Reynaldo Lausa vs.

National Labor Relation

G.R. No.79731 July 9, 1990

Facts
Reynaldo Lausa is a employee of Negros Navigation as a messman. On December 25, 1984,
Lausa was assigned in a vessel called “Sta Maria” which will transport passenger and cargo to
Iloilo to Manila. When Lausa arrived in the vessel he made a scene and challenge everyone to a
fight. The Chief Mate tried to calm him down but Lause refused to calm down instead he
insulted the Chief Mate and challenge hin to a fight. After that, Lausa continued to make a scene
until the vessel left Iloilo and went to Manila. By that time Chief Mate Tendencia reported the
behavior of Lause to the superiors in Iloilo and when they receive and studied the report they
immediately ask Lause to write a report why he’s behave like that. Lause denied the accusation
but with enough evidence Lause was then terminated. On March 1, 1985, Lausa filled a complain
on Negros Navigation and to its personnel for illegal dismissal but because of lack of merit, the
Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed both Lausa and Negros Navigation.

Issue
Whether or not the drunken behavior of respondent Lausa constituted misconduct so serious as
reasonable to warrant his dismissal

Rulling
Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due
to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be
entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent
losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or under taking not due
to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
 Eastern Shipping vs. IAC
150 SCRA 463

Facts
The Boatswain noticed that there are smoke coming out of hatches no. 2 and 3 but when the
smoke was noticed the fire is already big. The fire must have starter 24 hours ago. The crew was
ordered to open the covers of the hatches to release the carbon dioxide and also to fight the fire
with the sea water but these are not enough to kill the fire.

Issue
Whether or not the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence in the case at bar

Rulling
It appears that after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made when
they were traveling
 Alberta Yubido vs. CA
GR No. 113033, October 17, 1997

Facts
Mr. and Mrs. Tumboy with their two children boarded to Yubido liner for Davao City. Along
their way, the left front tire explode and the bus fell down to a ravine the cause the death of Mr.
Tumboy and injuries to the other passengers. Mrs. Tumboy filled a complaint of breach of
contract of carriage againt the Yubido. The defendant use the fortuitous event to defend itself

Issue
Whether or not the explosion of a newly installed tire of a passenger vehicle constitute as a
fortuitous event

Rulling
The cause of the blow out, if due to a factory defect, improper mounting, excessive tire pressure,
is not an unavoidable event. On the hand, there may have been adverse conditions on the road
that were enforceable, which could make the blow out of the tire. The cause of blow out is
unknown.