Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DANTE CADIZ
1. Cabigting vs SMFI, 605 SCRA 14 2. Herida vs F & C Pawnshop, 585 SCRA 395 3. HEPI vs SAMASAH, 588 SCRA 497 4. Sta Lucia vs Sec, 596 SCRA 92 5. Miranda vs Asian Terminal, 590 SCRA 588 6. National Union vs Sec, 594 SCRA 767 7. M + W Zander vs Enriquez, 588 SCRA 590 8. Marino vs Gamilla, 592 SCRA 83 9. G. Holdins vs. National Mines, 604 SCRA 73 10. School of Holy Spirit vs Taguiam, July 14, 2008 CABIGTING V. SMFC G.R. No. 167706 5 NOVEMBER 2009 DOCTRINE: FACTS: Cabigting was hired as a receiver/ issuer at the San Miguel Corporation, Feeds and Livestock Division (B-Meg) in 1984 and after years of service, he was promoted as inventory controller. In 2000, San Miguel Foods (SMF) sent petitioner a letter informing him that his position as sales office coordinator under its logistic department has been declared redundant. Simultaneously, SMF terminated the services of Cabigting and offered him an early retirement package. Thereafter, he was included in the list of retrenched employees (for reason of redundancy) submitted by respondent to the DOLE. Cabigting was surprised by the letter because he was not a sales office coordinator, and yet he was being terminated as such. He refused to avail of the early retirement package. Prior to his termination in 2000, he was an inventory controller, performing at the same time the function of a warehouseman. He was also an active union officer but upon his termination, was only a member thereof. With the support of his union, petitioner filed a Complaint questioning his termination primarily because he was not a sales office coordinator, but an inventory controller, performing the functions of both an inventory controller and a warehouseman. In reply, SMF reiterated its declaration that his position as sales office coordinator was redundant as a result of SMFs effort to streamline its operations. According to it, Cabigting was supposed to be separated from employment (effective 1997) due to the cessation of business of the B-Meg Plant. However, upon his request for redeployment to another position, he was accommodated and was designated as sales coordinator from December 1997 to November 1998, even without rendering actual work as sales coordinator. SMF claimed that the same was done on the assumption that Cabigting would replace Mr. del Rosario, Sales Coordinator of respondents Luzon Operations Center, upon the latters impending retirement and for the sole purpose of justifying his inclusion in the payroll. SMF averred, however, that the position of Mr. del Rosario as sales coordinator was abolished due to redundancy as a result of its streamlining efforts. LA: Cabigting was illegally dismissed. He is entitled to backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and attys fees. NLRC: Affirmed LAs decision but ordered the reinstatement of Cabigting to his previous post, without loss of seniority rights. CA: Affirmed LAs and NLRCs decision but reversed the order of reinstatement on the ground of strained relations ISSUE: W/N strained relations bar Cabigtings reinstatement. RULING: NO. The rule is that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. However, if reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and the employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. In Globe-Mackay Cable v. NLRC, the SC discussed the limitations and qualifications for the application of the strained relations principle, it held that: In such cases, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned. Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right; otherwise, an employee who shall assert his right could be easily separated from the service, by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that his relationship with his employer had already become strained. According to C.J. Puno in his dissenting opinion in one case, in order for the doctrine of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned. It bears to stress that reinstatement is the rule and, for the exception of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the
1
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
NLRC: Affirmed the LAs decision but deleted the award of moral damages in favor of dela Cruz. CA: Validly dismissed. Hence, the present petition for review. ISSUE: W/N Lacuata should be awarded backwages and separation pay. (NO) Petitioners argument: For loss of trust and confidence to be a ground for termination of employment, it must (1) willful and (2) connected with the employees work. RULING: No. An award of back wages and separation pay is justified only if there is a finding of illegal dismissal. Since petitioners were supervisory employees and were thus covered by the trust and confidence rule, the CA correctly overturned the ruling of the NLRC and the LA. In addressing the petitioners argument, the SC quoted the CAs decision. According to the CA: The records of the case are rife with proof that the supervisors committed acts which are inimical to the interests and stability, not only of management, but of the company itself. They did so, through deceitful means and methods. The detailed account of what transpired between August 12 to 16, 2002 by Asuncion, Calderon, the witnesses
6
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
RULING: 1. Yes. Certain guidelines must be observed for the employer to terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence. The 1st requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence. There are two classes of positions of trust: managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees. Managerial employees are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. The fiduciary rank-and-file employees consist of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc., or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. They are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employers money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence. In this case, Enriquez was employed as the AM and EAGM. The position of an AM may be properly considered as a managerial position, being a head of administrative assistants of other divisions, and because of the performance of work directly related to management policies and company rules. The 2nd requisite of terminating an employee for loss of trust and confidence is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. To be a valid cause for dismissal, the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. In this case, it was not established that respondent used her authority to influence her subordinates to stage a no work day; and assuming that she performed this act as alleged by petitioners, it does not satisfy the jurisprudential requirements for valid termination due to loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on a dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act. She did not commit any act which was dishonest or deceitful. She did not use her authority as the AM to misappropriate company property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by petitioners with respect to her responsibility to implement company rules. The most that can be attributed to respondent is that she influenced a single subordinate, without exerting any force or making any threats, not to report to work. This does not constitute dishonest or deceitful conduct which would justify the conclusion of loss of trust and confidence.
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
10
3.
RULING: Before we delve into an extended discussion of the foregoing issues, it is essential to
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS 11
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
15
He opined that Chiara Mae drowned because respondent had left the pupils without any adult supervision. He also noted that the absence of adequate facilities should have alerted respondent before allowing the pupils to use the swimming pool.
The purpose of a permit form is precisely to ensure that the parents have allowed their child to join the school activity involved. Respondent cannot simply ignore this by resorting to assumptions. Respondent admitted that she was around when Chiara Mae and her mother arrived. She could have requested the mother to sign the permit form before she left the school or at least called her up to obtain her conformity.
AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS
16
2.
3.
As a result of gross negligence in the present case, petitioners lost its trust and confidence in respondent. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Otherwise stated, it must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee which must be established by substantial evidence. As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, respondent should have made sure that the children were protected from all harm while in her company. Respondent should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by themselves may result in an accident. A simple reminder not to go to the deepest part of the pool was insufficient to cast away all the serious dangers that the situation presented to the children, especially when respondent knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim. Dismally, respondent created an unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents of the pupils but of the school itself. Finally, we note that based on the criminal complaint filed by Chiara Maes parents, the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict respondent for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. 3 There being a clear showing that respondent was culpable for gross negligence resulting to loss of trust and confidence, her dismissal was valid and legal. It was error for the Court of
3 The Assistant City Prosecutor held that respondent should have foreseen the danger lurking in the waters. By leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, respondent displayed an inexcusable lack of foresight and precaution.3[28] While this finding is not controlling for purposes of the instant case, this only supports our conclusion that respondent has indeed been grossly negligent. AGUILA| CARIO | CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | PRESBITERO | SANTOS 17