Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
582
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
*
G.R.No.132805.February2,1999.
PHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.,petitioner,vs.NATIONALLABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ROMULUS
PROTACIOandDR.HERMINIOA.FABROS,respondents.
Labor Law Dismissal Abandonment Facts do not support
petitioners allegation that private respondent abandoned his post on the
evening of February 17, 1994.As regards the legality of private
respondentssuspension.Thefactsdonotsupportpetitionersallegationthat
privaterespondentabandonedhispostontheeveningofFebruary17,1994.
Private respondent left the clinic that night only to have his dinner at his
house, which was only a few minutes drive away from the clinic. His
whereabouts were known to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily
reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed of Mr. Acostas
condition, private respondent immediately left his home and returned to the
clinic.Thesefactsbeliepetitionersclaimofabandonment.
SameSame Same The eighthour work period does not include the
mealbreakPrivaterespondentsactofgoinghometotakehisdinnerdoes
not constitute abandonment.The eighthour work period does not include
themealbreak.Nowhereinthelawmayitbeinferredthatemployeesmust
taketheirmealswithinthecompanypremises.Employeesarenotprohibited
fromgoingoutofthepremisesaslongastheyreturntotheirpostsontime.
Privaterespondentsact,therefore,ofgoinghometotakehisdinnerdoesnot
constituteabandonment.
SameSameDamagesNot every employee who is illegally dismissed
or suspended is entitled to damages The person claiming moral damages
must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for
the law always presumes good faith.Not every employee who is illegally
dismissedorsuspendedisentitledtodamages.Asarule,moraldamagesare
recoverable only where the dismissal or suspension of the employee was
attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Badfaith
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
*SECONDDIVISION.
583
VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999
583
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
PALLaborAffairsDepartmentforpetitioner.
DavidT.ParaderoandLambertoC.FabrosforDr.Fabros.
PUNO,J.:
Petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. assails the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission dismissing its appeal from
the decision of Labor Arbiter Romulus S. Protacio which declared
thesuspensionofprivaterespondentDr.HerminioA.Fabrosillegal
and ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount
equivalenttoallthebenefitshe
584
584
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999
585
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
theclinictohavehisdinnerathome.Infact,hereturnedtotheclinic
at7:51intheeveninguponbeinginformedoftheemergency.
After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private
respondent, petitioner company decided to suspend private
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
respondentforthreemonthseffectiveDecember16,1994.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension
againstpetitioner.
OnJuly16,1996,LaborArbiterRomulusA.Protaciorendereda
1
decision declaring the suspension of private respondent illegal. It
also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount
equivalent to all the benefits he should have received during his
period of suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages. The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the suspension of complainant as illegal, and ordering the
respondents the restitution to the complainant of all employment benefits
equivalent to his period of suspension, and
the payment to the complainant
2
ofP500,000.00bywayofmoraldamages.
586
586
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
privaterespondenthascommittedanoffensethatwarranted
theimpositionofdisciplinaryaction.
2. The public respondents acted without or in excess of their
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in holding
thepetitionerliableformoraldamages:
(a) Despite the fact that no formal hearing whatsoever was
conductedforcomplainanttosubstantiatehisclaim
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
(b) Despitetheabsenceofproofthatthepetitioneractedinbad
faithinimposingthe3monthsuspensionand
(c) Despite the fact that the Labor Arbiters award of moral
damages is highly irregular, considering that
it was more
5
thanwhattheprivaterespondentprayedfor.
We find that public respondents did not err in nullifying the three
month suspension of private respondent. They, however, erred in
awardingmoraldamagestoprivaterespondent.
First, as regards the legality of private respondents suspension.
The facts do not support petitioners allegation that private
respondentabandonedhispostontheeveningofFebruary17,1994.
Privaterespondentlefttheclinicthatnightonlytohavehisdinnerat
his house, which was only a few minutes drive away from the
clinic.Hiswhereaboutswereknowntothenurseondutysothathe
couldbeeasilyreachedincaseofemergency.Uponbeinginformed
of Mr. Acostas condition, private respondent immediately left his
homeandreturnedtotheclinic.Thesefactsbeliepetitionersclaim
ofabandonment.
Petitioner argues that being a fulltime employee, private
respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less
thaneight(8)hours.Hence,hemaynotleavethecompanypremises
duringsuchtime,eventotakehismeals.
Wearenotimpressed.
Articles83and85oftheLaborCoderead:
_________________
5Rollo,p.8.
587
VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999
587
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
Art. 83. Normal hours of work.The normal hours of work of any
employeeshallnotexceedeight(8)hoursaday.
Healthpersonnelincitiesandmunicipalitieswithapopulationofatleast
onemillion(1,000,000)orinhospitalsandclinicswithabedcapacityofat
leastonehundred(100)shallholdregularofficehoursforeight(8)hoursa
day,forfive(5)daysaweek,exclusiveoftimeformeals,exceptwherethe
exigenciesoftheservicerequirethatsuchpersonnelworkforsix(6)daysor
fortyeight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional
compensationofatleastthirtypercent(30%)oftheirregularwageforwork
on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, health personnel shall
include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists,
social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
Section7,RuleI,BookIIIoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingthe
LaborCodefurtherstates:
Sec.7.MealandRestPeriods.Everyemployershallgivehisemployees,
regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour timeoff for regular meals,
exceptinthefollowingcaseswhenamealperiodofnotlessthantwenty(20)
minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal
periodiscreditedascompensablehoursworkedoftheemployee:
(a) Where the work is nonmanual work in nature or does not involve
strenuousphysicalexertion
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen
hoursaday
(c) Incasesofactualorimpendingemergenciesorthereisurgentwork
tobeperformedonmachineries,equipmentorinstallationstoavoid
seriouslosswhichtheemployerwouldotherwisesufferand
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable
goods.
588
588
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes
shallbeconsideredascompensableworkingtime.
Thus, the eighthour work period does not include the meal break.
Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take
their meals within the company premises. Employees are not
prohibitedfromgoingoutofthepremisesaslongastheyreturnto
their posts on time. Private respondents act, therefore, of going
hometotakehisdinnerdoesnotconstituteabandonment.
Wenowgototheawardofmoraldamagestoprivaterespondent.
Not every employee who is illegally dismissed or suspended is
entitledtodamages.Asarule,moraldamagesarerecoverableonly
wherethedismissalorsuspensionoftheemployeewasattendedby
badfaithorfraud,orconstitutedanactoppressivetolabor,orwas6
doneinamannercontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicy.
Bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It
involvesastateofminddominatedbyillwillormotive.Itimpliesa
consciousandintentionaldesigntodoawrongfulactforadishonest
7
claiming moral
6/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
7
Banking Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 352 (1997) Tumbiga vs. NLRC, 274
SCRA338(1997).
7Ibid.citingFar East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals,241 SCRA 671
(1996).
8Ibid.
589
VOL.302,FEBRUARY3,1999
589
Ramosvs.CourtofAppeals
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/8
9/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME302
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f0dd258e3d6744b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/8