Holcim Philippines, Inc. vs. Renante J.

Obra,
G. R. No. 220998, Aug. 8, 2016

Respondent Renante J. Obra was employed by petitioner Holcim Philippines,

Inc. as a packhouse oper- ator in its La Union Plant for 19 years. Last July
10, 2013, he was about to exit petitioner’s Gate 2, when the security guard
on duty asked him to submit himself and the backpack he was carrying for
inspection. Respondent refused and confided to the guard that he has a
piece of scrap electric wire in his bag. He requested the guard not to report
the incident to the management. When his request to bring the scrap wire
outside the company premises was refused, he immediately went back to
return the wire from where he took it.

After observing due process, petitioner dismissed respondent last Aug. 8,

2013 for serious misconduct. The Court of Appeals ( CA), in affirming the
ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC), pointed out that
petitioner failed to prove that it prohibited its employees from taking scrap
materials outside the company premises. It found that respondent’s acts
only constituted a lapse of judgment which does not amount to serious
misconduct.

Issue: Did the CA commit a reversible error?

Ruling: No.

In this case, the Court agrees with the CA and the NLRC that respondent’s
misconduct is not so gross as to deserve the penalty of dismissal from
service. As correctly observed by the NLRC, while there is no dispute that
respondent took a piece of wire from petitioner’s La Union Plant and tried to
bring it outside the company premises, he did so in the belief that the same
was already for disposal. Notably, petitioner never denied that the piece of
wire was already for disposal and, hence, practically of no value. At any rate,
petitioner did not suffer any damage from the incident, given that after
being asked to submit himself and his bag for inspection, respondent had a
change of heart and decided to just return the wire to the Packhouse Office.
Respondent has also shown remorse for his mistake, pleading repeatedly
with petitioner to reconsider the penalty imposed upon him.

Time and again, the Court has held that infractions committed by an
employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the
circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee. xxx
Neither can respondent’s infraction be characterized as a serious misconduct
which, under Article 282 ( now Article 297) of the Labor Code, is a just cause
for dismissal. Misconduct is an improper or wrong conduct, or 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.

To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of
Article 282 ( now Article 297) of the Labor Code, the employee’s misconduct
must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not
merely trivial or unimportant, as in this case where the item which
respondent tried to takeout was practically of no value to petitioner.
Moreover, ill will or wrongful intent cannot be ascribed to respondent,
considering that, while he asked Castillo not to report the incident to the
management, he also volunteered the information that he had a piece of
scrap wire in his bag and offered to return it if the same could not possibly
be brought outside the company premises sans a gate pass ( Perlas-
Bernabe, J.; SC 1st Division,

Edilberto P. Etom, Jr. vs. Aroma Lodging House Through Eduardo G.

Lem, Proprietor and General Manager,
G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015

PETITIONER Edilberto P. Etom, Jr., was employed as a roomboy by

respondent Aroma Lodging House. He claimed that in Feb. 4, 2008,
respondent refused to allow him to report for work without informing him of
any violation that would warrant his dismissal.

In April 15, 2008, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and asked for
salary differential, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and overtime pay. The
Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioner to have been legally dismissed but
awarded him punitive damages amounting to P10,000 for non-compliance
with the termination notice requirement, salary differential computed at
P199,482.80, holiday pay amounting to P3,107.50 and 13th month pay of
P7,150. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the ruling
of the LA but deleted the award of punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC.
The CA relied upon a notarized affidavit executed by petitioner stating that
he received wages above the required minimum salary. It also declared that
there is no factual basis to support the grant of 13th month pay and holiday
pay in favor of petitioner.
Issue: WON the CA err?

Ruling: Yes.

In addition, as a rule, once the employee has asserted with particularity in

his position paper that his employer failed to pay his benefits, it becomes
incumbent upon the employer to prove payment of the employee’s money
claims. In fine, the burden is on the employer to prove payment, rather than
on the employee to establish non-payment.

Both the LA and the NLRC held that respondent did not pay petitioner the
required minimum wage, holiday pay and 13th month pay. The CA,
however, overturned the factual findings of these labor tribunals. Thus, we
deem it necessary to review the facts on record.

While a notarized document is presumed to be regular, such presumption is

not absolute and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. The fact that a document is notarized is not a guarantee of the
validity of its contents.

Here, petitioner is an unlettered employee who may not have understood

the full import of his statements in the affidavit. Notably, petitioner, along
with a co-worker, did not state the specific amount of what they referred as
salary above the minimum required by law. x x x.

As found by the LA, respondent did not present substantial evidence that it
paid the required minimum wage, 13th month pay and holiday pay in favor
of petitioner.

Respondent’s mere reliance on the foregoing affidavit is misplaced because

the requirement of established jurisprudence is for the employer to prove
payment, and not merely deny the employee’s accusation of non-payment
on the basis of the latter’s own declaration.

In conclusion, we find that the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the NLRC in awarding salary differential, 13th
month pay and holiday pay in favor of petitioner. (Del Castillo, J., SC Second
Division,
 TAMPCO v. Duclan

G.R. No. 203005; March 14, 2016

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: Petitioner Tabuk Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (TAMPCO) is a duly

registered cooperative based in Tabuk City, Kalinga. It is engaged in the
business of obtaining investments from its members which are lent out to
qualified member-borrowers. The two other petitioners are both officers of
TAMPCO.

On the other hand, respondent Duclan, was employed as TAMPCO cashier.

One of her duties as Cashier was to sign checks for release.

In 2002, TAMPCO introduced Special Investment Loans (SILs) to its

members and prospective borrowers. A year after introducing the SIL
program, TAMPCO realized that a considerable amount of the cooperative's
loanable funds was being allocated to SILs, which thus adversely affected its
ability to lend under the regular loan program. It further discovered that
single individual borrowings under the SIL program reached precarious
levels, thus placing the resources of the cooperative at risk. Thus, in June
2003, the TAMPCO BOD issued BA No. 28, putting a cap on SIL borrowings
at P5 million. In October of the same year, BA No. 55 was issued, completely
prohibiting the grant of SILs.

Despite issuance of BA Nos. 28 and 55, respondent and the other officers of
the cooperative including its former General Manager, continued to approve
and release SILs to borrowers, among them Falgui and Kotoken, who
received millions of pesos in loans in January and December of 2004, and in
January 2005. Eventually, Falgui claimed insolvency, and Kotoken failed to
pay back her loans.

Upon discovery of the said irregularity, TAMPCO BOD initiated an

investigation. Respondent and the other officers who appeared to
be responsible were made to explain. Respondent admitted to her failure to
obey BA Nos. 28 & 55 despite knowledge of the directives. Thus, TAMPCO
BOD suspended them from work and were ordered to collect the amount lost
by the cooperative with a threat that should they fail to collect, they would
be dismissed.
Respondent failed to collect the amount she was told to collect and
thereafter, after notice, the cooperative dismissed her service.

Thus, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not respondent was dismissed for a just cause.

Ruling: The dismissal is proper.

Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employer may terminate the
services of its employee for the latter's serious misconduct or willful
disobedience of its or its representative's lawful orders. And for willful
disobedience to constitute a ground, it is required that: "(a) the conduct of
the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee
violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee,
and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge.

In releasing loan proceeds to SIL borrowers like Falgui and Kotoken even
after the BOD issued BA Nos. 28 and 55, respondent, and the other
cooperative officers, willfully and repeatedly defied a necessary, reasonable
and lawful directive of the cooperative's BOD, which directive was made
known to them and which they were expected to know and follow as a
necessary consequence of their respective positions in the cooperative. They
placed the resources of the cooperative - the hard-earned savings of its
members - in a precarious state as a result of the inability to collect the
loans owing to the borrowers' insolvency or refusal to honor their
obligations, Respondent committed gross insubordination which resulted in
massive financial losses to the cooperative. Applying Article 282, her
dismissal is only proper.

In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of

the twin requirements of notice and hearing. In this case, due process was
properly observed since respondent was given a chance to explain and was
informed of the decision after a thorough investigation.

Respondent cannot question the TAMPCO BOD’s decision as regards the

General Manager, whom the BOD permitted to retire and collect his benefits
in full, for such decision is management’s prerogative on which the courts
cannot interfere unless they violate labor laws, CBA and general principles of
fairness & justice.