Abandonment

NEECO II vs. NLRC

Facts:
NEECO II employed the services of Eduardo Cairlan as driver
and assigned him at the petitioner's office at Quezon, Nueva
Ecija. Danila dela Cruz, petitioner's general manager
terminated the services of respondent Cairlan due to
abandonment. According to dela Cruz, never did he see the
respondent report for work and worse, it was found in an
investigation that respondent Cairlan was actually employed
by the Provincial Government as driver allegedly under the
assumed name of Eduardo Caimay. Respondent Cairlan then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA ruled in favor of
respondent. NLRC affirmed. The CA affirmed the decision of
the LA and the NLRC.
Issue:
WON Cairlan was illegally dismissed.
Held:
YES.
Ratio:
1. Petitioner miserably failed to establish the fact of
abandonment.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of
an employee to resume his employment; it is a form of
neglect of duty hence a just cause for the termination of
employment by the employer under Art. 282 of the Labor
Code.
2. There was no evidence that Eduardo Cairlan and Eduardo
Caimay was one and the same.
Evidence consisted of indexes of payments to employees
under the name of Eduardo Caimay.
3. Failed to present a bio data which may include a picture
of said Caimay.
4. The petitioner's even failed to attach an affidavit of a
certain Mr. Marcelo, the person who allegedly conducted
the investigation that led to the discovery of Cairlan's
double identity.
5. Letter of respondent to petitioner showed his yarning and
desire to continue working for petitioner.
Decision: Petition Granted.
NATURE
Petition for review
FACTS
Petitioner NEECO II staunchly asserts that since its new GM
assumed office on 01 March 1995, the GM never saw private
respondent Eduardo Cairlan report for work prompting the
former to issue a memorandum dated 22 November 1995,
which required private respondent to explain in writing why he
was not reporting for duty. Private respondent was likewise
directed in the said memo to report to its main office at
Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. For failure of the private
respondent to comply with the said memorandum, Mr. dela
Cruz directed a certain Mr. Marcelo to conduct an
investigation on the whereabouts of the petitioner. It was
then that NEECO II uncovered that private respondent was at
that time already working with the Provincial Government of
Nueva Ecija as driver allegedly under an assumed name of
Eduardo Caimay. For these reasons, petitioner contended
that it was left with no other alternative but to terminate
private respondents services.
Petitioners GM terminated private respondents services on
ground of abandonment. Immediately thereafter, private
respondent talked with the GM regarding this matter and the
latter promised him that the issue would be brought to the
attention of NEECOs Board of Directors for appropriate action.
But nothing came out of the GMs promise prompting private
respondent to institute a Complaint for illegal dismissal with

prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages since the

NEECOs Board of Directors did not act upon his termination.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that private
respondent was illegally dismissed on the following grounds:
First, petitioners assertion that it required private respondent
to explain in writing why he was not reporting for duty as
driver assigned at Quezon Service Center merited scant
consideration since a copy of the alleged memorandum dated
22 November 1995, purportedly as its Annex A, was
nowhere to be found in the record of the case. Second,
petitioners contention that private respondent Cairlan was
later discovered to be working with the Provincial Government
of Nueva Ecija under an assumed name of Eduardo Caimay
remained unsubstantiated as petitioner failed to adduce
independent evidence that said Eduardo Caimay and
private respondent Eduardo Cairlan are one and the same
person. Third, the Labor Arbiter held that the private
respondent was denied his right to due process since the
letter of termination dated 15 January 1996 stated that said
termination is retroactively effected on 1 January 1996.
Finally, according to the Labor Arbiter, petitioner failed to
corroborate its claim that private respondent was guilty of
dereliction of duty.
Public respondent NLRC dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC
affirmed in toto the decision of Labor Arbiter. Hence this
petition.
ISSUES
1. WON petitioner was accorded due process
2. WON petitioner is guilty of illegally dismissing private
respondent
HELD
1. YES
Ratio
The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall
not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code
that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters
shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the
facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard
to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due
process.
Reasoning
The Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there
is need for a formal trial or hearing.
Under Section 4, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC, the Labor Arbiter is given the latitude to determine the
necessity for a formal hearing or investigation, once the
position papers and other documentary evidence of the
parties have been submitted before him. The parties may ask
for a hearing but such hearing is not a matter of right of the
parties. The Labor Arbiter, in the exercise of his discretion,
may deny such request and proceed to decide the case on the
basis of the position papers and other documents brought
before him without resorting to technical rules of evidence as
observed in regular courts of justice.
In the present case, a scrupulous study of the records reveals
that the Labor Arbiter did not abuse his discretion conferred
upon him by the Rules in not conducting a formal hearing. On
this, the findings of the Court of Appeals, consistent with that
of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, ought to be sustained.
2. YES
Ratio: Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal
of an employee to resume his employment; it is a form of
neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of
employment by the employer under Article 282 of the Labor
Code, which enumerates the just causes for termination by
the employer: i.e., (a) serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or the latters representative in connection with the
employees work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the

employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the

employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his
duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or
offense by the employee against the person of his employer
or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative; and (e) other analogous causes.
Reasoning
Private respondents alleged abandonment of work through
his employment with the Provincial Government of Nueva
Ecija was not clearly established and proven. The evidence
submitted by petitioner to buttress its allegation that private
respondent abandoned his work consists merely of indexes of
payments to employees under the name Eduardo Caimay
without any further evidence showing that Eduardo Caimay
and private respondent Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same
person. The best evidence that could have established the
allegation that Eduardo Caimay and private respondent
Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same person is Eduardo
Caimays Personal Data Sheet which definitely would have the
pertinent personal information about him and a picture that
would identify him and not a testimony of a representative
from the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija, as adverted to
by petitioner to justify its motion for a trial type hearing.
Worse, private respondent received his notice of termination
only on 15 January 1996 which termination is effective as
early as 01 January 1996, all in gross violation of the
requirements provided for by law.
Further negating petitioners contention of abandonment, as
noted by the Labor Arbiter, is private respondents letter
dated 04 March 1996 addressed to Mr. Danilo dela Cruz
reiterating the formers plea for reconsideration of his
dismissal. This letter depicts private respondents fervor and
yearning to continue working with petitioner the very
antithesis of abandonment
Disposition AFFIRMED.
Northwest Tourism Corp. vs CA
Facts:

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

In order to constitute abandonment of work, two

elements must concur:
a. employee must have failed to report for work or must
have been absent without valid or justifiable reasons.
b. there must have been a clear intention on the part of
the employee to sever the employer-employee
relationship manifested by some overt act.
The employer has the burden of proof to show the
employer's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume
his employment without any intention of returning. Mere
absence is not sufficient.
The record shows that Oclarit did have the intent to
return from work when he went to see the Personnel
Management.
However, he was prevented from returning from work
because he was told to resign otherwise he would be
terminated with a bad record.
Petitioner failed to produce facts of overt acts of Oclarit
showing his clear intention to abandon his work.
Filing of complaint for illegal dismissal by Oclarit is proof
that he did not have any intention to abandon his work.

Decision: Judgment affirmed with modification.

Big AA Manufacturer vs. Antonio
Facts:
Respondents filed a complaint against Petitioner Corporation
for illegal lay-offs and illegal deductions. Since the mandatory
amicable settlement failed, the parties were required to
submit their position papers. Respondents allege that they
were hired by petitioner in as carpenters and that they were
the regular employees of the petitioner, they were allowed by
the petitioner to use its equipment and tools for their jobs. Big
AA on the other hand claimed that they were merely
independent contractors and that contrary to the claim of
respondents, they (respondents) refused a job order hence,
their contractual relationship ended. LA ruled in favor of
respondents. NLRC modified the decision of the LA but in sum
affirmed the decision.
Issue:
WON respondents abandoned their work

Petitioner owns and operates Asiaworld resort hotel in

Palawan. Respondent Oclarit was hired by petitioner as an
outlet cashier and was later promoted night auditor of
Asiaworld Hotel. An incident occurred involving several guests
wherein they claimed that Oclarit pocketed the excess of their
cash deposits and surreptitiously made on of them, a certain
Roque, to sign a paid out voucher. Management then
conducted an investigation and issued a memorandum
effectively placing Oclarit under preventive suspension for
thirty days. The House detective then conducted an
investigation and it was concluded that Oclarit indeed
pocketed the excess cash deposit. Northwest even alleged
that at the end of the preventive suspension Oclarit refused to
return to work hence they terminated his employment due to
abandonment. Oclarit on the other hand claimed that he
reported for duty after the suspension but was told by the
Personnel Manager that he should resign or else he shall be
terminated with a bad record. Oclarit refused to sign. A
memorandum was then issued terminating the services of
Oclarit and citing dishonesty and abandonment as the bases
for his termination. Oclarit then filed a case for illegal
dismissal. LA dismissed the case. NLRC reversed and declared
that Oclarit was illegally dismissed. CA modified the decision
of the NLRC by absolving several of managers.

Held:
NO

Issue:
WON Oclarit's termination was valid on the ground of
abandonment.

NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA

Held:
NO.
Ratio:

Ratio:
1. For accusing respondents of abandonment, petitioner
must show the elements of abandonment:
a. Respondent's failure to report for work or absence
without a valid reason.
b. Respondents clear intention to sever employeremployee relations as manifested by some overt acts.
(2nd Element is the more determining factor)
2. Petitioners argument that the reason for respondents
abandonment is their resentment over the
implementation of the implementing guidelines is bereft
of merit. It cannot serve as a basis for saying that they
had the intention of abandoning their work.
3. Furthermore, their filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal within 2 days after their dismissal and seeking
for their reinstatement in their position paper runs
counter to their theory.
It is said that an employee who forthwith protests his
layoff cannot be said to have abandoned their work.
Petition Denied

FACTS
- Petitioner Big AA Manufacturer is a sole proprietorship
registered in the name of its proprietor, Enrico E. Alejo.
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal lay-off and illegal
deductions

- Respondents
> That as regular employees, they worked from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. at petitioners premises using petitioners tools and
equipment and they received P250 per day. Eutiquio was
employed as carpenter-foreman from 1991-99; Jay as
carpenter from 1993-99; Felicisimo as carpenter from 199499; and Leonardo, Sr. also as carpenter from 1997-99; That
they were dismissed without just cause and due process;
hence, their prayer for reinstatement and full backwages.
- Petitioner Big AA Manufacturer
> That it is a sole proprietorship registered in the name of
Enrico Alejo and engaged in manufacturing office furniture,
but it denied that respondents were its regular employees. It
claimed that Eutiquio Antonio was one of its independent
contractors who used the services of the other respondents. It
said that its independent contractors were paid by results and
were responsible for the salaries of their own workers.
Allegedly, there was no employer-employee relationship
between petitioner and respondents. But it allowed
respondents to use its facilities to meet job orders. It also
denied that respondents were laid-off by Big AA Manufacturer,
since they were project employees only. It added that since
Eutiquio Antonio had refused a job order of office tables, their
contractual relationship ended.
- Labor Arbiter ruled againstpetitioners. Both appealed to
NLRC. Respondents appealed for not ordering their
reinstatement to their former positions. The NLRC modified
the Labor Arbiters decision. It ordered petitioner to reinstate
respondents to their former positions or to pay them
separation pay in case reinstatement was no longer feasible,
with full backwages in either case. The NLRC ruled that
respondents were regular employees, not independent
contractors. It further held that petitioner failed to justify its
reason for terminating respondents and its failure to comply
with the due process requirements. CA affirmed NLRC ruling.
ISSUES
WON respondents were illegally dismissed
HELD
YES
- The consistent rule is that the employer must affirmatively
show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for
a justifiable cause, failing in which would make the
termination illegal, as in this case.
- Contrary to petitioners claim of abandonment as a valid just
cause for termination, herein respondents did not abandon
their work. Petitioner failed to prove that (1) not only of
respondents failure to report for work or absence without
valid reason, but (2) also of respondents clear intention to
sever employer-employee relations as manifested by some
overt acts.
- By filing the complaint for illegal dismissal within two days of
their dismissal and by seeking reinstatement in their position
paper, respondents manifested their intention against
severing their employment relationship with petitioner and
abandoning their jobs. It is settled that an employee who
forthwith protests his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned
his work
Disposition Petition denied.
Respondents overt acts did not indicate abandonment. (No
clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the
employer-employee relationship). Their filing of an illegal
dismissal charge was inconsistent with abandonment. (Cebu
Marine Beach Resort vs. NLRC)
"for abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1)that the
employee must have failed to report for work or must have
been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that
there must have been a clear intention to sever the employeremployee relationship manifested by some overt acts.
Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee
to go back to his work post and resume his employment must
be established. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts
unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does
not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show

that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on

the employer."
(Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries)
The following circumstances proved that respondent has an
intention to sever ties with petitioners:
1. He bragged to his co-workers about his plan to quit his
job.
2. He surrendered his shop keys.
3. He failed to report without giving valid reasons.
4. He immediately got regular employment in another
barber shop.
5. He filed for illegal dismissal without praying for
reinstatement. (Paz Martia Jo v. NLRC)
Courtesy Resignation
Resignation per se means voluntary relinquishment of a
position or office. Adding the word courtesy did not change
the essence of resignation. That courtesy resignations were
utilized in government reorganization did not give private
respondent the right to use it as well in its own reorganization
and rehabilitation plan. There is no guarantee that
organization will not use it to rid themselves arbitrarily of
employees they do not like, in the guise of streamlining its
organization. (Batongbacal v. Associated Bank)
FACTS
- Bienvenido Batongbacal, a lawyer, worked for Citizens Bank
and Trust Company from 1961. On 1975, Citizens Bank and
Trust Company merged with the Associated Banking
Corporation. The merged corporate entity later became
known as Associated Bank. In the new bank, petitioner
resumed his position as assistant vice-president.
- On March 1982, he learned that his salary was very much
below compared to the other Asst. VPs of the bank. He wrote
to the Board of Directors asking that he be paid the proper
amount. Apparently, said letter fell on deaf ears.
- On March 15, 1982, the board approved the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the new management be given the
necessary flexibility in streamlining the operations of the Bank
and for the purpose it is hereby resolved that the Bank
officers at the Head Office and the Branches with corporate
rank of Manager and higher be required, as they hereby are
required to submit IMMEDIATELY to the President their
courtesy resignations.
- Petitioner did not submit his courtesy resignation. On May 3,
1983, he received a letter from the Board saying that his
resignation has been accepted. Petitioner wrote to the
executive VP asking for reconsideration. He stated therein
that he thought the call for the submission of courtesy
resignations was only for erring "loathsome" officers and not
those like him who had served the bank honestly and
sincerely for sixteen years.
- Starting May 4, 1983, he was not paid. He filed for illegal
dismissal and damages with the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in
favor of the petitioner. On MFR, the NLRC reversed.
ISSUE
WON the bank may legally dismiss for refusal to tender the
courtesy resignation which the bank required in line with its
reorganization plan
HELD
NO
- While it may be said that the private respondent's call for
courtesy resignations was prompted by its determination to
survive, we cannot lend legality to the manner by which it
pursued its goalBy directing its employees to submit letters of
courtesy resignation, the bank in effect forced upon its
employees an act which they themselves should voluntarily
do. It should be emphasized that resignation per se means
voluntary relinquishment of a position or office. 11 Adding the
word "courtesy" did not change the essence of resignation.
That courtesy resignations were utilized in government
reorganization did not give private respondent the right to use

it as well in its own reorganization and rehabilitation plan.

There is no guarantee that all employers will not use it to rid
themselves arbitrarily of employees they do not like, in the
guise of "streamlining" its organization. On the other hand,
employees would be unduly exposed to outright termination
of employment which is anathema to the constitutional
mandate of security of tenure
- The record fails to show any valid reasons for terminating
the employment of petitioner. There are no proofs of
malfeasance or misfeasance committed by petitioner which
jeopardized private respondent's interest.
- However, we agree with the Solicitor General and the NLRC
that petitioner is not entitled to an award of the difference
between his actual salary and that received by the assistant
vice-president who had been given the salary next higher to
his. There is a semblance of discrimination in this aspect of
the bank's organizational set-up but we are not prepared to
preempt the employer's prerogative to grant salary increases
to its employees. In this connection, we may point out that
private respondent's claim that it needed to trim down its
employees as a self-preservation measure is belied by the
amount of salaries it was giving its other assistant vicepresidents
Disposition Remanded to the NLRC to determine WON the
petitioner is a managerial employee
Change of Ownership
A business merger is allowed by law. This however should not
be used to permit the employer to escape payment of
termination pay. Such a situation is not envisioned in the law,
for it strikes at the very heart of social justice. The rule laid
out is that an innocent transferee of a business establishment
has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue
employing them. Nor is the transferee liable for past unfair
labor practices of the previous owner, except, when the
liability therefore is assumed by the new employer under the
terms of the contract of sale, or when the liability attaches
since owner was part of the plan to thwart the rights of the
employees. (Manlimos v. NLRC)
Habitual Absenteeism
The service record of private respondent with petitioner is
perpetually characterized by unexplained absences and
unauthorized sick leave extensions. The nature of his job as
lineman-driver requires his physical presence to minister to
incessant complaints often faulted with electricity, habitual
absenteeism of an errant employee is not concordant with the
public service that petitioner has to assiduously provide.
Therefore, his continual incurrence of absences rendered his
dismissal proper. (Manila Electric Co. v. NLRC).
Nowhere in our jurisprudence requires that all medical
certificates be notarized to be accepted as valid evidence. In
this case, there is [neither] difficulty nor an obstacle to claim
that the medical certificates presented by complainant are
genuine and authentic. While it is true that the petitioner had
objected to the veracity of the medical certificates because of
lack of notarization, it has been said that verification of
documents is not necessary in order that the said documents
could be considered as substantial evidence. The medical
certificates were properly signed by the physicians; hence,
they bear all the earmarks of regularity in their issuance and
are entitled to full probative weight. The respondent did not
incur any intermittent absences. His only recorded absence
was the consecutive ten-day unauthorized absence, albeit due
to painful and unbearable toothache. The petitioners claim
that the respondent had manifested poor work attitude was
belied by its own recognition of the respondents dedication to
his job as evidenced by the latters awards. (Union Motor
Corp v. NLRC)
Fixed-Term Employment
The court has repeatedly upheld the validity of fixed-term
employment provided that a.) fixed period of unemployment
was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties,

without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought

to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, and b) it satisfactorily
appears that the employer and employees dealt with each
other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance
whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. The
employment contracts entered into satisfied all these
requirements. However, the dismissal is illegal because the
employment contract stipulates that the liquidator has the
right to terminate them any time during this period of
temporary employment if they are found inefficient in the job
or violated any rules. (Mendenilla v. PNB)
The non-renewal of an employment contract with a term is
ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the end of each period.
This rule, however, must yield to the superior constitutional
right of employees, permanent or temporary, to selforganization. While a temporary empoloyment may be ended
with or without cause, it certainly may not, however, be
terminated for an illegal cause. (Pamantasan v. Civil
Service Commission)
Past Offenses
Dismissal on the basis of loss of trust and confidence calls for
substantial evidence, or the amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion.
It does not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
employees misconduct. The panel used all the evidence
available to them and thus cannot be faulted. Furthermore,
the decision of acquittal was rendered after the panel issued
its pronouncement. This, plus the fact that petitioner is
estopped since she agreed to subject herself to the voluntary
arbitrators thru the compromise agreement justifies the
termination. (Ramoran v. Jardine CMG)
Previous offenses may be used as valid justification for
dismissal from work only if the infractions are related to the
subsequent offense upon which basis the termination of
employment is decreed. The previous infraction may be used
if it has a bearing to the proximate offense warranting the
dismissal. (LaCarlota Planters Assoc v. NLRC)
Habitual Infractions
It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules
and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its
business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures
to implement said rules and to assure that the same be
complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental
duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable
rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or
intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies
rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory
dismissal of the employee." (Citing Family Planning
Organization of the Philippines, Inc. vs. .NLRC) Records show
the various violations of respondent companys rules and
regulations committed by petitioner. His dismissal from the
service is, therefore, in order. Indeed, in Piedad vs. Lanao del
Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., we ruled that a series of
irregularities when put together may constitute serious
misconduct, which under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is a just cause for dismissal. (Gustilo v.Wyeth
Phil, Inc)
Gustilo was employed by Wyeth Phils Inc. as a pharmaceutical
territory manager.
- He was in-charge of the various branches in Metro Bacolod
City and Negros Occidental. - Among his tasks were visiting
hospitals, pharmacies, drugstores and physicians; preparing
and submitting his pre-dated itinerary; and submitting
periodic reports of his daily call visits, monthly itinerary and
weekly locator and incurred expenses.
- His employment records show that on various dates, Wyeth
reprimanded and suspended him for habitually neglecting to
submit his periodic reports.

> Nov. 28, 1994- W sent a notice reprimanding G for the late
submission of weekly expense report
> July 5, 1995- late submission of same report so W
suspended him for 5 days
> Oct 16 to 20, 23-27, Nov 6-10, 13-17, (all 1995)- late
submission of his daily call reports
> Nov 20-24, 1995- didnt submit his daily call reports so W
suspended him for 15 days.
- Wyeth put Gustilo in charge of promoting 4 Lederle (Ws
sister company) pharmaceutical products. G then submitted
to W a plan of action where G committed to make an ave of
18 daily calls to physicians; submit promptly all periodic
reports; and ensure 95% territory program performance for
every cycle.
- Gustilo failed to achieve his objectives so W sent him 2
notices charging him with willful violation of company rules
and regulations and directed him to submit a written
explanation.
- G explained that he was overworked and an object of
reprisal by his immediate supervisor, Filemon Verzano Jr.
- Wyeth, upon the recommendation of a review panel,
terminated Gustilos services.
- G then filed with the Regional Arbiter Br. No. 6 in Bacolod
City a complaint against W for illegal suspension, illegal
dismissal and payment for allowances, other monetary
benefits, damages and attys fees.
- The Labor Arbiter found that G was illegally dismissed from
employment and ordered W and Verzano to pay G jointly and
severally Php 991,157.90 representing backwages, separation
pay, car reimbursement, damages and attys fees.
- W appealed to the NLRC in Cebu City
- NLRC- affirmed but modified the Labor Arbiters decisionordered reinstatement of G, or in lieu of reinstatement, pay
his separation benefits.
- Ws MR was denied so they filed with the CA a petition for
Certiorari and TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction.
- CA- reversed NLRCs decision and dismissed Gs complaint
for illegal dismissal (as G was terminated based on A282 of
the LC-gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his
duties) but awarded him separation pay considering the
mitigating factors of length of service, loyalty awards G
received and Verzanos grudge against G.
- G filed an MR but was denied.

intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies

rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory
dismissal of the employee."
- Piedad v Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc.- a series
of irregularities when put together may constitute serious
misconduct, which under A282 of the LC, as amended, is a
just cause for dismissal.
- The rule embodied in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code is that a person dismissed for cause as defined
therein is not entitled to separation pay.
- PLDT v NLRC and Abucay, "x x x henceforth, separation pay shall be allowed as a
measure of social justice only in those instances where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where
the reason for the valid dismissal is, x x x an offense involving
moral turpitude x x x, the employer may not be required to
give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial
assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground
of social justice."
- Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v Court of
AppealsWe are of course aware that financial assistance may be
allowed as a measure of social justice in exceptional
circumstances and as an equitable concession. We are
likewise mindful that financial assistance is allowed only in
those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on
his moral character (Zenco Sales, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 234 SCRA 689). x x x."
- In the case at bar, there is NO exceptional circumstances to
warrant the grant of financial assistance or separation pay to
petitioner.
G did not only violate company disciplinary rules and
regulations. He falsified his employment application form by
not stating therein that he is the nephew of Mr. Danao,
respondent Wyeths Nutritional Territory Manager.
- G manifested his slack of moral principle through his
infractions. In simple term, he is dishonest.
- Philippine Long Distance Telephone vs. NLRC and Abucay[T]hose who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands
are clean and their motives blameless x x x." Here, petitioner
failed to measure up to such requirement.

ISSUE
WON GUSTILO is entitled to his separation pay

Disposition Petition is DENIED

***Wyeth did not interpose an appeal to this Court. Hence, no
affirmative relief can be extended to it. So it has to comply
with the CAs decision to grant G his SP.

HELD
NO, Gustilo isnt entitled to his SP OR to reinstatement as
there was a just cause for dismissal.
Reasoning
- Phil Journalists Inc v Mosqueda- SC ruled that the findings of
the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by
this Court
- Family Planning Org of the Phils Inc v NLRC SC held that it
is the employers prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules
and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its
business or concern to provide certain disciplinary measures
to implement said rules and to assure that the same be
complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental
duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable
rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or

Immorality
The Manual of regulation for private Schools provides that in
addition to the just causes enumerated in the LC, the
employment of school personnel, including faculty, may be
terminated for, inter alia, disgraceful or immoral conduct.
Immorality under American Jurisprudence is defined as a
course of conduct which offends the morals of the community
and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals as a teacher
is supposed to foster and to elevate, the same including
sexual misconduct. (Santos vs. NLRC)