Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ineffectual. The sanction provided was the payment of backwages from the time of dismissal up
to the decision of the court finding just or authorized cause. This was thought to balance the
interests of both parties, recognizing the employees right to notice and at the same time the right
of the employer to dismiss for any of the just and authorized causes. The Court also responded to
the arguments of Justices Puno and Panganiban by stating that the violation in the procedural
requirement of termination is not a denial of the fundamental right to due process. This is
because of the ff reasons:1)
The due process clause is a limitation on governmental powers, inapplicable to the exercise of
private power, such as in this case. The provision No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
and property without due process of law pertains only to the State, as only it has the authority to
do the same.2) The purpose of the notice and hearing under the Due process clause is to provide
an opportunity for the employee to be heard before the power of the organized society is brought
upon the individual. Under Art. 283, however, the purpose is to give him time to prepare for the
eventual loss of his job and for DOLE to determine whether economic causes exist to justify
termination. It is not to give opportunity to be heard there is no charge against the employee
under Art. 2833)
The employer cannot be expected to be an impartial judge of hisown cause.4) Not all notice
requirements are requisites of due process. Someare simply a part of a procedure to be followed
before a rightgranted to party can be exercised; others are an application of the Justinian precept.
Such is the case here. The failure of the employer to observe a procedure for the termination of
employment which makes the termination of employment merelyineffectual.5)
Art. 279 of the LC provides that only dismissal without just orauthorized cause renders such
dismissal illegal. To consider termination without observing procedural reqts as also ID is to add
another ground for ID, thereby amending Art. 279.;
Further, there is a disparity in legal treatment, as employees who resignwithout giving due notice
are only liable for damages; it does notmake their resignation void.In this case, the separation
pay was a distinct award from the paymentof backwages as a way of penalty.Petition was denied.
reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the
more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that
the employees has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be
shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination,
and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel
if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or
rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration
of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's last known
address.
RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc
FACTS:
Pedro A. Tecson signed a contract of employment with Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.
(Glaxo) as medical representative in October 1995.
He agreed to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing
or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing
drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of
interest, to resign from the company.
The same provision on disclosure of relationship is provided in the Employee Code of Conduct
of Glaxo and it further states that if management perceives a conflict of interest or a potential
conflict between such relationship and the employees employment, it could result in transfer to
another department in a non-counterchecking position or preparation for employment outside
the company after six months.
But Tecson, with all helplessness of the sort that often attends matters that concern the heart,
developed a forbidden liking for Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals, a competitor of
Glaxo.
For reasons unmistakably attributable to feelings of love, their hearts refused to pump blood into
their brains and so they suffered from a major lapse of judgment and ended up marrying in 1998.
As conflict of interest arose according to his superiors, Tecson was pulled out of the Camarines
sales area and transferred to Butuan but he refused.
The matter was initially brought to Glaxos grievance committee but was not resolved and so the
NCMB had to come in, which upheld the validity of Glaxos policy on relationships.
The Court of Appeals likewise found for Glaxo citing the valid exercise of management
prerogatives.
ISSUE/S:
WON Glaxos policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is a
valid exercise of management prerogative.
WON the policy violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
HELD:
YES.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and
other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are
rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition under the circumstances is reasonable because relationships of such nature might
compromise the interests of the company.
Glaxos right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied as no less than the Constitution
recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right to
reasonable returns on investment and to expansion and growth.
While protection is provided to labor, the law also recognizes managements rights which are
also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.
NO.
It is a settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the
state or those acting under the color of its authority.
The only exception occurs when the state in any of its manifestations or actions has been found
to have become entwined or involved in the wrongful private conduct.
The exception is not presented in this case.
The application of the policy was made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with due regard
for the lot of the employee.
From the wordings of the contractual provision and the policy in its employee handbook, it is
clear that Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its
employees and those of competitor companies.
It merely seeks to avoid a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may
arise out of such relationships.
The company policy was clearly made known to Tecson prior to his employment; he is thus
estopped from questioning said policy.
A contract has the force of law between the contracting parties and must be complied with in
good faith.
Yrasuegui v. PALG.R. no. 168081. Oct. 17, 2008
Facts:
Petitioner Yrasuegui, an international flight steward of Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL)
wasdismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.In
consequence thereof, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL before
theLabor Arbiter (LA). Te Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. It also
issued a writof execution directing the reinstatement of the petitioner without loss of seniority
and other benefits, andalso the payment of backwages. Respondent PAL appealed to the NLRC
which affirmed the LAsdecision. Respondent PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA
reversed the NLRC case.
Issue:
Was the dismissal of the petitioner valid?
Held:
Yes. The Court upheld the legality of the petitioners dismissal. Separation pay, however, should
beawarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so
because hisdismissal is not serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character.The
obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, becomes
ananalogous cause under Article 282 (e) of the Labor ode. His obesity may not be unintended,
but isnonetheless voluntary. Voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely
attributable to theemployee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This
element runs through all just causes under Art. 282, whether they be in nature of a wrongful
action or omission. Gross and habitualneglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary
although it lacks the element of intent found inArt. 282 (a), (c), and (d).Employment in particular
jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the
employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualificationfor performing
the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
[55]
Inthe United States, there are a few federal and many state job discrimination laws that contain
an exceptionallowing an employer to engage in an otherwise unlawful form of prohibited
discrimination when theaction is based on a BFOQ necessary to the normal operation of a
business or enterprise.
Argument that BFQQ is a statutory defense must fail.
Petitioner contends that BFOQ is a statutory defense. It does not exist if there is no statute
providing for it.
]
Further, there is no existing BFOQ statute that could justify his dismissal.First, the Constitution,
the Labor Code, and RA No. 7277 or the Magna Carta for DisabledPersons contain provisions
similar to BFOQ.Second, in
British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v. The BritishColumbia
Government and Service Employees Union (BCGSEU)
, the Supreme Court of Canada adoptedthe so-called Meiorin Test in determining whether an
employment policy is justified. Under this test,(1) the employer must show that it adopted the
standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must
establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to theaccomplishment of that work-related
purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard isreasonably necessary in order to
accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. Similarly, in
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Manuel vs. n.c construction supply Gr. No. 127553 Nov. 28,1997
FACTS:
In June 1995, the security guards of N.C. Construction Supply caught an employee stealing from
the company premises. The said employee then admitted that the incident was part of a series of
theft involving four other employees, namely, Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr.,
and Joel Rea. The four were then invited to the police station for questioning. The owner of N.C.
Construction sent his lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyes to interrogate the four employees.
Manuel et al admitted the crime imputed against them before Atty. Reyes. They agreed that in
exchange for N.C. Construction not filing a case, they will resign as employees instead. But after
resigning, the four former employees sued N.C. Construction for illegal dismissal. They now
claim that their admission made in the police station before Atty. Reyes was coerced by the
lawyer and that they were without the assistance of counsel which is violative of their
constitutional rights.
character.
The
lower
court
ordered
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
against
the
respondent
Board
commanding
it
to
refrain
from
hearing
or
further
proceeding
until
judicial
order.
A
decision
ordered
by
the lower court finding the claim of the petitioner appellee to be
well founded and prohibiting the Board from compelling the petioner
to
testify
without
his
consent
and
against
himself.
ISSUE:
to
Whether
or
not
testify
the
petioner-appellee
against
can
be
compelled
himself.
HELD:
the
decision
of
the
lower
court
is
affirmed.
The
right
against
self-incrimination
extends
not
only
to
right
to
refuse
to answer questions put to the accused while on witness stand, but
also
to
forgo
testimony, to
remain
silent
and
refuse
to
take
the
witness stand when called by as a witness by the prosecution. The
reason
is
that
the
right
against
self
incrimination,
along
with
the
other rights granted to the accused, stands for believe that while a
crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed,
such
desirable
objective
should
not
be
accomplished
according
to
means and methjods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded
to
the
human
personality.
Judgment affirmed.
Cabal vs, Kapunan nasa downloads case digest 2nd exam doc.
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Waterous Drugs Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, Oct. 16, 1997
Facts: Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp.
Catolico sold to YSP Inc. 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit. However, the normal
selling price is P320 per unit. Catolico overcharged by P64 per unit for a total of P640. YSP sent
a check payable to Catolico as a refund for the jacked-up price. It was sent in an envelope
addressed to her. Saldana, the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp. opened the envelope and saw that
there was a check for P640 for Catolico.
Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of dishonesty.
NLRC: Dismissed the Petition. Evidence of respondents (check from YSP) being rendered
inadmissible, by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants.
Petitioners: In the light of the decision in the People v. Marti, the constitutional protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from
interference by government and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so
as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
Issue: W/N the check is admissible as evidence
Held: Yes.
Ratio: (People vs. Marti) Marti ruling: The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such
assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal
and civil liabilities. Despite this, the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of cause for
the dismissal of Catolico from employment Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by
the Labor Code for the termination of Employment.