St. Louise College of Tuguegarao vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 74214, Aug.

31, 1989

Issue:

Whether or not private respondents Bernabe Avera and Jose Simangan, who were illegally dismissed, are still entitled for reinstatement depite their old age?

Held:

No. It is no longer feasible in view of their advanced age. The public respondent's order for the private respondents' reinstatement to their former positions is no longer possible under the circumstances. An award equivalent to three
years back wages plus separation pay to compensate for their illegal separation is thus proper. At the time of their dismissal in 1979, Avera and Simangan were already 71 and 73 years old, respectively, and could not be expected to
continue much longer, or indefinitely, in the petitioner's employ. It is only fair, therefore, that they be allowed back pay only for the period of three years as in the case of other illegally dismissed employees. Indeed, such a concession
would be generous in their case as it could not be expected that they could obtain employment elsewhere at their age, especially with tenure.

Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 125671, January 28, 2000
Issue:

Whether or not there was an ample evidence proving that private respondent has the intent to defraud Mr. Hu by overcharging his bill and therefore she should be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

Held:

No. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the right of an employer to dismiss employees on account of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily. Just cause must be shown, so as not to render the employee's
constitutional right to security of tenure nugatory. Besides, for loss of confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, the basis thereof must arise from particular proven facts. In other words, this ground must be founded on facts
established by the employer who must clearly and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the employee may be fairly made to rest; otherwise the dismissal will be rendered
illegal. In the instant case, petitioner failed to prove by ample evidence that private respondent intended to defraud Mr. Hu, as herein explained. Hence, there is no basis for petitioner to claim it lost the trust and confidence it had
reposed upon private respondent.

Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc., G.R. No. 162419, July 10, 2007
Issue:

Whether or not the seafarer, who was prevented from leaving the port of Manila and refused deployment without valid reason but whose POEA-approved employment contract provides that the employer-employee relationship shall
commence only upon the seafarer’s actual departure from the port in the point of hire, is entitled to relief.

Held:

Yes. Respondent’s act of preventing petitioner from departing the port of Manila and boarding "MSV Seaspread" constitutes a breach of contract, giving rise to petitioner’s cause of action. Respondent unilaterally and unreasonably
reneged on its obligation to deploy petitioner and must therefore answer for the actual damages he suffered. The Court also holds that petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees in the concept of damages and expenses of litigation.
Attorney's fees are recoverable when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest. Respondent’s failure to deploy petitioner is unfounded and unreasonable, forcing petitioner to
institute the suit below. The award of attorney’s fees is thus warranted.

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs.ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
Issue:

whether or not the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III,
Constitution) and therefore it should be held inadmissible in evidence.

Held:

No. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State
authorities. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the
latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.

G.R. No. 166363 August 15, 2006

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., and J.P. SAMARTZSIS MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO., S.A vs. JERRY MAGUAD and PORFERIO CEUDADANO, Respondents.
Issue:

Whether or not there was a valid dismissal for employee respondents due to incompetence notwithstanding the alleged failure of the employer-petitioner to comply substantially with the two-notice requirement.

Held:

No. There are two requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal: the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and the employee must be afforded due process. Even if there is a valid ground in
dismissing the respondents, the petitioners cannot just dismiss them outright. The petitioners must also comply with the second requisite, which is, to afford the respondents due process. The warning notices given by the petitioners to
the respondents cannot be deemed as substantial compliance with the two-notice requirement since these warning notices did not specify in detail the particular acts or omissions committed by the respondents which showed their
incompetence. Such notices were stated in a general manner. It was never mentioned therein that the petitioners would dismiss the respondents. In the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the petitioners failed to comply with the
second requisite in effecting a valid dismissal, which is to afford the respondents due process.

G.R. No. 157133 January 30, 2006

BUSINESS SERVICES OF THE FUTURE TODAY, INC. and RAMON F. ALLADO, Petitioners, Vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GILBERT C. VERUASA and MA. CELESTINA A. VERUASA, Respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents were validly dismissed on the ground of the closure of the business since the requirement of filing of written notice of closure of business with the Department of Labor and Employment is not applicable
and unnecessary in the case of respondents because they were stockholders and managers of petitioner corporation who took part in the decision to close the business.

Held:
Yes. Notice of closure to the DOLE is mandatory except when the employee consented to his retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operation. The evidence shows that Gilbert Veruasa did not consent to his dismissal. Although
only his correspondences with the petitioners suggest that he was a stockholder of BSFTI, there is no showing that he participated in the alleged stockholders’ meeting where the company’s closure was discussed. For the cessation of
business operations due to serious business losses or financial reverses to be valid, the employer must give the employee and the DOLE written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. However in Agabon v. National
Labor Relations Commission, the Court ruled that where the dismissal is for an authorized cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.

G.R. No. 126937 J une 16, 2000

AURELIO FUERTE and DANILO LEONARDO, petitioners,
vs.
RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY and ROGELIO I. RALAYA, as Chairman and Members of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and REYNALDO'S
MARKETING and/or REYNALDO PADUA,

Issue:
Whether or not the transfer of Fuerte is violative of his security of tenure alleging that he was demoted pursuant to a company policy intended to foster competition among its employees.

Held:
No. The right to demote an employee also falls within the category of management prerogatives. This arrangement appears to be an allowable exercise of company rights. An employer is entitled to impose productivity standards for its
workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. In the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them constitute a just cause of their dismissal,
regardless of the permanent or probationary status of their employment. This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest.

G.R. No. 162850 December 16, 2005

MAXI SECURITY and DETECTIVE AGENCY, represented by its owner ROLANDO P. OCHOA, Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, and GERMAN GUSI, Respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the act of respondent Gusi in not reporting for working for more than a week is a valid ground for dismissal.

Held:
No. For abandonment of work to be a just and valid grounds for dismissal, there must be deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment. The burden of proof is on the employer to show an
unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment. Moreover, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his lay-off
cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work. To succeed in pleading abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal, the employer must prove (1) the intention of an employee to abandon his or her employment and (2) an overt
act from which such intention may be inferred; i.e., the employee showed no desire to resume his work. Mere absence is not sufficient.

G.R. No. 143171 September 21, 2004

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, ANTONIO O. COJUANGCO, JOSE P. DE JESUS, ENRIQUE D. PEREZ, ANTONIO R. SAMSON, RAUL J. PALABRICA, JOSE V. LADIA and NICANOR
E. SACDALAN, petitioners,
vs.
ARTURO RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO, respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not PLDT’s contention that Tolentino is a managerial employee and therefore loss of trust and confidence is enough to defeat the latter’s security of tenure is correct.

Held:
No. There is no dispute over the fact that respondent was a managerial employee and therefore loss of trust and confidence was a ground for his valid dismissal. However, the right of the management to dismiss must be balanced
against the managerial employee’s right to security of tenure which is not one of the guaranties he gives up. The Court has consistently ruled that managerial employees enjoy security of tenure and, although the standards for their
dismissal are less stringent, the loss of trust and confidence must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the managerial employee’s separation from the company. Substantial evidence is of critical
importance and the burden rests on the employer to prove it. Due to its subjective nature, it can easily be concocted by an abusive employer and used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. In the case at
bar, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner’s dismissal was not founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant separation from employment.

St. Louise College of Tuguegarao vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 74214, Aug. 31, 1989

Issue:
Whether or not private respondents Bernabe Avera and Jose Simangan, who were illegally dismissed, are still entitled for reinstatement depite their old age?

Held:
No. It is no longer feasible in view of their advanced age. The public respondent's order for the private respondents' reinstatement to their former positions is no longer possible under the circumstances. An award equivalent to three
years back wages plus separation pay to compensate for their illegal separation is thus proper. At the time of their dismissal in 1979, Avera and Simangan were already 71 and 73 years old, respectively, and could not be expected to
continue much longer, or indefinitely, in the petitioner's employ. It is only fair, therefore, that they be allowed back pay only for the period of three years as in the case of other illegally dismissed employees. Indeed, such a concession
would be generous in their case as it could not be expected that they could obtain employment elsewhere at their age, especially with tenure.

G.R. No. 166363 August 15, 2006

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC., and J.P. SAMARTZSIS MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO., S.A., Petitioners,
vs.
JERRY MAGUAD and PORFERIO CEUDADANO, Respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid dismissal for employee respondents due to incompetence notwithstanding the alleged failure of the employer-petitioner to comply substantially with the two-notice requirement.
Held:
No. There are two requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal: the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and the employee must be afforded due process. Even if there is a valid ground in
dismissing the respondents, the petitioners cannot just dismiss them outright. The petitioners must also comply with the second requisite, which is, to afford the respondents due process. The warning notices given by the petitioners to
the respondents cannot be deemed as substantial compliance with the two-notice requirement since these warning notices did not specify in detail the particular acts or omissions committed by the respondents which showed their
incompetence. Such notices were stated in a general manner. It was never mentioned therein that the petitioners would dismiss the respondents. In the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the petitioners failed to comply with the
second requisite in effecting a valid dismissal, which is to afford the respondents due process.

G.R. No. 157133 January 30, 2006

BUSINESS SERVICES OF THE FUTURE TODAY, INC. and RAMON F. ALLADO, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GILBERT C. VERUASA and MA. CELESTINA A. VERUASA, Respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents were validly dismissed on the ground of the closure of the business since the requirement of filing of written notice of closure of business with the Department of Labor and Employment is not applicable
and unnecessary in the case of respondents because they were stockholders and managers of petitioner corporation who took part in the decision to close the business.

Held:
Yes. Notice of closure to the DOLE is mandatory except when the employee consented to his retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operation. The evidence shows that Gilbert Veruasa did not consent to his dismissal. Although
only his correspondences with the petitioners suggest that he was a stockholder of BSFTI, there is no showing that he participated in the alleged stockholders’ meeting where the company’s closure was discussed. For the cessation of
business operations due to serious business losses or financial reverses to be valid, the employer must give the employee and the DOLE written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. However in Agabon v. National
Labor Relations Commission, the Court ruled that where the dismissal is for an authorized cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.

G.R. No. 126937 J une 16, 2000

AURELIO FUERTE and DANILO LEONARDO, petitioners,
vs.
RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY and ROGELIO I. RALAYA, as Chairman and Members of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and REYNALDO'S
MARKETING and/or REYNALDO PADUA,

Issue:
Whether or not the transfer of Fuerte is violative of his security of tenure alleging that he was demoted pursuant to a company policy intended to foster competition among its employees.

Held:
No. The right to demote an employee also falls within the category of management prerogatives. This arrangement appears to be an allowable exercise of company rights. An employer is entitled to impose productivity standards for its
workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. In the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them constitute a just cause of their dismissal,
regardless of the permanent or probationary status of their employment. This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest.

G.R. No. 162850 December 16, 2005

MAXI SECURITY and DETECTIVE AGENCY, represented by its owner ROLANDO P. OCHOA, Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, and GERMAN GUSI, Respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the act of respondent Gusi in not reporting for working for more than a week is a valid ground for dismissal.

Held:
No. For abandonment of work to be a just and valid grounds for dismissal, there must be deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment. The burden of proof is on the employer to show an
unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment. Moreover, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his lay-off
cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work. To succeed in pleading abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal, the employer must prove (1) the intention of an employee to abandon his or her employment and (2) an overt
act from which such intention may be inferred; i.e., the employee showed no desire to resume his work. Mere absence is not sufficient.

G.R. No. 143171 September 21, 2004

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, ANTONIO O. COJUANGCO, JOSE P. DE JESUS, ENRIQUE D. PEREZ, ANTONIO R. SAMSON, RAUL J. PALABRICA, JOSE V. LADIA and NICANOR
E. SACDALAN, petitioners,
vs.
ARTURO RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO, respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not PLDT’s contention that Tolentino is a managerial employee and therefore loss of trust and confidence is enough to defeat the latter’s security of tenure is correct.

Held:
No. There is no dispute over the fact that respondent was a managerial employee and therefore loss of trust and confidence was a ground for his valid dismissal. However, the right of the management to dismiss must be balanced
against the managerial employee’s right to security of tenure which is not one of the guaranties he gives up. The Court has consistently ruled that managerial employees enjoy security of tenure and, although the standards for their
dismissal are less stringent, the loss of trust and confidence must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the managerial employee’s separation from the company. Substantial evidence is of critical
importance and the burden rests on the employer to prove it. Due to its subjective nature, it can easily be concocted by an abusive employer and used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. In the case at
bar, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner’s dismissal was not founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant separation from employment.