1. GANDARA MILL SUPPLY v.

NLRC
FACTS: Private respondent Silvestre Germane did not report for work because his wife
delivered their first child. He did not however notify his employer, causing a disruption in the
business of the latter. When the respondent returned to work he was surprised upon knowing
that someone has been hired to take his place.

ISSUE: Was there a case of illegal dismissal?

HELD: Yes. It appeared that the respondent was illegally dismissed. While a prolonged absence
without leave may constitute as a just cause for dismissal, its illegality stems from the non-
observance of due process. Applying the WenPhil Doctrine by analogy, where dismissal was not
preceded by the twin requirement of notice and hearing, the illegality of the dismissal in question,
is under heavy clouds and therefore illegal.

GANDARA VS. NLRC, 300 SCRA 702 (1998) G.R NO. 126703 Dec 29, 1998 | PURISIMA, J.
Petitioner/s: GANDARA MILL SUPPLY and MILAGROS SY Respondents: THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SILVESTRE GERMANO

Doctrine: "The Social Justice policy mandates a compassionate attitude toward the working
class in its relation to management. In calling for the protection to labor, the Constitution does
not condone wrongdoing by the employee, it nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanctions
that may be applied to him in the light of the many disadvantages that weigh heavily on him like
an albatross on his neck."

Facts:
• Germano was an employee of Gandara Mill Supply, owned by Milagros Sy.
• Gandara Mill Supply is a small business with two employees doing manual work, one of them
being Germano.
• From Feb 6 1995 to Feb 11 1995 Germano did not report to work. o His wife was about to
deliver their baby. o His wife gave birth on Feb 12. o Sy extended financial assistance to the
couple at the same time.
• Sy avers that Germano’s absence, without informing him, resulted in untold difficulties in its
operation, being left with only one worker.
• Germano returned to work two weeks after and was personally told by Sy that another person
has been hired to take his place, and that he may be readmitted in June 1996.
• Germano instituted an illegal dismissal complaint with the DOLE on Feb 27, 1995. Germano
refused PhP 5,000 offered by Sy “to buy peace.” • The Labor Arbiter directed the parties to
submit position papers, with the deadline on April 28, 1995, extended to May 5, 1995. o Sy
failed to submit their position paper.
• The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on January 29, 1996, finding illegal dismissal. o
"WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered ordering respondent/s Gandara Mill Supply and/or
Milagros Sy to pay complainant Silvestre Germano the sum of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS AND 90/100 (P65,685.90) representing separation pay,
backwages, SLIP and attorney's fee as iscussed and computed above."
• Sy appealed to the NLRC on March 4, 1996. o The NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to
post a cash or surety bond on May 22, 1996. o Sy invoked a ground for exemption from posting
a bond due to their business being small, or an extention of up to 20 days to put up a bond. •
Meanwhile, a Motion for Execution was granted in favor of Germano on Sept 6, 1996.
• Hence this action for Certiorari under Rule 65.

Issues :W/N Germano was illegally dismissed.

Ruling: YES
Germano was illegally dismissed. While a prolonged absence without leave may constitute as
a just cause of dismissal, its illegality stems from the non-observance of due process. Applying
the WenPhil Doctrine by analogy, where dismissal was not preceded by the twin requirement of
notice and hearing, the legality of the dismissal in question, is under heavy clouds and therefore
illegal.
Neither can it be said that Germano was merely suspended, as he was offered to be re-
admitted June the following year. The supposed suspension was expected to last for more than
the period allowed by law, thus making the suspension constitutive of an illegal dismissal.
On social justice: Granting arguendo that Germano’s absence engendered undue difficulty to
the smooth operations of Sy’s business, considering the situation of Germano, his dismissal is
unwarranted. In holding the constitutional mandate of protection to labor, the rigid rules of
procedure may sometimes be dispensed with to give room for compassion. The doctrine of
"compassionate justice" is applicable under the premises, private respondent being the
breadwinner of his family.
"The Social Justice policy mandates a compassionate attitude toward the working class in its
relation to management. In calling for the protection to labor, the Constitution does not condone
wrongdoing by the employee, it nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanctions that may be
applied to him in
 2. IMASEN PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs
RAMONCHITO T. ALCON and JOANN S. PAPA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 194884 October 22, 2014

TOPIC: Sexual intercourse in workplace during work hours as serious misconduct

FACTS:
Petitioner Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation is a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacture of auto seat-recliners and slide-adjusters. It hired the respondents
as manual welders in 2001.
On October 5, 2002, the respondents reported for work on the second shift – from
8:00 pm to 5:00 am of the following day. At around 12:40 am, Cyrus A. Altiche, Imasen’s
security guard on duty, went to patrol and inspect the production plant’s premises. When Altiche
reached Imasen’s Press Area, he heard the sound of a running industrial fan. Intending to turn
the fan off, he followed the sound that led him to the plant’s “Tool and Die” section.
At the “Tool and Die” section, Altiche saw the respondents having sexual intercourse
on the floor, using a piece of carton as mattress. Altiche immediately went back to the guard
house and relayed what he saw to Danilo S. Ogana, another security guard on duty.
Respondent’s defense: they claimed that they were merely sleeping in the “Tool and
Die” section at the time of the incident. They also claimed that other employees were near the
area, making the commission of the act charged impossible.
Both LA and NLRC held that the dismissal was valid. CA however nullified NLRC’s
decision and held that sexual intercourse inside company premises is not serious misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondents’ infraction – engaging in sexual intercourse inside company
premises during work hours – amounts to serious misconduct justifying their dismissal.

HELD:
YES. Sexual acts and intimacies between two consenting adults belong, as a
principled ideal, to the realm of purely private relations. Whether aroused by lust or inflamed by
sincere affection, sexual acts should be carried out at such place, time and circumstance that,
by the generally accepted norms of conduct, will not offend public decency nor disturb the
generally held or accepted social morals. Under these parameters, sexual acts between two
consenting adults do not have a place in the work environment.

Indisputably, the respondents engaged in sexual intercourse inside company

premises and during work hours. These circumstances, by themselves, are already punishable
misconduct. Added to these considerations, however, is the implication that the respondents did
not only disregard company rules but flaunted their disregard in a manner that could reflect
adversely on the status of ethics and morality in the company.
Additionally, the respondents engaged in sexual intercourse in an area where co-
employees or other company personnel have ready and available access. The respondents
likewise committed their act at a time when the employees were expected to be and had, in fact,
been at their respective posts, and when they themselves were supposed to be, as all other
employees had in fact been, working.
The Court also considered the respondents’ misconduct to be of grave and
aggravated character so that the company was justified in imposing the highest penalty
available ― dismissal.
Their infraction transgressed the bounds of socially and morally accepted human
public behavior, and at the same time showed brazen disregard for the respect that their
employer expected of them as employees. By their misconduct, the respondents, in effect,
issued an open invitation for others to commit the same infraction, with like disregard for their
employer’s rules, for the respect owed to their employer, and for their co-employees’
sensitivities.

3.Perez et al., vs. Phil Telegraph & Telephone Company et al., G.R. No. 152048, April 7,
2009

Facts:
Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria were employed by Philippine Telegraph and Telephone
Company (PT&T) as shipping clerk and supervisor, respectively, in PT&T’s Shipping Section,
Materials Management Group. Acting on an alleged unsigned letter regarding anomalous
transactions at the Shipping Section, PT&T formed a special audit team to investigate the
matter. It was discovered that the Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for
goods shipped and that the duplicates of the shipping documents allegedly showed traces of
tampering, alteration and superimposition. Perez and Doria were placed on preventive
suspension for 30 days for their alleged involvement in the anomaly. Their suspension was
extended for 15 days twice. A memorandum was issued by PT&T dismissing them from service
for having falsified company documents. Perez and Doria filed a complaint for illegal suspension
and illegal dismissal, alleging that they were dismissed on the date they received the
memorandum. They likewise contended that due process was not observed in the absence of a
hearing in which they could have explained their side and refuted the evidence against them.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of Perez and Doria was legal.
Ruling:
The dismissal is illegal. PT&T did not observe due process when it failed to comply with the two-
notice requirement for terminating employees.
ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions. — x x x (b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to
security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and
authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this
Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a
written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter
ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if
he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to
guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the
employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of
his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause
shall rest on the employer.

Perez and Doria were neither apprised of the charges against them nor given a chance to
defend themselves. They were simply and arbitrarily separated from work and served notices of
termination in total disregard of their rights to due process and security of tenure. Where the
dismissal was without just or authorized cause and there was no due process, Article 279 of the
Labor Code, mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time
of actual reinstatement. However, reinstatement is no longer possible because of the length of
time that has passed from the date of the incident to final resolution.
*** In this case, due process was not observed because of the violation of the twin – notice
requirement.
However, the absence of a hearing does not always result to a denial of due process.
The court had the following to say:
While a formal hearing or conference is ideal, it is not an absolute, mandatory or exclusive
avenue of due process. An employee’s right to be heard in termination cases is satisfied not
only by a formal face to face confrontation but by any meaningful opportunity to controvert the
charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof. "To be heard" does not mean
verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written
explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the phrase "ample opportunity to be
heard" may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a formal hearing only.
The following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing requirement in dismissal
cases:
(a) "ample opportunity to be heard" means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given
to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his
defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.
(b) a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee
in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it, or
when similar circumstances justify it.
(c) the "ample opportunity to be heard" standard in the Labor Code prevails over the "hearing or
conference" requirement in the implementing rules and regulations.