Lawyerly

GR No. 201595

2016-01-25

ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission' of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize."[50] "[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization."[51] "[T]he term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization."[52]

GR No. 194410

2015-10-14

OCEAN EAST AGENCY v. ALLAN I. LOPEZ

PERALTA, J.

While it is true that the characterization of an employee's services as superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer, the exercise of such judgment must not violate the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious.[37] An employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.[38] To dispel any suspicion of bad faith on the part of the employer, it must present adequate proof of the redundancy, as well as the criteria in the selection of the employees affected. The following evidence may be proffered to substantiate redundancy, to wit: the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal on the viability of the newly-created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.[39]

AM No. CA-15-31-P

2015-06-16

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY

PER CURIAM

In the present case, Dianco’s ressignment did not amount to any substantial change in title, rank, and salary. Although he suggests that his reassignment was done in bad faith, he failed to substantiate his allegations with supporting evidence. Dianco must be reminded that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc. teaches us,[85] “basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.”

GR No. 187226

2015-01-28

CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE WESTGROVE

REYES, J.

"It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it"[63] since basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.[64] "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."[65]

GR No. 202996

2014-06-18

MARLO A. DEOFERIO v. INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

Intel shall be solely liable to Deoferio for the satisfaction of nominal damages. Wentling, as a corporate officer, cannot be held liable for acts done in his official capacity because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders, and members. There is also no ground for piercing the veil of corporate fiction because Wentling acted in good faith and merely relied on Dr. Lee's psychiatric report in carrying out the dismissal.[48]

GR No. 171664

2013-03-06

BANKARD v. NLRC – FIRST DIVISION

MENDOZA, J.

The Court has ruled that the prohibited acts considered as ULP relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. It refers to "acts that violate the workers' right to organize."[27] Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not ULP.[28] Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize.[29]

GR No. 164662

2013-02-18

MARIA LOURDES C. DE JESUS v. RAUL T. AQUINO

BERSAMIN, J.

Although Agabon,being promulgated only on November 17, 2004, ought to be prospective, not retroactive, in its operation because its language did not expressly state that it would also operate retroactively,[26] the Court has already deemed it to be the wise judicial course to let its abandonment of Serrano be retroactive as its means of giving effect to its recognition of the unfairness of declaring illegal or ineffectual dismissals for valid or authorized causes but not complying with statutory due process.[27] Under Agabon, the new doctrine is that the failure of the employer to observe the requirements of due process in favor of the dismissed employee (that is, the two-written notices rule) should not invalidate or render ineffectual the dismissal for just or authorized cause. The Agabon Court plainly saw the likelihood of Serrano producing unfair but far-reaching consequences, such as, but not limited to, encouraging frivolous suits where even the most notorious violators of company policies would be rewarded by invoking due process; to having the constitutional policy of providing protection to labor be used as a sword to oppress the employers; and to compelling the employers to continue employing persons who were admittedly guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance and whose continued employment would be patently inimical to the interest of employers.[28]

GR No. 181180

2012-08-15

PHILASIA SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION v. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.,[33] this Court explained: While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general rule admits of exceptions. When there is a showing that a palpable and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been committed or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be examined by the courts.[34]

GR No. 185829

2012-04-25

ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

In alleging that WWWEC acted in bad faith, Aliling has the burden of proof to present evidence in support of his claim, as ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.:[46]

GR No. 181974

2012-02-01

LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES v. ANDRES G. ARIOLA

PEREZ, J.

Applying the rule to the facts at hand, we grant a monetary award of P50,000.00 as nominal damages, this, pursuant to the fresh ruling of this Court in Culili v. Eastern Communication Philippines, Inc.[45] Due to the failure of Lynvil to follow the procedural requirement of two-notice rule, nominal damages are due to respondents despite their dismissal for just cause.

GR No. 187107

2012-01-31

UNITED CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

VELASCO JR., J.

It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As the Court ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc.,[5] "According to jurisprudence, `basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.' " Moreover, in Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation,[6] the Court stated, "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."

GR No. 171993

2011-12-12

MARC II MARKETING v. ALFREDO M. JOSON

PEREZ, J.

As previously discussed, respondent's dismissal was due to an authorized cause, however, petitioner corporation failed to observe procedural due process in effecting such dismissal. In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., [52] this Court made the following pronouncements, thus: x x x there are two aspects which characterize the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one is substantive whether the termination of employment was based on the provision of the Labor Code or in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence; the other is procedural the manner in which the dismissal was effected.

	GR No. 201595 2016-01-25	ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission' of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize."[50] "[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization."[51] "[T]he term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization."[52]
	GR No. 194410 2015-10-14	OCEAN EAST AGENCY v. ALLAN I. LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
While it is true that the characterization of an employee's services as superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer, the exercise of such judgment must not violate the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious.[37] An employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.[38] To dispel any suspicion of bad faith on the part of the employer, it must present adequate proof of the redundancy, as well as the criteria in the selection of the employees affected. The following evidence may be proffered to substantiate redundancy, to wit: the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal on the viability of the newly-created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.[39]
	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
In the present case, Dianco’s ressignment did not amount to any substantial change in title, rank, and salary. Although he suggests that his reassignment was done in bad faith, he failed to substantiate his allegations with supporting evidence. Dianco must be reminded that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc. teaches us,[85] “basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.”
	GR No. 187226 2015-01-28	CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE WESTGROVE REYES, J.
"It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it"[63] since basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.[64] "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."[65]
	GR No. 202996 2014-06-18	MARLO A. DEOFERIO v. INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Intel shall be solely liable to Deoferio for the satisfaction of nominal damages. Wentling, as a corporate officer, cannot be held liable for acts done in his official capacity because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders, and members. There is also no ground for piercing the veil of corporate fiction because Wentling acted in good faith and merely relied on Dr. Lee's psychiatric report in carrying out the dismissal.[48]
	GR No. 171664 2013-03-06	BANKARD v. NLRC – FIRST DIVISION MENDOZA, J.
The Court has ruled that the prohibited acts considered as ULP relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. It refers to "acts that violate the workers' right to organize."[27] Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not ULP.[28] Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize.[29]
	GR No. 164662 2013-02-18	MARIA LOURDES C. DE JESUS v. RAUL T. AQUINO BERSAMIN, J.
Although Agabon,being promulgated only on November 17, 2004, ought to be prospective, not retroactive, in its operation because its language did not expressly state that it would also operate retroactively,[26] the Court has already deemed it to be the wise judicial course to let its abandonment of Serrano be retroactive as its means of giving effect to its recognition of the unfairness of declaring illegal or ineffectual dismissals for valid or authorized causes but not complying with statutory due process.[27] Under Agabon, the new doctrine is that the failure of the employer to observe the requirements of due process in favor of the dismissed employee (that is, the two-written notices rule) should not invalidate or render ineffectual the dismissal for just or authorized cause. The Agabon Court plainly saw the likelihood of Serrano producing unfair but far-reaching consequences, such as, but not limited to, encouraging frivolous suits where even the most notorious violators of company policies would be rewarded by invoking due process; to having the constitutional policy of providing protection to labor be used as a sword to oppress the employers; and to compelling the employers to continue employing persons who were admittedly guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance and whose continued employment would be patently inimical to the interest of employers.[28]
	GR No. 181180 2012-08-15	PHILASIA SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION v. ANDRES G. TOMACRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.,[33] this Court explained: While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general rule admits of exceptions. When there is a showing that a palpable and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been committed or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be examined by the courts.[34]
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
In alleging that WWWEC acted in bad faith, Aliling has the burden of proof to present evidence in support of his claim, as ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.:[46]
	GR No. 181974 2012-02-01	LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES v. ANDRES G. ARIOLA PEREZ, J.
Applying the rule to the facts at hand, we grant a monetary award of P50,000.00 as nominal damages, this, pursuant to the fresh ruling of this Court in Culili v. Eastern Communication Philippines, Inc.[45] Due to the failure of Lynvil to follow the procedural requirement of two-notice rule, nominal damages are due to respondents despite their dismissal for just cause.
	GR No. 187107 2012-01-31	UNITED CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION VELASCO JR., J.
It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As the Court ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc.,[5] "According to jurisprudence, `basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.' " Moreover, in Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation,[6] the Court stated, "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."
	GR No. 171993 2011-12-12	MARC II MARKETING v. ALFREDO M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
As previously discussed, respondent's dismissal was due to an authorized cause, however, petitioner corporation failed to observe procedural due process in effecting such dismissal. In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., [52] this Court made the following pronouncements, thus: x x x there are two aspects which characterize the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one is substantive whether the termination of employment was based on the provision of the Labor Code or in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence; the other is procedural the manner in which the dismissal was effected.

NELSON A. CULILI v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES