Employee found guilty of habitual absenteeism and tardiness not entitled to economic assistance.docx

8/9/2019 Employee found guilty of habitual absenteeism and tardiness not entitled to economic assistance.docx

1/25

1. Employee found guilty of habitual absenteeism and

tardiness not entitled to economic assistance. Labor

adjudicatory ocials and the CA must demur the award

of separation pay based on social justice when an

employee’s dismissal is based on serious misconduct or

willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty;

fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime

against the person of the employer or his immediate

family grounds under Art. !"! of the Labor Code that

sanction dismissals of employees. #hey must be most

judicious and circumspect in awarding separation pay or

$nancial assistance as the constitutional policy to

pro%ide full protection to labor is not meant to be an

instrument to oppress the employers. #he commitment

of the Court to the cause of labor should not embarrassus from sustaining the employers when they are right& as

here. 'n $ne& we should be more cautious in awarding

$nancial assistance to the undeser%ing and those who

are unworthy of the liberality of the law. ()uiambao %s.

*anila Electric Company& +.,. -o. 11/!0& ecember

1"& !//2.3

,epublic of the 4hilippinesSupreme Court

*anila

SECOND DIVISION

ARSENIO S. QUIAMBAO, G.R. No. 171023

Petitioner,

Present:

CARPIO,∗ J., Chairperson,

- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,∗∗

BRION, DEL CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ.MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Promulgated:

Resondent! De"em#er $%, &''(

) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J .:

http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/02/04/gross-and-habitual-neglect-of-duty/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn2http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/02/04/gross-and-habitual-neglect-of-duty/


2/25

T*e li#eralit+ o t*e la "an never #e e)tended to t*e unort*+ and undeserving! In several instan"es, t*e

oli"+ o so"ial .usti"e *as "omelled t*is Court to a""ord inan"ial assistan"e in t*e orm o searation a+ to alegall+ terminated emlo+ee! T*is li#eralit+, *oever, is not it*out limitations! T*us, *en t*e manner and

"ir"umstan"es #+ *i"* t*e emlo+ee "ommitted t*e a"t "onstituting t*e ground or *is dismissal s*o *is

erversit+ or deravit+, no s+mat*+ or mer"+ o t*e la "an #e invo/ed!

T*is etition or revie on certiorar i0$1 assails t*e De"ision0&1 dated O"to#er &%, &''2 and

Resolution031 dated 4anuar+ $&, &''5 o t*e Court o Aeals 6CA7 in CA-8!R! SP No! %233&, *i"* reversed t*e

9e#ruar+ , &'' De"ision01

o t*e National La#or Relations Commission 6NLRC7 aarding etitioner Arsenio S!;uiam#ao searation a+ in t*e amount o P$&5,%

%! E)"essive tardiness '5$(5 '5$(5 Rerimand

(! E)"essive tardiness '('3(& '('3(& Rerimand

B! PER9OR=ANCE RATIN8

>is merit ratings rom $((2 to $((( are as ollos:

@EAR RATIN8

$((( Poor

$((% Needs Imrovement

$((< Needs Imrovement

$((5 Satisa"tor+

$((2 Satisa"tor+021

On =ar"* $', &''', a Noti"e o Investigation051 as served uon etitioner or *is unaut*oried and

une)"used a#sen"es on Novem#er $', &2, &5, &(, $((( De"em#er $, &, $, $2, $5, $


3/25


4/25

imosed #+ t*e etitioner in its Company Code On Employee Discipline, aoreuoted,

*ere#+ it gave rima"+ to t*e maintenan"e o dis"iline Has a matter o undamentalimortan"e?!0$1

Petitioner moved or a re"onsideration, #ut to no avail!

Issu

>en"e, t*is etition or revie on certiorari raising t*e sole issue o *et*er or not a validl+ dismissedemlo+ee ma+ #e entitled to searation a+! Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner "ontends t*at t*e CA grievousl+ erred in "on"luding t*at *e is guilt+ o serious mis"ondu"t and

in deleting t*e aard o searation a+! >e argues t*at t*e NLRC, *ose indings are entitled to great rese"t andinalit+, regarded *is unaut*oried a#sen"es as gross and *a#itual negle"t o dut+ onl+! Citing Philippine

Geothermal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,0$21 *ere an emlo+ee *o as terminated on similar

ground o gross and *a#itual negle"t o duties #e"ause o "ontinued and une)lained a#sen"es, and *o asnonet*eless granted searation a+, etitioner "laims t*at t*e same a""ommodation s*ould li/eise #e e)tended to

*im! >e insists t*at *is a#sen"es do not amount to serious mis"ondu"t "onsidering t*at *is inra"tions did not

rele"t on *is moral "*ara"ter! It did not "reate imminent or su#stantial in.ur+ to t*e "oman+?s oeration and t*e"onsuming u#li", and ere not "ommitted or sel-interest or unlaul urose #ut on a""ount o domesti" and

marital ro#lems! Ta/ing into a""ount all t*ese and *is $ +ears o servi"e in t*e "oman+, etitioner invo/es t*e rin"iles o so"ial .usti"e and euit+ in .usti+ing *is entitlement to searation a+!

Ou! Ru"#$%

T*e etition la"/s merit!

he Labor !rbiter, the NLRC and theCo"rt o# !ppeals #o"nd petitioner

$"ilty o# $ross and habit"al ne$lect o#

d"ty.

T*e La#or Ar#iter and t*e NLRC are one in *olding t*at etitioner?s unaut*oried a#sen"es andreeated inra"tions o "oman+ rules on emlo+ee dis"iline maniest gross and *a#itual negle"t o dut+ t*at

merited t*e imosition o t*e sureme enalt+ o dismissal rom or/! T*e onl+ dieren"e in t*eir ruling is t*att*e NLRC aarded searation a+! T*e CA, ater revieing t*e re"ords o t*e "ase, airmed t*e indings o t*e

la#or tri#unals! And, on t*e #asis o t*ese indings, urt*er "on"luded t*at etitioner?s inra"tions are orse t*an

inei"ien"+ t*e+ #order on dis*onest+ "onstituting serious mis"ondu"t!

Fe *ave e)amined t*e re"ords *i"* indeed s*o t*at etitioner?s unaut*oried a#sen"es as ell as

tardiness are *a#itual desite *aving #een enalied or ast inra"tions! In G"stilo v. %yeth Philippines, Inc.,0$51 e *eld t*at a series o irregularities *en ut toget*er ma+ "onstitute serious mis"ondu"t! Fe also *eld t*at

gross negle"t o dut+ #e"omes serious in "*ara"ter due to reuen"+ o instan"es! 0$


5/25

gross and *a#itual negle"t o dut+, still, *e is not entitled to severan"e a+! In Central Philippines &anda$

Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes,0$(1 e dis"ussed t*e arameters o aarding searation a+ to dismissed emlo+ees asa measure o inan"ial assistan"e, vi' :

To reiterate our ruling in oyota, la#or ad.udi"ator+ oi"ials and t*e CA mustdemur t*e aard o searation a+ #ased on so"ial .usti"e *en an emlo+ee?s dismissal

is #ased on serious mis"ondu"t or illul diso#edien"e %!oss &$' (&)#*u&" $%"+* o

'u*- raud or illul #rea"* o trust or "ommission o a "rime against t*e erson o t*e

emlo+er or *is immediate amil+ - grounds under Art! &%& o t*e La#or Code t*atsan"tion dismissals o emlo+ees! T*e+ must #e most .udi"ious and "ir"umse"t in

aarding searation a+ or inan"ial assistan"e as t*e "onstitutional oli"+ to rovide ull rote"tion to la#or is not meant to #e an instrument to oress t*e emlo+ers! T*e

"ommitment o t*e Court to t*e "ause o la#or s*ould not em#arrass us rom sustaining

t*e emlo+ers *en t*e+ are rig*t, as *ere! In ine, e s*ould #e more "autious inaarding inan"ial assistan"e to t*e undeserving and t*ose *o are unort*+ o t*e

li#eralit+ o t*e la!0&'1 6Em*asis sulied!7

/EREORE, t*e etition is DENIED or la"/ o merit! T*e assailed O"to#er &%, &''2 De"ision

and 4anuar+ $&, &''5 Resolution o t*e Court o Aeals in CA-8!R! SP No! %233& are AIRMED!

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

!ssociate J"stice

FE CONCR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

!ssociate J"stice

Chairperson

TERESITA . LEONARDODE CASTRO

!ssociate J"stice

ARTURO D. BRION

!ssociate J"stice

ROBERTO A. ABAD

!ssociate J"stice

ATTESTATION

I attest t*at t*e "on"lusions in t*e a#ove De"ision *ad #een rea"*ed in "onsultation #eore t*e "ase as

assigned to t*e riter o t*e oinion o t*e Court?s Division!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftn22


6/25

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

!ssociate J"sticeChairperson, (econd Division

C E R T I I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Se"tion $3, Arti"le JIII o t*e Constitution, and t*e Division C*airerson?s attestation, it is*ere#+ "ertiied t*at t*e "on"lusions in t*e a#ove De"ision *ad #een rea"*ed in "onsultation #eore t*e "ase as

assigned to t*e riter o t*e oinion o t*e Court?s Division!

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chie# J"stice

∗ Per Se"ial Order No!

SCRA 22', 25'!0$(1 8!R! No! $535'!. 5-o wor6 no pay7 scheme is not signi$cant in

determining employer8employee relationship. #he fact

the respondent was paid under a 5no wor6 no pay7

scheme& assuming this claim to be true& is not

signi$cant. #he 5no wor6 no pay7 scheme is merely a

method of computing compensation& not a basis for

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/171023.htm#_ftnref22


7/25

determining the e9istence or absence of employer8

employee relationship.

Abandonment of wor6; ,e:uisites. Abandonment of wor6& or the

deliberate and unjusti$ed refusal of an employee to resume his

employment& is a just cause for the termination of employment

under paragraph (b3 of Article !"! of the Labor Code& since it

constitutes neglect of duty. #he jurisprudential rule is that

abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be lightly

presumed from e:ui%ocal acts. #o constitute abandonment& two

elements must concur (13 the failure to report for wor6 or

absence without %alid or justi$able reason& and (!3 a clear

intent& manifested through o%ert acts& to se%er the employer8

employee relationship.

'bid;


8/25

SECOND DIVISION

CRC AGRICULTURAL TRADING andROLANDO B. CATINDIG&

4etitioners&

8 %ersus 8

NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSION andROBERTO OBIAS, ,espondents.

G.R. No. 177! 4resent CA,4'@& J., Chairperson,

LE@-A,@8E CA#,@&


9/25

premises. #he petitioners ga%e him a 40&///.// loan to help him builda hut for his family.

ometime in *arch !//0& the petitioners ordered respondentto ha%e the alternator of one of its %ehicles repaired. #he respondentbrought the %ehicle to a repair shop and subse:uently ga%e thepetitioners two receipts issued by the repair shop. #he latter

suspected that the receipts were falsi$ed and stopped tal6ing to himand gi%ing him wor6 assignments. #he petitioners& howe%er& still paidhim 4//.// and 4B//.// on April 1B and 0/& !//?& respecti%ely& butno longer ga%e him any salary after that. As a result& the respondentand his family mo%ed out of the petitioners’ compound and relocatedto a nearby place. #he respondent claimed that the petitioners paidhim a daily wage of 41B.//& but did not gi%e him ser%ice incenti%elea%e& holiday pay& rest day pay& and o%ertime pay. He also allegedthat the petitioners did not send him a notice of termination.

'n opposing the complaint& the petitioners claimed that the

respondent was a seasonal dri%er; his wor6 was irregular and was not$9ed. #he petitioners paid the respondent41B.// daily& but under a5no wor6 no pay7 basis. #he petitioners also ga%e him a dailyallowance of 41?/.// to 4!//.//. 'n April !//0& the respondentwor6ed only for 1B days for which he was paid the agreed wages. #hepetitioners maintained that they did not anymore engage therespondent’s ser%ices after April !//0& as they had already lost trustand con$dence in him after disco%ering that he had forged receipts forthe %ehicle parts he bought for them. ince then& the respondent hadbeen wor6ing as a dri%er for diGerent jeepney operators.D

T#e La$or Ar$%ter Ru&%n' Labor Arbiter ,ennell Foseph ,. ela Cru=& in his decision of April

1B& !//B& ruled in the respondent’s fa%or declaring that he had beenillegally dismissed. #he labor arbiter held that as a regular employee&the respondent’s ser%ices could only be terminated after theobser%ance of due process. #he labor arbiter li6ewise disregarded thepetitioners’ charge of abandonment against the respondent. He thusdecreed

IHE,E@,E& premises considered& judgment ishereby rendered ordering respondents C,CA+,'CJL#J,AL #,A'-+ and ,@LA-@ CA#'-'+ topay complainant jointly and se%erally the following

eparation4ay 8 4>?&?/.//


10/25

10th monthpay 8 1!&!/.>B

'L 8!&0?.>0

alaryiGerential 8 ?&2??.//

Jnpaid

'L 8 0&?>.//

KKKKKKKKKK

4!&12"./"1/ attorney’sfees 8 !&12."/

KKKKKKKKKK +,A-

#@#AL 8 40/?&

21."/ @ @,E,E."D

T#e NLRC Ru&%n'

#he petitioners and the respondent both appealed the laborarbiter’s decision to the -L,C. #he petitioners speci$cally :uestionedthe ruling that the respondent was illegally dismissed. #he respondent&

for his part& maintained that the labor arbiter erred when he orderedthe payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

#he -L,C& in its resolution of August 1B& !//>&2D modi$ed thelabor arbiter’s decision. #he -L,C ruled that the respondent was notillegally dismissed and deleted the labor arbiter’s award of bac6wagesand attorney’s fees. #he -L,C reasoned out that it was respondenthimself who decided to mo%e his family out of the petitioners’ lot;hence& no illegal dismissal occurred. *oreo%er& the respondent couldnot claim wages for the days he did not wor6& as he was employed bythe petitioners under a 5no wor6 no pay7 scheme. T#e CA De(%)%on

#he petitioners $led on August 0/& !//> a petitionfor certiorari with the CA alleging that the -L,C erred in awarding therespondent separation pay and salary diGerentials. #hey argued thatan employee who had abandoned his wor6& li6e the respondent& is nodiGerent from one who %oluntarily resigned; both are not entitled toseparation pay and to salary diGerentials. #he petitioners added thatsince they had already four regular dri%ers& the respondent’s job was

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn9


11/25


12/25

T*e elements to determine t*e e)isten"e o an emlo+ment relations*i are: 6$7

t*e sele"tion and engagement o t*e emlo+ee 6&7 t*e a+ment o ages 637 t*e oer

o dismissal and 67 t*e emlo+er?s oer to "ontrol t*e emlo+ee?s "ondu"t! T*e most

imortant element is t*e emlo+er?s "ontrol o t*e emlo+ee?s "ondu"t, not onl+ as to t*e

result o t*e or/ to #e done, #ut also as to t*e means and met*ods to a""omlis* it! All

t*e our elements are resent in t*is "ase!0$'1

+irst , t*e etitioners engaged t*e servi"es o t*e resondent in $((2! (econd ,

t*e etitioners aid t*e resondent a dail+ age o P$


13/25

rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be lightlypresumed from e:ui%ocal acts. #o constitute abandonment& twoelements must concur (13 the failure to report for wor6 or absencewithout %alid or justi$able reason& and (!3 a clear intent& manifestedthrough o%ert acts& to se%er the employer8employee relationship. #heemployer bears the burden of showing a deliberate andunjusti$ed refusal by the employee to resume his employment without

any intention of returning.1!D

'n the present case& the petitioners did not adduce any proof to

show that the respondent clearly and une:ui%ocally intended toabandon his job or to se%er the employer8employeerelationship. *oreo%er& the respondent’s $ling of the complaint forillegal dismissal on Fune !!& !//? strongly spea6s against thepetitioners’ charge of abandonment; it is illogical for an employee toabandon his employment and& thereafter& $le a complaint for illegaldismissal. As we held in Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc.10D

Abandonment is a matter of intention andcannot lightly be presumed from certain e:ui%ocalacts. #o constitute abandonment& there must be clearproof of deliberate and unjusti$ed intent to se%er theemployer8employee relationship. C&ear&, t#eoperat%/e a(t %) )t%&& t#e emp&oee+) u&t%mate a(to0 putt%n' an end to #%) emp&oment. Emphasis inthe originalD

Respondent was constructively dismissed

Case law de$nes constructi%e dismissal as a cessation of wor6 becausecontinued employment has been rendered impossible& unreasonable& orunli6ely& as when there is a demotion in ran6 or diminution in pay or bothor #en a (&ear d%)(r%m%nat%on, %n)en)%$%&%t, or d%)da%n $ anemp&oer $e(ome) un$eara$&e to t#e emp&oee.[14]

#he test of constructi%e dismissal is whether a reasonable person inthe employee’s position would ha%e felt compelled to gi%e up his position underthe circumstances. 't is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear asif it were not. 'n fact& the employee who is constructi%ely dismissed mightha%e been allowed to 6eep coming to wor6. Constructi%e dismissal is thereforea dismissal in disguise. #he law recogni=es and resol%es this situation in fa%orof employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coerci%e actsof the employer.1BD

'n the present case& the petitioners ceased %erbally communicatingwith the respondent and gi%ing him wor6 assignment after suspecting that hehad forged purchase receipts. Jnder this situation& the respondent was forcedto lea%e the petitioners’ compound with his family and to transfer to a nearbyplace. #hus& the respondent’s act of lea%ing the petitioners’ premiseswas in reality not his choice but a situation the petitioners created.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn15


14/25

The Due Process Requirement

E%en assuming that a %alid ground to dismiss the respondente9ists& the petitioners failed to comply with the twin re:uirements of notice and hearing under the Labor Code.

#he long established jurisprudence holds that to justify the

dismissal of an employee for a just cause& the employer must furnishthe wor6er with two written notices. #he $rst is the notice to apprisethe employee of the particular acts or omissions for which hisdismissal is sought. #his may be loosely considered as the chargeagainst the employee. #he second is the notice informing theemployee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. #his decision&howe%er& must come only after the employee is gi%en a reasonableperiod from receipt of the $rst notice within which to answer thecharge& and ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself withthe assistance of his representati%e& if he so desires. #he re:uirementof notice is not a mere technicality& but a re:uirement of due process

to which e%ery employee is entitled. #he petitioners clearly failed to comply with the two8notice

re:uirement. -othing in the records shows that the petitioners e%ersent the respondent a written notice informing him of the ground forwhich his dismissal was sought. 't does not also appear that thepetitioners held a hearing where the respondent was gi%en theopportunity to answer the charges of abandonment. -either did thepetitioners send a written notice to the respondent informing the latterthat his ser%ice had been terminated and the reasons for thetermination of employment. Jnder these facts& the respondent’s

dismissal was illegal.

1>D

Backwages !eparation Pay and "ttorney#s $ees

#he respondent’s illegal dismissal carries the legal conse:uence

de$ned under Article !2 of the Labor Code the illegally dismissedemployee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights andother pri%ileges and to his full bac6wages& inclusi%e of allowances andother bene$ts or their monetary e:ui%alent& computed from the time hiscompensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actualreinstatement. #hus& an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to tworeliefs bac6wages and reinstatement. Ihere reinstatement is no longer%iable as an option& bac6wages shall be computed from the time of theillegal termination up to the $nality of the decision.1D eparationpay e:ui%alent to one month salary for e%ery year of ser%ice shouldli6ewise be awarded as an alternati%e in case reinstatement in notpossible.1"D

'n the present case& reinstatement is no longer feasible because

of the strained relations between the petitioners and therespondent. #ime and again& this Court has recogni=ed that strainedrelations between the employer and employee is an e9ception to the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn18


15/25

rule re:uiring actual reinstatement for illegally dismissed employees forthe practical reason that the already e9isting antagonism will only festerand deteriorate& and will only worsen with possible ad%erse eGects onthe parties& if we shall compel reinstatement; thus& the use of a %iablesubstitute that protects the interests of both parties while ensuring thatthe law is respected.

'n this case& the antagonism between the parties cannot bedoubted& e%idenced by the petitioners’ refusal to tal6 to the respondentafter their suspicion of fraudulent misrepresentation was aroused& andby the respondent’s own decision to lea%e the petitioners’ compoundtogether with his family. Jnder these undisputed facts& a peacefulwor6ing relationship between them is no longer possible andreinstatement is not to the best interest of the parties. #he payment of separation pay is the better alternati%e as it liberates the respondentfrom what could be a highly hostile wor6 en%ironment& while releasingthe petitioners from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining intheir employ a wor6er they could no longer trust.

#he respondent ha%ing been compelled to litigate in order tosee6 redress& the CA correctly armed the labor arbiter’s grant of attorney’s fees e:ui%alent to 1/ of the total monetary award.12D

#he records of this case& howe%er& are incomplete for purposes

of computing the e9act monetary award due to the respondent. #hus&

it is necessary to remand this case to the Labor Arbiter for the sole

purpose of computing the proper monetary award.

*ERE"ORE& premises considered& we hereby DEN2 the

petition. #he ecision of the Court of Appeals dated ebruary !/& !//and its ,esolution dated April 0/& !// in CA8+.,. 4 -o.2B2!? are A""IRMED and the case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiterfor the sole purpose of computing the full bac6wages& inclusi%e of allowances and other bene$ts of respondent ,oberto @bias& computedfrom the date of his dismissal up to the $nality of the decision& andseparation pay in lieu of reinstatement e:ui%alent to one month salaryfor e%ery year of ser%ice& computed from the time of his engagement up

to the $nality of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D.BRION

Associate Fustice

E CONCUR3

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftn19


16/25

ANTONIO T. CAR4IO Associate Fustice Chairperson TERESITA 5. LEONARDO6DECASTRO

Associate Fustice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Fustice

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Fustice

ATTESTATION

' attest that the conclusions in the abo%e ecision had beenreached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s i%ision.

ANTONIO T. CAR4IO

Associate Fustice Chairperson

CERTI"ICATION

4ursuant to ection 10& Article M''' of the Constitution& and thei%ision Chairperson’s Attestation& it is hereby certi$ed that theconclusions in the abo%e ecision were reached in consultation beforethe case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’si%ision.

RE2NATO S. 4UNO Chief Fustice

0$1 Penned #+ Asso"iate 4usti"e 4ose Catral =endoa, and "on"urred in #+ Asso"iate

4usti"e Remedios A! Salaar-9ernando and Asso"iate 4usti"e Ramon =! Bato, 4r! rollo,

! 5-


17/25

0&1 Id ! at %&!

031 Id ! at 3'-35!

01 Id ! at &2-&(!

021 Id. at &'!

051 Id. at &3-&!

0http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/177664.htm#_ftnref19


18/25

0. ,e:uirement for appeals in%ol%ing monetary award. Appeals

in%ol%ing monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance

with the following mandatory re:uisites& namely (13 payment of

the appeal fees; (!3 $ling of the memorandum of appeal; and

(03 payment of the re:uired cash or surety bond.

Appeal bond; *andatory nature. #he posting of a bond is

indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases in%ol%ing

monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. #he

intention of the lawma6ers to ma6e the bond a mandatory

re:uisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is

clearly e9pressed in the pro%ision that an appeal by the

employer may be perfected 5only upon the posting of a cash or

surety bond.7 #he word 5only7 in Articles !!0 of the Labor Code

ma6es it unmista6ably plain that the lawma6ers intended the

posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the

essential and e9clusi%e means by which an employer’s appeal

may be perfected. #he word 5may7 refers to the perfection of

an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party& but not

to the compulsory posting of an appeal bond& if he desires to

appeal. #he meaning and the intention of the legislature inenacting a statute must be determined from the language

employed; and where there is no ambiguity in the words used&

then there is no room for construction

'bid; ,e:uisites for reduction. #he bond may be reduced upon

motion by the employer& this is subject to the conditions that (13

the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious

grounds; and (!3 a reasonable amount in relation to the

monetary award is posted by the appellant; otherwise& the $lingof the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the

period to perfect an appeal. #he :uali$cation eGecti%ely

re:uires that unless the -L,C grants the reduction of the cash

bond within the 1/8day reglementary period& the employer is

still e9pected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full

amount within the said 1/8day period.


19/25

'bid.; Appeal bond re:uirements is jurisdictional. Article !!0&

which prescribes the appeal bond re:uirement& is a rule of

jurisdiction and not of procedure. #here is little leeway for

condoning a liberal interpretation thereof& and certainly none

premised on the ground that its re:uirements are mere

technicalities. 't must be emphasi=ed that there is no inherent

right to an appeal in a labor case& as it arises solely from grant

of statute& namely& the Labor Code. -on8compliance with such

legal re:uirements is fatal and has the eGect of rendering the

judgment $nal and e9ecutory. (,amire= %s. CA& +.,. -o. 1"!>!>&

ecember ?& !//2.3

?. Admissibility of e%idence submitted for the $rst time on appeal.

'ndubitably& the -L,C is not precluded from recei%ing e%idence

on appeal as technical rules of e%idence are not binding in labor

cases. #here is& howe%er& a ca%eat to this policy. #he delay in

the submission of e%idence should be clearly e9plained and

should ade:uately pro%e the employer’s allegation of the cause

for termination.

*oney claims; 4rescription. Jnder Article 1102 of the Ci%il Code&

actions prescribe by the mere lapse of the time prescribed by

law. #hat law may either be the Ci%il Code or special laws asspeci$cally mandated by Article 11?". 'n labor cases& the

special law on prescription is Article !21 of the Labor Code

which pro%ides

Article !21. *oney Claims. All money claims arising from

employer8employee relations accruing during the eGecti%ity of

this Code )#a&& $e -&ed %t#%n t#ree 89 ear) 0rom t#e

t%me t#e (au)e o0 a(t%on a((rued: ot#er%)e t#e )#a&&

$e $arred 0ore/er. (Emphasis supplied3

'bid.; Accrual of money claims. #he Labor Code has no speci$c

pro%ision on when a monetary claim accrues. #hus& again the

general law on prescription applies. Article 11B/ of the Ci%il

Code pro%ides that

Article 11B/. #he time for prescription for all 6inds of actions&

when there is no special pro%ision which ordains otherwise&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/182626.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/182626.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/182626.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/182626.htm


20/25

shall be counted 0rom t#e da t#e ma $e $rou'#t.

(Emphasis supplied3

#he day the action may be brought is the day a claim started as

a legal possibility. 'n the present case& the day came when

petitioner learned of Asia6onstru6t’s deduction from his salaryof the amount of ad%ances he had recei%ed but had& by his

claim& been settled& the same ha%ing been reNected in his

payslips& hence& it is assumed that he learned of it at the time

he recei%ed his monthly paychec6s. (Anabe %s. Asian

Construction& et al.& +.,. -o. 1"0!00& ecember !0& !//2.3

B. 4ermanent disability and #otal disability; *eaning. ermanent

disa!ility is inability of a wor6er to perform his job for more than

1!/ days& regardless of whether or not he loses the use of anypart of his body.

"otal disa!ility & on the other hand& means the disablement of an

employee to earn wages in the same 6ind of wor6 of similar

nature that he was trained for& or accustomed to perform& or

any 6ind of wor6 which a person of his mentality and

attainments could do. 't does not mean absolute helplessness.

'n disability compensation& it is not the injury which is

compensated& but rather it is the incapacity to wor6 resulting in

the impairment of one’s earning capacity. ('loreta %s. 4hilippine

#ransmarine Carriers& 'nc. et al.& +.,. -o. 1"02/"& ecember ?&

!//2.3

>. ismissal based on grounds not alleged in the notice of

termination not necessarily illegal.Although petitioner was

dismissed from wor6 by the respondent on the ground of

insubordination& this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that

the ground of se9ual abuse committed against petitioner’s

subordinate actually e9ists and was established by substantial

e%idence before the LA. #he LA would be rendered inutile if she

would just seal her lips after $nding that a just cause for

dismissal e9ists merely because the said ground was not stated

in the notice of termination.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183233.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183233.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183233.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183233.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183908.htm


21/25

e9ual abuse by manager ground for termination. As a

manager& petitioner enjoyed the full trust and con$dence of

respondent and his subordinates. >1&

ecember ?& !//2.3

. ismissal of corporate ocer falls under the jurisdiction of

regular courts not -L,C. A corporate ocer’s dismissal is

always a corporate act& or an intra8corporate contro%ersy which

arises between a stoc6holder and a corporation. #he :uestion of

remuneration in%ol%ing a stoc6holder and ocer& not a mereemployee& is not a simple labor problem but a matter that

comes within the area of corporate aGairs and management

and is a corporate contro%ersy in contemplation of the

Corporation Code.

#he determination of the rights of a director and corporate

ocer dismissed from his employment as well as the

corresponding liability of a corporation& if any& is an intra8

corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regularcourts. (@6ol %s. limmers Iorld 'nternational& et al.& +.,. -o.

1>/1?>& ecember 11& !//2.3

". Labor8only contracting; 4ure supply of manpower to assist in

sales and distribution of products is prohibited as labor8only

contracting. 'n plainer terms& the contracted personnel (acting

as sales route helpers3 were only engaged in the marginal wor6

of helping in the sale and distribution of company products;

http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/02/24/managerial-employee/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/170661.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/170661.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/160146.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/160146.htmhttp://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/02/24/managerial-employee/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/170661.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/170661.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/160146.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/160146.htm


22/25

they only pro%ided the muscle wor6 that sale and distribution

re:uired and were thus necessarily under the company’s control

and super%ision in doing these tas6s.

till another way of putting it is that the contractors were not

independently selling and distributing company products& using

their own e:uipment& means and methods of selling and

distribution; they only supplied the manpower that helped the

company in the handing of products for sale and distribution. 'n

the conte9t of .@. 1"8/!& the contracting for sale and

distribution as an independent and self8contained operation is a

legitimate contract& but the pure supply of manpower with the

tas6 of assisting in sales and distribution controlled by a

principal falls within prohibited labor8only contracting. (Coca8

cola 2& ecember

1?& !//2.3

'bid.; 4eriod or duration of the stay order. 4etitioners see6 to

ha%e the suspension of proceedings lifted on the ground that

the EC already appro%ed respondent JIC'’s A,4. Howe%er&

there is no legal ground to do so because the suspensi%e eGect

of the stay order is not time8bound. #he stay order continues tobe in eGect as long as reasonably necessary to accomplish its

purpose. ( #iangco %s. Jniwide& +.,. -o. 1>">2& ecember 1?&

!//2.3

1/. rug8ree Ior6place 4olicy; 'mportance of con$rmatory test

after drug test. #he importance of the con$rmatory test is

underscored in 4lantation B& re:uiring that a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184977.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/168697.htm


23/25

con$rmatory test must be conducted if an employee is found

positi%e for drugs in the Employee’s 4rior creening #est& and

that both tests must arri%e at the same positi%e result.


24/25

designated doctor in accordance with the post8employment

medical e9amination re:uirement under paragraph 0 of ection

!/(


25/25

law for the employer to faithfully comply with. 'ts compulsory

character is mandated& not to cater to a narrow segment of

society& or to fa%or labor at the e9pense of management& but to

ser%e the greater interest of society by maintaining the

economic e:uilibrium.

'bid.; 'mplementation of return to wor6 order cannot be made to

depend upon the discretion of the employer. Certainly& the

determination of who among the stri6ers could be admitted

bac6 to wor6 cannot be made to depend upon the discretion of

employer& lest we strip the certi$cation or assumption8of8

jurisdiction orders of the coerci%e power that is necessary for

attaining their laudable objecti%e. #he return8to8wor6 order does

not interfere with the management’s prerogati%e& but merely

regulates it when& in the e9ercise of such right& national

interests will be aGected. #he rights granted by the Constitution

are not absolute. #hey are still subject to control and limitation

to ensure that they are not e9ercised arbitrarily. #he interests of

both the employers and employees are intended to be

protected and not one of them is gi%en undue preference. ( Q

Employees Jnion %s. Q Laboratories& 'nc.& +.,. -o. 1BB1!B&

ecember ?& !//2.3Last #dited$ riday& August 12& !/11

Ca/eat3 ubse:uent court and administrati%e rulings& or

changes to& or repeal of& laws& rules and regulations may ha%e

rendered the whole or part of this article inaccurate or obsolete.

httpRRwww.laborlaw.usc8law.orgR!/1/R/?R1Rdecember8

!//2R
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/04/17/december-2009/http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/04/17/december-2009/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/155125.htmhttp://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/04/17/december-2009/http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2010/04/17/december-2009/

Documents

Employee found guilty of habitual absenteeism and tardiness not entitled to economic assistance.docx