Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > December 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. L-41459 December 18, 1987 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-41459. December 18, 1987.]

NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR and PACIFIC MILLS, INC., Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Secretary of Labor dated January 15, 1975 which sustained the NLRC’s decision and ordered private respondent Pacific Mills, Inc. to pay Juan Tamondong the sum of P2,340.00 as separation pay.

Juan Tamondong was employed by respondent Company on August 8, 1960 as its general production overseer with a basic monthly pay of P360.00. On August 10, 1973, respondent Company filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to terminate the services of Tamondong on the grounds of falsification of company records, smoking inside prohibited area, dereliction of duty and inefficiency resulting in loss of confidence. In the meantime, he was placed under preventive suspension.cralawnad

Being a member of petitioner Union [as well as the Pacific Mills, Inc. Supervisors’ Union], 1 said petitioner took up the cudgels for Tamondong and opposed respondent Company’s application.

On August 18, 1973, respondent Company lifted the preventive suspension of Tamondong and allowed him to report back for work. He did but only for one day. From August 22 to 30, 1973, he was absent without leave. Respondent Company considered such action as tantamount to abandonment, for which reason it issued a memorandum on August 31, 1973 placing Tamondong back on suspension.

Meanwhile, acting on respondent Company’s application for clearance, the compulsory arbitrator found that Tamondong’s suspension was illegal for being in violation of Presidential Decree No. 21 and its Implementing Instructions, as well as of Republic Act No. 1052 [Termination Pay Law]. Accordingly, he ordered respondent Company to reinstate Tamondong with full backwages up to the date of actual reinstatement.

Respondent Company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC]. Said tribunal found that during the hearings on the case, respondent Company failed to prove the grounds adduced to justify the removal of Tamondong and concluded that said employee was dismissed without just cause. There being no proof that the mandatory advance notice of termination was ever served on Tamondong within the statutory time frame, respondent Company was held liable for separation pay in the amount of P2,340.00.

Upon the Union’s appeal to the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC’s grant of termination pay to Tamondong, instead of reinstatement, was sustained. Petitioner Union then came directly to this Court contending that the adverse rulings of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor are contrary to the Labor Code and the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure, and that the Termination Pay Law is no longer application in view of the new Constitution.

In dismissing the instant petition for review, we find decisive the fact that at the time of Tamondong’s resuspension on August 31, 1973, which amounted to a constructive separation from work, the applicable law on dismissals was the Termination Pay Law [Republic Act No. 1052, as amended]. Said statute was deemed repealed only on November 1, 1974 when Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, took effect. 2

The pertinent provision of the Termination Pay Law states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. — In cases of employment without a definite period, in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment or enterprise, the employer or the employee may terminate at any time the employment with just cause; or without just cause in the case of an employee by serving written notice on the employer at least one month in advance, or in the case of an employer, by serving such notice to the employee at least one month in advance or one-half month for every year of service of the employee, whichever is longer, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year.

"The employer, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just cause may hold the employee liable for damages.

"The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just cause shall be entitled to compensation from the date of termination of his employment in an amount equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to the required period of notice.

x       x       x


The above-quoted provision has been consistently construed by this Court as granting to the employer the right to terminate the employment of an employee with or without just cause. The only condition imposed was that if the dismissal is without just cause, the employer should serve notice on the employee at least one month in advance or one-half month for every year of service of the employee, whichever is longer. It was the failure to serve such notice that rendered the employer liable for separation pay and not the fact that the employment was severed without just cause. 3

It has also been held that under the Termination Pay Law, even if the manner of the employee’s dismissal has been found to be without just cause, without due notice, and abusive on the part of the employer, said employer may only be liable for separation pay and moral damages, and the dismissed employee cannot demand reinstatement. 4

Thus, in the case at bar, it becomes unnecessary for Us to determine whether or not Tamondong’s dismissal was for cause. Furthermore, reinstatement is out of the question. The only issue is whether or not Tamondong was served with the notice required by law. The NLRC found that he has not been so served, which finding is deemed admitted by the respondent company in failing to appeal from the decision of the NLRC. Hence, instead of reinstatement, the award of separation pay to Tamondong corresponding to one-half month pay for every year of service (P180.00 x 13 years of service), for having been dismissed without the required advance notice, was, at that time, consistent with the prevailing laws.

Finally, the records show that petitioner Union failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies provided for in Article 222 of the Labor Code. 5 From the January 15, 1975 decision of the Secretary of Labor, petitioner Union should have appealed to the President. Instead, it elevated its case to this Court. The rule in our jurisdiction is that when an administrative remedy is provided by law, relief must be sought by first exhausting that remedy before seeking judicial intervention. Failure to do so is fatal. 6

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The questioned decisions of the Secretary of Labor and the NLRC are affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 168.

2. See Section 1[q], Rule III, Book VII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 442, as amended.

3. Monteverde v. Casino Espanol de Manila, G.R. No. L-11365, April 18, 1958, 103 Phil. 377; Gutierrez v. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., G.R. Nos. L-11298, L-11386 and L-11603, January 19, 1959, 105 Phil. 9; Altomonte v. Philippine American Drug Co., G.R. Nos. L-11872 and L-14922, August 31, 1959, 106 Phil. 137; Capiral v. Manila Electric Co., Et Al., G.R. No. L-15721, December 27, 1963, 9 SCRA 804; Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 107.

4. Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, Ibid.

5. "Article 222. —

"x       x       x

"Decisions of the Secretary of Labor may be appealed to the President of the Philippines Subject to such conditions or limitations as the President may direct."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. Llarena v. Lacson, 108 Phil. 510.




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






December-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-49109 December 1, 1987 - SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE J. LEIDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59783 December 1, 1987 - DOMINADOR R. MIRANDA v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62157 December 1, 1987 - EULALIO MORA, JR. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65216 December 1, 1987 - FLERIDA OVENSON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65482 December 1, 1987 - JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68409 December 1, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER B. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-72147 December 1, 1987 - WANG LABORATORIES, INC. v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72694 December 1, 1987 - AURORA DEL BANCO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73319 December 1, 1987 - ENRIQUE ANTONIO, ET AL. v. CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75782 December 1, 1987 - EURO-LINEA, PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75964 December 1, 1987 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79173 December 1, 1987 - IN RE: ROLANDO N. ABADILLA, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40107 December 2, 1987 - GERVACIO D. VERCELES v. ANGEL P. BACANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44339 December 2, 1987 - CRISANTA F. SENO, ET AL. v. MARCOS MANGUBAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60559 December 2, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN M. PUZON

  • G.R. No. 78621 December 2, 1987 - SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG LIBERTY COMMERCIAL CENTER v. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1450 December 2, 1987 - EUGENIO MAGO v. ELISEO BOTE

  • A.C. No. 3072 December 2, 1987 - TOMAS BATNAG v. OCTAVIO M. BANTA

  • G.R. No. L-42965 December 3, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45268 December 3, 1987 - ISIDORO LIMQUIACO, JR. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58897 December 3, 1987 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73698 December 3, 1987 - JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74100 December 3, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENTEM KINTUAN

  • G.R. No. L-47669 December 7, 1987 - MARINA D. NARTATES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79484 December 7, 1987 - KANT KWONG, ET AL. v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57387 December 10, 1987 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67721-22 December 10, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76549 December 10, 1987 - CATALINA ROXAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79244 December 10, 1987 - IN RE: MATEO AYLLON SR. v. PRIMA A. SEVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46969 December 11, 1987 - BONIFACIA U. PACARRO v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47414 December 11, 1987 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60150 December 11, 1987 - ROGELIO R. CASTILLO v. NAPOLCOM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-66003-04 December 11, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERBERTO A. MANZANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75347 December 11, 1987 - FORD PHIL. SALARIED EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75837 December 11, 1987 - DOMINADOR BASAYA, JR., ET AL. v. FRANCIS MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77760 December 11, 1987 - VIOLETA S. VENTURANZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77801 December 11, 1987 - RAFAEL A. REYES v. JAIME N. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78015 December 11, 1987 - MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BERNAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78911-25 December 11, 1987 - CHARMINA B. BANAL v. TOMAS V. TADEO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29330 December 14, 1987 - FILOMENA ARROYO VDA. DE BUNCIO, ET AL. v. ESTATE OF ANITA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40234 December 14, 1987 - MARIMPERIO COMPAÑIA NAVIERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46058 December 14, 1987 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48926 December 14, 1987 - MANUEL SOSITO v. AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-53542 December 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE CIRILO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-62441 December 14, 1987 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. BENJAMIN PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-70308 December 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO S. SONICO

  • G.R. No. L-72644 December 14, 1987 - ALFREDO F. PRIMERO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73326 December 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEANOR DEJUCOS

  • G.R. No. L-74218 December 14, 1987 - MANUELA S. CATAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74228 December 14, 1987 - FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNIONS, ET AL. v. PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75294 December 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO PARTULAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-75746-48 December 14, 1987 - ORESHOOT MINING COMPANY v. DIOSCORA C. ARELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76787 December 14, 1987 - BAYLEN CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78382 December 14, 1987 - BROADWAY MOTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • UDK No. 7927 December 14, 1987 - LOUIE L. VARGAS v. AKAI PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29059 December 15, 1987 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55074 December 17, 1987 - PURIFICACION M. MACLAN, ET AL. v. MARIO L. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79974 December 17, 1987 - ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III, ET AL. v. SALVADOR MISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-80519-21 December 17, 1987 - JUNIE EVANGELISTA CUA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33182 December 18, 1987 - PEDRO A. FELICEN, SR. v. SEVERINO ORIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41459 December 18, 1987 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45898 December 18, 1987 - EUFRACIA MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46401 December 18, 1987 - PETRA VDA. DE CARCALLAS, ET AL. v. VALERIANO YANCHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52393 December 18, 1987 - ABELARDO IBARRA, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO IBARRA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57424 December 18, 1987 - ROBIDANTE L. KABILING, ET AL. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58870 December 18, 1987 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70203 December 18, 1987 - SALVIO B. FORTUNO, ET AL. v. MERICIA B. PALMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46935 December 21, 1987 - GREGORIO DE GUZMAN, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48656 December 21, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN AMPARADO

  • G.R. No. L-49250 December 21, 1987 - CRESENCIA ALMARZA v. ASUNCION ARGUELLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73918 December 21, 1987 - TONG BROTHERS CO. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74191 December 21, 1987 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74766 December 21, 1987 - DOMINGO VERGARA, SR. v. JOSE T. SUELTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76710 December 21, 1987 - ANTONIO ONG, SR. v. HENRY M. PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62955 December 22, 1987 - VIRGILIO OZOA v. CARIDAD VDA. DE MADULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70608 December 22, 1987 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. RICARDO C. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33628 December 29, 1987 - BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES B. SUCALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54580 December 29, 1987 - ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55312 December 29, 1987 - MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ v. GROLIER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-77008 December 29, 1987 - ANGELITA LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 922 December 29, 1987 - IN RE: SANTIAGO F. MARCOS