justification for terminating Nicdao’s employment which was not for a definite period.

The employer could not be forced to continue operating the plane just to accommodate Nicdao or to maintain him in his job as pilot. Nicdao must have known that his job depended on the continued operation of the plane. If there was no more plane, no pilot would be needed and his job would become ipso facto nonexistent.

Hence, we agree with the Labor Arbiter that there was a lawful cause for the termination of Nicdao’s services. But the company should have secured clearance to terminate Nicdao’s services at least ten days before September 4, 1976. As already stated, it filed its application only on September 28, 1976.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

There is no legal and factual justification for the NLRC’s award of backwages amounting to Nicdao’s salary for eighteen months when he did not render any service whatsoever. He had, in effect, been retired due to the sale of the Cessna plane or the discontinuance of its operation.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is set aside. The Labor Arbiter’s decision granting Nicdao separation pay of P3,500, his salary for one month, is affirmed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379