Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

58.) Mapili v Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.

co-employee and that it was his third offense, justified his

termination considering that his position is imbued with trust
DOCTRINE​​: and confidence. The Labor Arbiter ordered that the Mapili be
● While a penalty may no longer be imposed on offenses reinstated to his former position. Upon appeal, NLRC held that
for which the employee has already been punished, petitioner’s dismissal was for just cause and petitioner’s past
those infractions are still relevant and may be used as record of similar infractions do not merit the compassion of
justification for an employee’s dismissal law.
FACTS​​: Whether or not past similar infractions for which an
Petitioner, Jerry Mapili, as bus conductor while on duty employee has already suffered the corresponding penalty
was caught by PRBLI's field inspector extending a free ride to can be used as justification for the employee’s dismissal
a lady passenger who boarded at ​Barangay Magtaking, from service
Labrador, Pangasinan. Consequently, petitioner was
preventively suspended and was directed to appear in an HELD:
administrative investigation. Thereafter, a formal hearing was YES. Petitioner's position is imbued with trust and
conducted during which petitioner was given an opportunity to confidence because it involves handling of money and failure
present and explain his side. Consequently, through a to collect the proper fare from the riding public constitutes a
memorandum that petitioner was terminated from employment grave offense which justifies his dismissal. Moreover,
for committing a serious irregularity by extending a free ride to petitioner's series of irregularities when put together may
a passenger in violation of company rules. Petitioner filed with constitute serious misconduct. As petitioner's employment
the NLRC a Complaint for illegal dismissal against PRBLI, record shows, this is not the first time that petitioner refused
Nisce, and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General to collect fares from passengers. In fact, this is already the
Manager.Petitioner alleged that his employment was third instance that he failed to collect fares from the riding
terminated without cause and due process. He argued that public. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding
the infraction was only trivial. He argued that his two previous penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still
violations of the same company regulation cannot be relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for
considered in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal since his present infraction. THese are relevant in assessing private
those previous infractions were not too serious and are not respondent's liability for the present violation for the purpose of
sufficient to merit the penalty of dismissal.Respondents argued determining the appropriate penalty. To sustain private
that petitioner's admissions during the investigation that he respondent's argument that the past violation should not be
indeed offered a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of his
considered is to disregard the warnings previously issued to submitting his findings to the personnel officer. Therefore, he
him. cannot be terminated on the ground of loss of confidence.
Petitioners asserted that Bañas was a supervisory employee
who was responsible for the lost cylinders. They maintained
59.) Century Iron Works, Inc. v Banas that Bañas committed numerous infractions during his tenure
amounting to gross and habitual neglect of duty. These
DOCTRINE: included absences without leave, unauthorized undertime,
● Loss of confidence applies to: (1) employees failure to implement proper standard warehousing and
occupying positions of trust and confidence, the housekeeping procedure, negligence in making inventories of
managerial employees; and (2) employees who are materials, and failure to ensure sufficient supplies of
routinely charged with the care and custody of the oxygen-acetylene gases. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Banas
employer’s money or property which may include was illegally dismissed. Upon appeal, NLRC affirmed LA’s
rank-and-file employees. ruling and ruled that Banas was only an inventory clerk. The
Court of Appeals agreed with the lower tribunals that Banas
FACTS: was an inventory clerk but was afforded due process.
Bañas worked as an inventory comptroller. Century
Iron received letters of complaint from its gas suppliers ISSUES:
regarding alleged massive shortage of empty gas cylinders In 1. Whether or not loss of confidence is a ground for
the investigation that Century Iron conducted in response to terminating a rank-and-file employee who is not
the letters, it found that Bañas failed to make a report of the routinely charged with the care and custody of the
missing cylinders. Century Iron required Bañas to explain employer’s money or property (NO)
within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of its letter why no 2. Whether or not Bañas was grossly and habitually
disciplinary action should be taken against him for loss of trust neglectful of his duties. (YES)
and confidence and for gross and habitual neglect of duty,
Century Iron issued a Memorandum requiring Bañas to attend HELD:
a hearing regarding the missing cylinders. ​Century Iron 1.)N​​O. Bañas did not occupy a position of trust and
terminated Bañas’ services on grounds of loss of trust and confidence nor was he routinely in charge with the care and
confidence, and habitual and gross neglect of duty. Bañas custody of Century Iron’s money or property, his termination
alleged that he merely worked as an inventory clerk who is not on the ground of loss of confidence was misplaced. Loss of
responsible for the lost cylinders. He pointed out that his tasks confidence applies to: (1) employees occupying positions of
were limited to conducting periodic and yearly inventories, and trust and confidence, the managerial employees; and (2)
employees who are routinely charged with the care and infractions or the number of violations he committed
custody of the employer’s money or property which may during his employment merits his dismissal.
include rank-and-file employees

2.) YES. ​Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that 60.) Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v Carilla
one of the just causes for terminating an employment is
the employee’s gross and habitual neglect of his DOCTRINE:
duties. This cause includes gross inefficiency, ● In termination cases, the burden of proof rests
negligence and carelessness. ​Gross negligence upon the employer to show that the dismissal of
connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise the employee is for just cause and failure to do
slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It so would mean that the dismissal is not
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences justified.
without exerting any effort to avoid them. Fraud and ● It is well settled in this jurisdiction that
willful neglect of duties imply bad faith of the employee confidential and managerial employees cannot
in failing to perform his job, to the detriment of the be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and without
employer and the latter’s business. Habitual neglect, cause as reasonably established in an
on the other hand, implies repeated failure to perform appropriate investigation.The captain of a
one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the vessel is a confidential and managerial
circumstances. employee within the meaning of this doctrine.
Evidence on record shows that Bañas
committed numerous infractions during his stay in FACTS:
Century iron such as failing to check the right quantity Felicisimo Carilla was hired by petitioner, a
of materials subject of his inventory, undertaking manning agent, in behalf of its principal, Anglo-Eastern
undertime, incurring an absence without asking for Shipmanagement Ltd., to work as Master on board ​MV
prior leave, failing to implement proper warehousing Handy-Cam Azobe for twelve months. On November 29, 1993,
and housekeeping procedures, failing to ensure respondent boarded the vessel. On June 6, 1994,respondent
sufficient supplies of oxygen-acetylene gases during was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines. respondent
business hours, failing to secure prior permission filed with the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency
before going on leave. such numerous infractions are (POEA) a complaint for illegal dismissal and alleged that he
sufficient to hold him grossly and habitually negligent. was dismissed without notice and hearing and without any
His repeated negligence is not tolerable. The totality of valid reason. Petitioner contended that respondent's
termination was for cause; he failed to take the necessary authenticated and, hence, were self-serving and unreliable. It
steps to ensure the safety of the vessel and its cargo causing appears from the Logs of Events During Capt. Carilla
petitioner to incur a huge amount of damages on cargo claims Command that it is merely a typewritten enumeration of
and vessel repairs.Furthermore, the fact that respondent was several alleged incidents of damages to the cargoes and to the
warned of his lapses, he had not shown any improvement vessel, but it does not state the source and who prepared the
which forced petitioner to dismiss and replace him with a same. There is no way of verifying the truth of these entries,
competent one. Thus, respondent's incompetence is therefore and if they were actually recorded in the vessel logbook on the
penalized with dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision dates the alleged incidents took place. Thus, respondent was
in favor of Carilla and ruled that his dismissal is illegal and illegally dismissed as he was not accorded a fair investigation
ordered the petitioner to pay the unexpired portion of the as required by law and the ground invoked for his dismissal
contract. Upon appeal, NLRC dismissed the appeal. was not proven.


Whether or not Carilla was illegally dismissed
(YES) 18.) Dela Cruz v NLRC

YES. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that confidential ● A lay-off, used interchangeably with
and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at retrenchment, is a recognized prerogative of
any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an management. It is the termination of
appropriate investigation. Such employees, too, are entitled to employment resorted to by the employer,
security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the through no fault of nor with prejudice to the
protection of labor laws.Managerial employees, no less than employees, during periods of business
rank-and-file laborers, are entitled to due process.The captain recession, industrial depression, seasonal
of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee within fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack
the meaning of this doctrine. dismissal is not justified. A of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of
dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the plant for a new production program, or the
the charges leveled against him by his employer.The introduction of new methods or more efficient
determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause machinery, or of automation.
must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after ● The term trust and confidence is restricted to
observing due process. petitioner's documents were not managerial class of employees.
FACTS: 1. Whether or not the temporary layoff of
Gloria dela Cruz was valid (NO)
Petitioner Gloria de la Cruz was assigned at the 2. Whether or not the dismissal of Gloria dela
Production Department in the respondent company where she Cruz was valid (NO)
was in charge of printing the product codes, labels and foils of
the company products. In a management meeting, the
employees were informed that due to heavy volume of work, HELD:
availment of vacation leaves was being temporarily suspended 1. NO. ​A lay-off, used interchangeably with
and sick leaves could be availed of only if the sickness or retrenchment, is a recognized prerogative of
injury occurred within company premises. Despite the above management. It is the termination of
directive, petitioner went on sick leave. When petitioner employment resorted to by the employer,
reported to work, she was barred from entering and was through no fault of nor with prejudice to the
handed a memorandum apprising her of temporary lay-off employees, during periods of business
allegedly due to continuous brownouts. When petitioner recession, industrial depression, seasonal
resumed her normal work, her immediate supervisor accosted fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack
her why she was keeping her folding umbrella in a bag marked of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of
Pliva, which was exclusively used in packaging Pliva products the plant for a new production program, or the
being manufactured by respondent Company for a foreign introduction of new methods or more efficient
client. In the course of the administrative investigation, machinery, or of automation. The requisites of a
petitioner was placed under preventive suspension. When the valid retrenchment are covered by Article 283 of
investigation was completed, respondent Company terminated the Labor Code. hen a lay-off is temporary, the
the services of petitioner, for violating the Company Code of employment status of the employee is not
Discipline, specifically the provision on dishonesty. Petitioner deemed terminated, but merely suspended.
filed a complaint for illegal temporary lay-off and illegal Article 286 of the Labor Code provides, in part,
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioner’s that the ​bona fide suspension of the operation
complaint and ruled that there was sufficient cause for the of the business or undertaking for a period not
dismissal. Upon appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision but not exceeding six months does not terminate
on the ground of dishonesty but fors unauthorized possession employment. The standard then by which to
of company property. judge the validity of the exercise of this aspect
of management prerogative is ​good faith​. The
Court held that at the program was but a terminate the services of an employee due to
camouflage of the true reason or intention of loss of trust and confidence. However, the loss
the company to eventually rid petitioner from must be based not on ordinary breach by the
the service. Indeed, if there was need to latter of the trust reposed in him by the former,
temporarily lay-off to save on costs due to the but, in the language of Article 283[c] of the
brownouts, this Court cannot understand why, Labor Code, on willful breach. A breach is willful
first, the private respondents disallowed, due to if it is done intentionally, knowingly and
heavy volume of work, the availment of purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
vacation and sick leaves unless the sickness or distinguished from an act done carelessly,
injury occurred inside company premises; and thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
second, only the petitioner out of more than 100 Elsewise stated, it must rest on substantial
employees was laid-off. These alone showed grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness,
beyond cavil that the so-called cost-saving whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the
program was nothing but a sham and contrived employee would eternally remain at the mercy
as a belated defense. of the employer. It should be genuine and not
simulated; nor should it appear as a mere
2. NO. ​In termination cases, the burden of proving afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad
just and valid cause for dismissing an employee faith or a subterfuge for causes which are
from his employment rests upon the employer, improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never
and the latters failure to do so results in a been intended to afford an occasion for abuse
finding that the dismissal is unjustified. This rule because of its subjective nature. There must,
is designed to give flesh and blood to the therefore, be an actual breach of duty
guaranty of security of tenure granted the committed by the employee which must be
employees by the Constitution ​and the Labor established by substantial evidence. The
Code. In this case, the private respondents possession and use of the Pliva bag cannot be
could only rely on the perceived conflicting considered as an act of dishonesty. it was then
explanations of the petitioner as to how she error for the Labor Arbiter to consider it as such
came into possession of the Pliva bag. The and to make it a basis for loss of trust and
error in choice can by no means be deemed confidence. Besides, it was not shown that the
dishonesty nor as breach of trust and petitioner was a ​managerial employee of the
confidence. settled that an employer may private respondents, the term trust and
confidence being restricted to said class of