Voyeur Visage Studio v. CA, G.R. No. 144939.
March 18, 2005
FACTS:
Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. (petitioner) and Anna Melissa del Mundo (respondent) are involved in
a dispute.Melissa was hired by the petitioner on a 6-month probationary basis as a Production
and Planning Coordinator/Receptionist.
During her employment, a delivery of Kodak papers was made to the studio, which Melissa
received.Two boxes of Kodak papers worth P6,000 were later discovered to be missing.
The petitioner held Melissa responsible for the shortage and deducted P250 from her salary per
week until the amount was fully paid. After about nine months, Melissa received a memorandum
from the petitioner informing her of her termination. Melissa protested her dismissal, claiming that
she was already a regular employee at the time.
ISSUE: Whether or not Melissa was a regular employee at the time of her dismissal.
RULING: Yes.
The Court of Appeals (CA) held that Melissa was a regular employee and that her dismissal was
illegal due to lack of a valid and just cause and non-observance of due process.
Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code put an end to the pernicious practice of making
permanent casuals of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them
probationary appointments, ad infinitum. The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a
probationary employment, during which the bank determined the employees’ fitness for the job.
When the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the
employees thereby became regular employees. No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely
the fitness of its employees.
Being a regular employee, Melissa enjoys the protection of the Labor Code on security of tenure
and termination of employment only upon compliance with the legal requisites for a valid
dismissal, which requisites embrace both substantive and procedural aspects, as pointed out
Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba vs. Villas
Under the Labor Code, there are twin requirements to justify a valid dismissal from employment:
(a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code
(substantive aspect) and (b) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself (procedural aspect),non-compliance with which renders the dismissal illegal and
entitles the employee concerned to "reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits, or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement".Here, Melissa’s dismissal was not based on any of the just or
authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code.
Espina, et.al., v. Highlands Camp/Rawlings Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 220935, July 28,
2020
FACTS:
The case involves a group of employees who filed complaints against Highlands
Camp/Rawlings Foundation, Inc. and Jayvelyn Pascal. The employees claimed that they
were regular workers who had been hired by Highlands as cooks, cook helpers, utility
workers, and service crew.
They had been working for Highlands for ten years, reporting for work from January
to June, being on call from July to September, and working daily in October. The employees
argued that their annual rehiring and the services they rendered made them regular
employees, and their termination without valid cause constituted illegal dismissal. Highlands
claimed that the employees were seasonal workers whose employment was limited to a
specific season.
They argued that the employees' work was not necessary or directly related to their
main purpose of evangelization, and that the employees were terminated at the end of each
season and had to reapply for their positions.
ISSUE: Whether the employees are regular or seasonal workers.
RULING: Petitioners were regular employees.
Article 295 of the Labor Code enumerates the different kinds of employment status
Under the law, regular employees are those engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer.In Abasolo v. National
Labor Relations Commission,the Court decreed the standard to determine regular employment
status, thus:
The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also considered
regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. (emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, seasonal employees are those whose work or engagement is seasonal in
nature and their employment is only for the duration of the season,In Universal Robina Sugar
Milling Corporation v. Acibo, the Court expounded on the concept of seasonal employment, thus:
Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project employment, albeit it involves
work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the season. As with project
employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement involves work that is seasonal or
periodic in nature, the employment itself is not automatically considered seasonal so as to
prevent the employee from attaining regular status. To exclude the asserted "seasonal"
employee from those classified as regular employees, the employer must show that: (1) the
employee must be performing work or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been
employed for the duration of the season. Hence, when the "seasonal" workers are continuously
and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the
cessation of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular employment.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
To be classified as seasonal employees, two (2) elements therefore, must concur: (1) they must
be performing work or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) they have been employed for
the duration of the season.
Here, respondents claim that Highlands' business is seasonal in nature and petitioners were
seasonal workers whose employment was limited to a specific season only.
We are not convinced.
Petitioners were not seasonal employees
Respondents failed to show that the elements of seasonal employment are present here.
Mendoza v. Elmer Mendoza, petitioner, was an employee of the Rural Bank of Lucban.
FACTS: In April 1999, the bank's Board of Directors issued resolutions for the reshuffling of
employees. The purpose of the reshuffling was to familiarize employees with different
phases of bank operations and strengthen the internal control system.
Mendoza was transferred from the position of Appraiser to Clerk-Meralco Collection.
Mendoza expressed his disagreement with the reshuffle, claiming it was a demotion and
harassment. Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, separation pay,
and damages against the bank. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Mendoza, but the NLRC
reversed the decision on appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Mendoza was constructively dismissed from his employment.
RULING: No. Mendoza was not constructively dismissed.
Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank
or a diminution of pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to the employee. Petitioner argues that he was compelled to file an action
for constructive dismissal, because he had been demoted from appraiser to clerk and not given
any work to do, while his table had been placed near the toilet and eventually removed.He adds
that the reshuffling of employees was done in bad faith, because it was designed primarily to
force him to resign.
Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. For this reason, courts
often decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. Indeed, labor laws
discourage interference in employers' judgments concerning the conduct of their business.The
law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.
In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or
assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -- provided there is no
demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not
motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion
without sufficient cause. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage
their enterprise effectively.The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested
rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their
assignments or to transfer them.
Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective
bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice
The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the employee has complied with
the foregoing test. In the instant case, we find no reason to disturb the conclusion of the NLRC
and the CA that there was no constructive dismissal. Their finding is supported by substantial
evidence -- that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as justification
for a conclusion.Petitioner's transfer was made in pursuit of respondent's policy to "familiarize
bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing
internal control system" of all officers and employees.
Duncan Association of Detailmen-PTGWO v. GLAXO WELLCOME Phils., Inc. G.R. No. 162994,
September 17, 2004
FACTS:
Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) has a policy that prohibits its employees from marrying
employees of any competitor company. Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by Glaxo as a
medical representative in 1995.
Tecson signed a contract of employment agreeing to disclose any existing or future relationship
with employees of competing drug companies and to resign if such relationship poses a conflict
of interest.Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra
Pharmaceuticals, a competitor of Glaxo, and they got married in 1998.
Glaxo informed Tecson that his marriage to Bettsy created a conflict of interest and asked him to
decide which one of them would resign. Tecson requested for more time to comply with the
company policy, but his request was denied.
Tecson was eventually transferred to a different sales area and excluded from attending
seminars and conferences for medical representatives. Tecson filed a petition for review, arguing
that Glaxo's policy is invalid and that he was constructively dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed.
RULING: NO. The Court found that Tecson was not constructively dismissed.
The Court finds no merit in petitioners' contention that Tescon was constructively dismissed
when he was transferred from the Camarines Norte-Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan
City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area, and when he was excluded from attending the
company's seminar on new products which were directly competing with similar products
manufactured by Astra. Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an involuntary
resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee.30 None of these conditions are present in the instant case. The record does not
show that Tescon was demoted or unduly discriminated upon by reason of such transfer. As
found by the appellate court, Glaxo properly exercised its management prerogative in
reassigning Tecson to the Butuan City sales area:
. . . In this case, petitioner's transfer to another place of assignment was merely in keeping
with the policy of the company in avoidance of conflict of interest, and thus valid Note that
[Tecson's] wife holds a sensitive supervisory position as Branch Coordinator in her
employer-company which requires her to work in close coordination with District Managers
and Medical Representatives. Her duties include monitoring sales of Astra products,
conducting sales drives, establishing and furthering relationship with customers, collection,
monitoring and managing Astra's inventory'she therefore takes an active participation in the
market war characterized as it is by stiff competition among pharmaceutical companies.
Moreover, and this is significant, petitioner's sales territory covers Camarines Sur and
Camarines Norte while his wife is supervising a branch of her employer in Albay. The
proximity of their areas of responsibility, all in the same Bicol Region, renders the conflict of
interest not only possible, but actual, as learning by one spouse of the other's market
strategies in the region would be inevitable.
Automatic Appliances, Inc, v. Francia B. Deguidoy, G.R. No. 228088, December 04, 2019
FACTS:
Francia B. Deguidoy was an employee of Automatic Appliances, Inc. (AAI) and was hired as
a Sales Coordinator in its Cubao Branch in 1998.
In 2013, AAI implemented cost-cutting measures, including closing some branches, and
informed its employees of re-assignments to various branches. Deguidoy was re-assigned to
the Tutuban Branch but failed to reach her sales quota and had numerous unexplained
absences. AAI urged her to undergo counseling to improve her performance, but she
refused.AAI received a letter from the Tutuban Branch Manager reporting Deguidoy's poor
work performance.AAI conducted a review and discovered her low sales output and
absences.
Deguidoy was placed under suspension and was later informed of an intended transfer to
the Ortigas branch.She left during her lunch break and never returned. Deguidoy filed a case
for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not Deguidoy was constructively dismissed by AAI.
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that Deguidoy was not constructively dismissed.
Particularly, under the doctrine of management prerogative, an employer possesses the inherent
rig t to regulate, according to its "own discretion and judgment, all aspects f employment,
including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work
supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of
employees." This wide sphere of authority to regulate its own business may only b curbed by the
limitations imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice. The
importance of discouraging interference is necessary to ensure that the employer may in turn
expect go d performance, satisfactory work, diligence, good conduct and loyalty from its
employees
Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a
transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary without
break in the service or a lateral movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or
salary; (b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an employee for legitimate
business purposes; (c) a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or
bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without sufficient cause; (d) the
employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial
to the employee.
Accordingly, the Court respects the right of the employer to re-assign its employees to other
stations, provided that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, or involve a
demotion in rank or a diminution of salaries, benefits, and other privileges. For as long as said
conditions are met, the employee may not complain that the transfer amounts to a constructive
dismissal
It must be noted at the outset that Deguidoy was not actually transferred to the Ortigas branch.
The facts show that on October 7, 2013, she was verbally informed that management intended to
re-assign her at the Ortigas branch. Apparently, this offer did not sit well with her, and she went
out of the Tutuban store, and no longer returned. Days after the said conversation, she
immediately filed a case for illegal (actual) dismissal on October 14, 2013. Thereafter, she
contumaciously ignored all the directives to report back to work.She construed the
management's decision to transfer her as a form of dismissal. This was based on her
apprehension that the said branch was about to be closed.
The Court does not agree. At any rate, even if the transfer actually took place, said transfer is not
tantamount to a constructive dismissal.
G & S Transport Corp. v. Reynaldo Medina, G.R. No. 243768, September 05, 2022
FACTS:
Reynaldo A. Medina was illegally dismissed from his employment at G & S Transport
Corporation (G & S).
Medina had been employed by G & S as a driver for seven years with no derogatory record. On
February 12, 2015, Medina had a heated argument with a co-employee, Felix Pogoy, which
escalated into a physical altercation.
G & S claimed that Medina was drunk and assaulted Pogoy to the point of boxing and strangling
him. Medina was placed under preventive suspension and later terminated from employment on
March 20, 2015, for violating the Code of Discipline.
ISSUE: Whether there is serious misconduct justifying the dismissal of Medina as a just cause
for his termination?
RULING: None/No. The court ruled that, Serious misconduct, as a just cause for termination of
employment under the Labor Code of the Philippines (Labor Code), is absent in the case at bar
Based on Our judicious review of the records, We agree with the appellate court that there is
no serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of Medina from employment.
Misconduct is generally defined as "a 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 in judgment."Under Article 297 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the
services of an employee on the ground of serious misconduct committed in connection with or
relative to the performance of his duties:
Art. 297. Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of
the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
xxxx
In labor cases, misconduct, as a ground for dismissal, must be serious or of such grave and
aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. To justify termination on the ground
of serious misconduct, the following requisites must concur: (1) the misconduct must be serious;
(2) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties, showing that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (3) it must have been performed with
wrongful intent.
Here, none of the requisites for serious misconduct is present. To reiterate, the CA found
that only a petty quarrel involving shoving or slight pushing transpired between Medina and
Pogoy.The same was "nipped in the bud by the intervention of the security guards on duty and
Viggayan. It did not cause work stoppage nor posed a threat to the safety of the other
employees. [G&S] did not show how [Medina's] misconduct has adversely affected its business,
or how [Medina] has become unfit to continue working for the company." Thus, there was no just
cause for the termination of Medina's employment with G & S.
Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No 158693, November 17, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioners Jenny M. Agabon and Virgilio C. Agabon were employed by Riviera Home
Improvements, Inc. as gypsum board and cornice installers.
They were dismissed for abandonment of work on February 23, 1999. The petitioners filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. The Labor Arbiter declared the
dismissals illegal and ordered the respondent to pay the monetary claims.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and ruled that the dismissals were valid due to
abandonment of work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling but ordered the payment of
money claims.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed.
RULING: NO.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, after a careful review of the facts, ruled that petitioners'
dismissal was for a just cause. They had abandoned their employment and were already working
for another employer.
To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but
also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the
employer: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
his employer or the latter's representative in connection with the employee's work; (b) gross and
habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a
crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member
of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the
foregoing.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.
It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.
For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report
for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever
employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is
manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more
intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it
was deliberate and unjustified.
In February 1999, petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation
work for another company. Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship with private respondent. This was not the first time
they did this. In January 1996, they did not report for work because they were working for
another company. Private respondent at that time warned petitioners that they would be
dismissed if this happened again. Petitioners disregarded the warning and exhibited a clear
intention to sever their employer-employee relationship. The record of an employee is a relevant
consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out to him.
Robustan vs. CA, G.R. No. 223854, March 15, 2021
FACTS:
Robustan, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in importing refurbished medical
equipment. Wilfredo Wagan was employed by Robustan, Inc. as a service engineer in 2008.
Wagan's responsibilities included resolving customer needs, concerns, and problems for
medical/hospital equipment, as well as carrying out maintenance and construction works.
In October 2009, Wagan was assigned to Robustan's newly opened Cebu branch and was
allowed to sleep in the office since he couldn't find a place to stay.Wagan was the only
employee on site until a new branch manager was hired.
On December 21, 2009, Wagan received a memorandum stating that two fire extinguishers
had gone missing from the Cebu branch office and that he was noted for using office
equipment for personal use. Robustan asked Wagan to explain why his employment should
not be terminated.
Wagan explained that the fire extinguishers must have been stolen while he was busy
painting the office and offered to pay for their value in installments.
On January 4, 2010, Wagan received another memorandum terminating his employment for
violation of trust and confidence. Wagan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming
backwages, separation pay, monetized service incentive leave pay, and damages. Robustan
countered that Wagan was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence, citing client
complaints about his poor work performance and the loss of the fire extinguishers.
ISSUE: Whether or not Wagan was illegally dismissed by Robustan, Inc.
RULING: Yes. Wagan was illegally dismissed by Robustan, Inc.
In Anvil Ensembles Garment v. Court of Appeals provides the standard for establishing gross
neglect of duty as just cause for terminating employment:
Thus, under the Labor Code, to be a valid ground for dismissal, the negligence must be gross
and habitual. Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of even slight care or
diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of the person or property. It evinces a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. Put differently,
gross negligence is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. Therefore,
even if respondent were negligent, such negligence must be proven to be gross and habitual.
Neither the records nor the Petition establishes the required wantonness and habituality of
respondent's neglect that would merit his dismissal. Petitioner refers to facts allegedly
established in prior proceedings and concludes that the simple fact of loss of property amounted
to gross negligence.However, the records indicate that respondent was willing to admit the
consequences of the loss and even offered to pay for the lost properties' value. This directly
contradicts the "conscious indifference to consequences" indicative of gross and habitual
neglect. Thus, there was no basis to terminate respondent's employment for gross and habitual
neglect of duty.
