Lawyerly

GR No. 164181

2011-09-14

NISSAN MOTORS PHILS. v. VICTORINO ANGELO

PERALTA, J.

Petitioner argues that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should have been accorded respect by the CA as they are based on substantial evidence. However, factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside if they fail the test of arbitrariness.[13] In the present case, the findings of the CA differ from those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.[14]

GR No. 181919

2011-07-20

JONES INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. BELLA AGCAOILI-BARIT

BRION, J.

The Court, as a rule, [26] is bound by the factual findings of the CA, but has the discretion to reexamine the evidence in a case when a basic conflict exists between the CA's findings of fact and those of the NLRC. [27] In this case, such conflict exists and we need to reexamine their findings to determine: (1) whether Barit had been underpaid and/or had not been paid her wages during her employment in Saudi Arabia; and (2) whether the agency is solidarily liable with the foreign employer if Barit is indeed entitled to her money claims.

GR No. 169523

2010-06-16

LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS

PERALTA, J.

As a final note, the Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket.[46] Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable cause.[47] Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the cited grounds cannot be allowed.[48]

GR No. 175040

2010-04-06

FRANCIS RAY TALAM v. NLRC

BRION, J.

TSFI asks the Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground that it is procedurally defective as, allegedly, it raises only questions of fact, in contravention of the requirement under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that an appeal by certiorari shall raise only questions of law. While the petition indeed poses factual issues - i.e., whether the company was suffering from substantial losses to justify a retrenchment measure, whether it observed fair and reasonable standards in implementing a retrenchment, and whether Talam deserved to be retrenched - we deem it proper to examine the facts ourselves in view of the conflicting factual findings among the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA.[35]

GR No. 177114

2010-01-21

MANOLO A. PEÑAFLOR v. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

BRION, J.

Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code - that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.[28] As shown above, Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the company's case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor's favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the company's chief corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment.[29]

GR No. 179293

2009-08-14

EDEN LLAMAS v. OCEAN GATEWAY MARITIME

CARPIO MORALES, J.

x x x Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer's interest.[12] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 167345

2007-11-23

E PACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER v. MA. LOURDES CABANSAY

NACHURA, J.

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; x x x x (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[43] On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[44]

GR NO. 165995

2007-08-14

SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

It is settled that to constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. This means that an employer can terminate the services of an employee for just and valid causes, which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. It also means that, procedurally, the employee must be given notice, with adequate opportunity to be heard, before he is notified of his actual dismissal for cause.[11]

GR NO. 165960

2007-02-08

JEFFREY O. TORREDA v. TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[77] the Court explained the nature of serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal from employment:Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however, serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer's interest.[78]

GR NO. 162468

2007-01-23

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ZENAIDA R. GARAY

QUISUMBING, J.

To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[11] Such ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature.[12]

GR NO. 162342

2006-10-11

JAIME H. BALLAO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Article 282[19] of the Labor Code, provides that serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust are valid causes for the employer to terminate an employee. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. But such serious misconduct must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his termination.[20] However, as earlier discoursed, the serious misconduct of which petitioner is accused has not been sufficiently, definitively and convincingly shown.

GR NO. 167177

2006-09-27

ESTRELLA S. BAÑEZ v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

For a dismissal to be valid, it must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code and the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. An employer can terminate the services of an employee for just and valid causes, which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The employee must be given notice, with adequate opportunity to be heard, before he is notified of his actual dismissal for cause.[24]

GR NO. 165465

2006-09-13

LOIDA V. MALABAGO v. NLRC

PUNO, J.

First, we find that petitioner's dismissal was valid. Two requisites must concur for the valid termination of an employee's services: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.[17]

GR NO. 157619

2006-07-17

C.F. SHARP v. RENATO ZIALCITA

QUISUMBING, J.

As Assistant Crewing Manager, the respondent occupied a position of responsibility, imbued with trust and confidence. To be a valid ground for dismissal, however, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. Further, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[18] It must be premised on the fact that the employee concerned is invested with delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[19]

GR NO. 148544

2006-07-12

FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]

GR NO. 153784

2005-10-25

ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA

TINGA, J.

However, if there are competing factual findings by the different triers of fact, such as those made in this case by the labor arbiter on one hand, and those of the NLRC and Court of Appeals on the other hand, this Court is compelled to go over the records of the case, as well as the submissions of the parties, and resolve the factual issues.[12] With this in mind, we shall now proceed to examine the decisions under review.

	GR No. 164181 2011-09-14	NISSAN MOTORS PHILS. v. VICTORINO ANGELO PERALTA, J.
Petitioner argues that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should have been accorded respect by the CA as they are based on substantial evidence. However, factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside if they fail the test of arbitrariness.[13] In the present case, the findings of the CA differ from those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.[14]
	GR No. 181919 2011-07-20	JONES INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. BELLA AGCAOILI-BARIT BRION, J.
The Court, as a rule, [26] is bound by the factual findings of the CA, but has the discretion to reexamine the evidence in a case when a basic conflict exists between the CA's findings of fact and those of the NLRC. [27] In this case, such conflict exists and we need to reexamine their findings to determine: (1) whether Barit had been underpaid and/or had not been paid her wages during her employment in Saudi Arabia; and (2) whether the agency is solidarily liable with the foreign employer if Barit is indeed entitled to her money claims.
	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
As a final note, the Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket.[46] Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable cause.[47] Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged is not borne by clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the cited grounds cannot be allowed.[48]
	GR No. 175040 2010-04-06	FRANCIS RAY TALAM v. NLRC BRION, J.
TSFI asks the Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground that it is procedurally defective as, allegedly, it raises only questions of fact, in contravention of the requirement under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that an appeal by certiorari shall raise only questions of law. While the petition indeed poses factual issues - i.e., whether the company was suffering from substantial losses to justify a retrenchment measure, whether it observed fair and reasonable standards in implementing a retrenchment, and whether Talam deserved to be retrenched - we deem it proper to examine the facts ourselves in view of the conflicting factual findings among the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA.[35]
	GR No. 177114 2010-01-21	MANOLO A. PEÑAFLOR v. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION BRION, J.
Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code - that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.[28] As shown above, Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the company's case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor's favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the company's chief corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment.[29]
	GR No. 179293 2009-08-14	EDEN LLAMAS v. OCEAN GATEWAY MARITIME CARPIO MORALES, J.
x x x Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer's interest.[12] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 167345 2007-11-23	E PACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER v. MA. LOURDES CABANSAY NACHURA, J.
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; x x x x (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[43] On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[44]
	GR NO. 165995 2007-08-14	SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
It is settled that to constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. This means that an employer can terminate the services of an employee for just and valid causes, which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. It also means that, procedurally, the employee must be given notice, with adequate opportunity to be heard, before he is notified of his actual dismissal for cause.[11]
	GR NO. 165960 2007-02-08	JEFFREY O. TORREDA v. TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[77] the Court explained the nature of serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal from employment:Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however, serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer's interest.[78]
	GR NO. 162468 2007-01-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ZENAIDA R. GARAY QUISUMBING, J.
To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[11] Such ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature.[12]
	GR NO. 162342 2006-10-11	JAIME H. BALLAO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Article 282[19] of the Labor Code, provides that serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust are valid causes for the employer to terminate an employee. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. But such serious misconduct must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to constitute just cause for his termination.[20] However, as earlier discoursed, the serious misconduct of which petitioner is accused has not been sufficiently, definitively and convincingly shown.
	GR NO. 167177 2006-09-27	ESTRELLA S. BAÑEZ v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For a dismissal to be valid, it must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code and the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. An employer can terminate the services of an employee for just and valid causes, which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The employee must be given notice, with adequate opportunity to be heard, before he is notified of his actual dismissal for cause.[24]
	GR NO. 165465 2006-09-13	LOIDA V. MALABAGO v. NLRC PUNO, J.
First, we find that petitioner's dismissal was valid. Two requisites must concur for the valid termination of an employee's services: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.[17]
	GR NO. 157619 2006-07-17	C.F. SHARP v. RENATO ZIALCITA QUISUMBING, J.
As Assistant Crewing Manager, the respondent occupied a position of responsibility, imbued with trust and confidence. To be a valid ground for dismissal, however, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. Further, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[18] It must be premised on the fact that the employee concerned is invested with delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[19]
	GR NO. 148544 2006-07-12	FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]
	GR NO. 153784 2005-10-25	ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA TINGA, J.
However, if there are competing factual findings by the different triers of fact, such as those made in this case by the labor arbiter on one hand, and those of the NLRC and Court of Appeals on the other hand, this Court is compelled to go over the records of the case, as well as the submissions of the parties, and resolve the factual issues.[12] With this in mind, we shall now proceed to examine the decisions under review.

FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. CA