Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
even if S/A No. 3396 did not have sufficient balance to cover the
withdrawals at the time they were made.
Mauricio was directed to report for work at the Head Office
immediately. The Prudential Bank President issued a Memorandum
to Mauricio furnishing him with a copy of the audit teams report and
directing him to report in writing within 72 hours from receipt of the
memorandum why the bank should not institute an action against
him. The report showed that the bank was exposed to losses
amounting to $774,561.58.
While the investigation against Mauricio was ongoing, as conducted
by a Hearing Committee, the property subject of the Deeds of Real
Estate Mortgage executed by the Spouses Cruz was extrajudicially
foreclosed by the Bank for. Spouses Cruz, however, sought the
annulment and/or declaration of nullity of foreclosure in a complaint
or civil case filed with RTC- Makati.
The Bank claimed that it sent the proper demand letters to the
Spouses but to no avail. Thus, it was constrained to foreclose the
mortgaged property extrajudicially for the settlement of the
obligations of the Spouses Cruz including the returned USTWs,
checks and drafts. Later, while the investigation against Mauricio
was still ongoing, the Bank filed an Amended Answer to implead
Mauricio in its counterclaim in the case filed by the Spouses against
the former, contending that he conspired and confederated with the
Spouses Cruz to commit the fraud.
The Hearing Committee of the Bank found that there was sufficient
evidence to hold Mauricio guilty of the charges against him. The
Board of Directors issued Resolution considering the
and not mere error of judgment.9 Under Article 282 of the Labor
Code, the misconduct, to be a just cause for termination, must be
serious. This implies that it must be of such grave and aggravated
character and not merely trivial or unimportant.
The alleged infractions of the respondent could hardly be considered
serious misconduct:
1. Her alleged failure to report for work EXACTLY on April 1, 1996
(respondent reported on May 15, 1996) is not equivalent to failure
to return for work, a sanctionable offense under the Faculty Manual.
Although we give credence to petitioners argument that a private
high school teacher still has work at the end of the schoolyear to
assist in the graduation preparations and in the beginning of the
school year to assist in the enrollment such tasks cannot be
considered a teachers main duties, the failure to perform which
would be tantamount to dereliction of duty or abandonment.
2. With regard to her alleged failure to enroll during the first
semester, although we agree with the President and Rector, Fr.
Mendez, that respondent should have first ascertained whether she
was still eligible to study at the PWU before applying for a study
leave,17 such lapse was more of an error in judgment rather than an
act of serious misconduct. If respondent intended to use her study
leave for other unauthorized purposes, as petitioner would like us to
believe, she would not have enrolled at the Golden Gate Colleges
during the second semester. Yet she did, as borne out by the
certification18 prepared by the Registrar of Golden Gate Colleges.
3. Respondent did not violate the prohibition on engaging in
employment outside the school as specified in her study leave grant
VICENTE VS. CA
NOVEMBER 17, 2013 ~ LEAVE A COMMENT
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS: THIS case portrays the peculiar story of an international
flight steward who was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to
the weight standards of the airline company.
The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from
147 to 166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as
mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL.
In 1984, the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send
him to an extended vacation until November 1985. He was allowed
to return to work once he lost all the excess weight. But the problem
recurred. He again went on leave without pay from October 17, 1988
to February 1989.
Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal
weight, petitioner remained overweight. On January 3, 1990, he was
informed of the PAL decision for him to remain grounded until such
time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight standards.
Again, he was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks,
which he failed to comply with.
On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated
refusal to report for weight check would be dealt with accordingly.
He was given another set of weight check dates, which he did not
report to.
On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of
Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight
requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as
those similarly situated were not treated the same.
On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due
to his inability to attain his ideal weight, and considering the
utmost leniency extended to him which spanned a period covering
a total of almost five (5) years, his services were considered
terminated effective immediately.
LABOR ARBITER: held that the weight standards of PAL are
reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner. However,
the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of
dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his
duties.
NLRC affirmed.
CA: the weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was
legally dismissed because he repeatedly failed to meet the
prescribed weight standards. It is obvious that the issue of
discrimination was only invoked by petitioner for purposes of
escaping the result of his dismissal for being overweight.
ISSUE: WON he was validly dismissed.
HELD: YES
A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other
conclusion than that they constitute a continuing qualification of an
employee in order to keep the job. The dismissal of the employee
would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against
petitioners claims that obesity is a disease. That he was able to
reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is possible
for him to lose weight given the proper attitude, determination, and