G.R. No.

106246 September 1, 1994

CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENECO), petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, JOSE
HICETA, REGINA ILON, GILDERBRANDO GISON, EPIFANIO MUYCO, EMILIANO
OQUINA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS:

The private respondents are employees of CENECO from 10 months up to 4 years

and a half. Their work forms an integral part of the business of petitioner. Despite
the length of their service, they were extended permanent appointments only on
July 13, 1988, retroactive to June 16, 1988. Petitioner has a collective bargaining
agreement with its employees' union for a duration of three (3) years from April 1,
1987 up to March 31, 1990. Article VII of the agreement provides for the following
wage increase which covers all permanent employees and workers of CENECO
except those who have managerial positions, confidential employees, probationary
employees, and temporary employees. Though they were made permanent in 1988,
private respondents demanded payment for wage increase for the year 1987 as
provided by the above collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner denied their
demand. As called for by the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the demand
was treated as a grievance. The grievance remained unsettled until their collective
bargaining agreement expired on April 1, 1990. Petitioner contends that its collective
bargaining agreement clearly excludes "temporary or probationary employees . . ." It
stresses that private respondents were extended appointments as permanent
workers only on July 13, 1988 retroactive to June 16, 1988.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents were covered for the wage increase during the first
year of the collective bargaining agreement.

LAWS APPLICABLE:

LABOR CODE

Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment — The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined

ABESAMIS, MLD.
at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding

paragraph: Provided, that, any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such actually exists. (Emphasis supplied)

Art. 281. Probationary employment — Probationary employment shall not exceed

six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by
an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a
just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of
his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period
shall be considered a regular employee.

CASE HISTORY:

The case was first filed as grievance until CBA expired then the respondents filed
with the Labor Arbiter who dismissed the complaint which was reversed by the
NLRC.

RULING:

Yes, the respondents were covered for the wage increase during the first year of the
collective bargaining agreement. They attained the status of regular employees even
before 1988. Firstly, they perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the
usual business of the petitioner as an electric cooperative. Petitioner's insistence
that private respondents became regular employees only when they were extended
appointments on July 13, 1988 is deplorable. Articles 280 and 281 of our Labor Code,
supra, put an end to the pernicious practice of making permanent casuals of our
lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them probationary
appointments, ad infinitum. Thus, Article 281, supra, placed a ceiling on
probationary employment, i.e., not to exceed six (6) months from the date the
employee started working. On the other hand, Article 280, supra, defined when an
employment shall be regular notwithstanding any written agreement to the contrary.
In other words, the graduation of an employee from casual or probationary to
regular does not depend on the arbitrary will of his employer. Private respondents
do not belong to the excluded categories. Their employments had been regularized.
There is no reason to deny them the benefits granted by their collective bargaining

ABESAMIS, MLD.
agreement when they contributed to the profits of management through their
labors.

G.R. No. 85497. February 24, 1989.

EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDUARDO MALABANAN,
Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner, after due notice, investigation, and hearing, dismissed the private
respondent Eduardo Malabanan, an accounts payable clerk, for having physically
assaulted and verbally abused, within full view and hearing of the other employees,
a superior officer, Mariano Lopingco, who was then the personnel and
administrative manager of the company. The reason for the assault was private
respondent’s resentment at being suspected of having stolen an ash tray from
Lopingco’s office and being questioned about the matter by the security office.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the private respondent is entitled to separation pay.

LAWS APPLICABLE:

Rule 1, Sec. 7, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code

"Sec. 7. Termination of Employment by Employer.— The just causes for terminating

the services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 282 of this Code. The
separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the
termination pay, provided in the Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever
rights, benefits, and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or
collective agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice."

Labor Code

ABESAMIS, MLD.
ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his 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 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
representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

ARTICLE 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
undertaking 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.

CASE HISTORY:

Labor Arbiter dismissed Malabanan’s complaint and finding that his dismissal
from employment was for just and valid cause but awarded him P10,000 as
"financial assistance." On appeal by the petitioner to the NLRC, the Commission on
August 31, 1988 affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification. It awarded
Malabanan separation or termination pay amounting to P10,780, in lieu of financial
assistance

RULING:
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609, August
23, 1988, where We ruled: "Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social
justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for cause
other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the
reason for the valid dismissal is, for example habitual intoxication or an offense
involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker,

ABESAMIS, MLD.
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. "A contrary rule would have the effect of rewarding rather than punishing
the erring employee for his offense. And We do not agree that the punishment is his
dismissal only and that the separation pay has nothing to do with the wrong he has
committed." An award of separation pay to an employee who was dismissed for a
valid cause (in this case, for serious misconduct) is legally indefensible. It
contravenes Rule 1, Sec. 7, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code. The only cases when separation pay shall be paid, although the employee was
lawfully dismissed, are when the cause of termination was not attributable to the
employee’s fault but due to: (1) the installation of labor-saving devices, (2)
redundancy, (3) retrenchment, (4) cessation of the employer’s business, or (5) when
the employee is suffering from a disease and his continued employment is
prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-employees.
(Articles 283 and 284, Labor Code.)

G.R. No. 82703 September 15, 1989

MAURO DE LA CRUZ, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RAMIE TEXTILE, INC.,
respondents.

FACTS:

The petitioner, Mauro De la Cruz, card machine operator was dismissed from
the service for after having been reprimanded by his manager, Cruz proceeded to
the company clinic on the pretext that he had an upset stomach. He asked the
company's lady physician, Dr. Rivera, to give him a sick leave. But Dr. Rivera, wary of
the tricks of employees feigning illness to get off duty earlier than usual, advised
Cruz to wait in the clinic for further observation. Affronted, Cruz shouted invectives
at her saying: "Sayang ang pagka-professional mo!" and left the premises. Cruz
returned to the clinic and asked for a referral slip, but Dr. Rivera refused to issue one
to him, whereupon, he shouted at her: "Putang Ina mo!" As his acts constituted
insubordination and misconduct, punishable under Rules Nos. 40 and 45 with
dismissal, he was informed of the violations and advised of his right to a hearing
before the Grievance Committee as provided in the collective bargaining agreement
between the union and the company. He was no longer allowed to report for work.
The grievance committee hearing was held later on. After the committee had
submitted its report, finding the charges to be true, the management dismissed
Cruz.

ISSUE:

ABESAMIS, MLD.
 Whether or not the petitioner was legally dismissed.

LAWS APPLICABLE:

Labor Code

ARTICLE 279. Security of tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer

shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement

CASE HISTORY:

The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner's conduct toward the company physician
amounted to insubordination and conduct unbecoming of an employee, which
merited the penalty of dismissal. The petitioner appealed to the National Labor
Relations Commission which dismissed his appeal for tardiness in filing.

RULING:

No, for having been dismissed from employment for just a just cause, his
termination was legal. Nevertheless, since he was denied of due process for having
been dismissed from employment even before the hearing, the company must
indemnify the petitioner. In Wenphil vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80587, February 8,1988,
where we ruled that the dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized
cause and after due process. The petitioner was held to account for its failure to
extend to the employee his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. This
Court ordered the company to indemnify the employee in the amount of Pl,000.

ABESAMIS, MLD.
G.R. No. 97817 November 10, 1994

ABESAMIS, MLD.
ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONFEDERATION OF FILIPINO
WORKERS ARIS PHILS., WORKERS UNION and ARNEL SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS:

Arnel Santos, when questioned by Eufemia Bautista, a canteen helper, for his
use of somebody else's ID, flared up and shouted invectives "wala kang pakialam!
Kung gusto mo, itapon ko itong mga pagkain ninyo" at her. When he noticed that
some people were staring at him rather menacingly, he left the canteen posthaste
but returned a few minutes later to remark challengingly: "Sino ba ang nagagalit?"
Forthwith, he began smashing some food items on display for sale at the canteen. He
then slapped Eufemia which caused her to fall and suffer slight contusions. The
security officer-in-charge submitted a report on the incident to the company officials.
Eufemia filed a written complaint with Jesus Perez, the personnel manager of Aris,
against Santos. Perez issued a memorandum and required Santos to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Santos submitted an
explanation who admitted his misconduct but tried to explain it away by saying that
he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident. The personnel
manager issued a letter of termination from employment of Santos for "gross
misconduct seriously violative of company rules and regulations."

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed.

LAWS APPLICABLE:
Labor Code

Art. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

ABESAMIS, MLD.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or 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 causes analogous to the foregoing.

CASE HISTORY:

Santos and the Confederation of Filipino Workers-Aris Philippines Workers

Union (Union) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter who
decided that Santos must be reinstated. An appeal was timely interposed with the
NLRC. On 28 December 1990, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

RULING:

Yes, although it is not disputed that private respondent has done, indeed he has
admitted to having committed, a serious misconduct. In order to constitute a "just
cause" for dismissal, however, the act complained of must be related to the
performance of the duties of the employee such as would show him to be thereby
unfit to continue working for the employer. While we do not condone the guilt of
private respondent, we, nevertheless, are concluded by the factual finding of the
NLRC that his misconduct is not work-related and did not, in any way, disrupt the
operations of the company.

ABESAMIS, MLD.