ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 143600.February 5, 2001]

FABREGAR vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

G.R. No. 143600 (Corazon M. Fabregar vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals [Former Eight Division] and La Marina Enterprises, Inc., and Marina T. Laroya.)

The initiatory case is one for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Corazon Fabregar against La Marina Enterprises, Inc., and its owner Marina Laroya.

According to petitioner, sometime in 1995 she noticed that La Marina Enterprises, Inc., was not paying her correct contribution with the Social Security System (SSS), prompting her to request La Marina Enterprises, Inc., to make the necessary adjustment in the amount remitted to the SSS.Soon, thereafter, the company required petitioner to go on forced vacation.Despite repeated visits to the office, she was not permitted to resume working.After two years, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of separation pay.

The Labor Arbiter issued its decision, dated 13 April 1998, finding for petitioner Corazon Fabregar.The decision held:

"In the case at bar, complainant's forced vacation from work is unjustified and unreasonable, hence, tantamount to illegal termination of work.We are not at all impressed with respondents' contention that complainant stopped reporting for work because she was so engrossed and very active in her religious activities. It would be illogical for anyone, specifically the complainant in the instant case, to sacrifice the welfare and future of her family for the sake of her religious belief.Taking consideration to the fact that complainant has been employed with the respondents for quite a long period of time, particularly six (6) years, it would be unwise of her to just quit working because of her desire to devote full time to her religious activities.Respondents' assertions against complainant are not supported by substantial evidence.

"We disagree with the respondents' contention that complainant Fabregas was guilty of abandonment.For abandonment to arise, there must be concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt acts from which it may be inferred that the employee has no more interest to work.So, also, in one case, the Supreme Court held: 'Respondents' allegation of abandonment is further belied by the fact that after learning that his service have been terminated, petitioner filed the complaint for illegal dismissal.Abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of said complaint.

"With the foregoing, we find and so hold that respondents failed to discharge the burden of showing that complainant was dismissed from employment for just or valid cause.Moreover, it is clear from the records that complainant Fabregas was not afforded due process before she was terminated. xxx

"WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding respondents guilty of illegal dismissal, and are jointly and severally liable as prayed for:

"1.To pay complainant Fabregas the amount of P30,888.00, representing separation pay.

"2.All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit." 1 Rollo , pp. 111-112.

La Marina Enterprises, Inc., appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC").The NLRC, in its decision of 30 July 1998, sustained the Labor Arbiter.The reconsideration sought was denied in a resolution, dated 30 September 1998, of the NLRC.Undaunted, respondent La Marina Enterprises, Inc., went to the Court of Appeals assailing the finding of illegal dismissal.The Court of Appeals in a decision, dated 16 November 1999, reversed the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and declared that the constructive dismissal of petitioner was with just cause.Thus:

"WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed that of the labor arbiter, is hereby SET ASIDE.Private respondent's constructive dismissal is DECLARED to be with just cause.Nevertheless, petitioner is ORDERED to PAY private respondent the amount of P10,000.00, as financial assistance, and the amount of P1,000.00, as damages." 2 Rollo , p. 120.

Reconsideration was not granted; hence, the instant petition for review.

In her petition, she presented the lone issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals had erred in setting aside the decision of the NLRC.

The appellate court in its holding said:

"Concededly, the employer's right to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.But the employer cannot be legally compelled to continue with the employment of a person whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest.The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.(Filipro, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 145 SCRA 123 [1986])So, while petitioner's act of asking private respondent to go on a vacation constitutes constructive dismissal, the same was for a just cause.Unfortunately, the validity of the cause is only half of the twin requirements of a valid dismissal.The other half is the validity of the manner or procedure by which the dismissal is done.

"It is a jurisprudentially-embedded rule that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process.Clearly, dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal; and second, the legality in the manner of dismissal.The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause, while the illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process.(Shoemart, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 176 SCRA 385 [1989])

"In the case at bench, we are convinced that petitioner's act of dismissing private respondent is legal but the manner in which the dismissal was effected is not.Petitioner, by pressing private respondent to go on a vacation, constructively dismissed her without the benefit of the two-notice rule.Under the law, the employer should furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to terminate him.(Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 210 SCRA 277 [1992])No less than the Supreme Court in Miguel v. National Labor Relations Commission, ruled that:

"The due process requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will.Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to man's innate sense of justice.'(162 SCRA 441 [1988])

"There being a violation of private respondent's right to due process, she is entitled to an award of the amount of P1,000.00 to serve as a penalty to petitioner who violated her right." 3 Rollo , pp. 116-118.

The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the appellate court.It cannot be said that its decision is devoid of any substantial evidence to support it.

Accordingly, the instant petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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