54. Rance v. NLRC
RANCE VS. NLRC
GR. NO. 68147; JUNE 30, 1988 FACTS
1. A Collective Bargaining Agreement was entered into on April 30, 1981 by and between respondents Polybag Manufacturing Corporation and Polybag Workers Union one of which is a stipulation that the former may dismiss any employee if they would join other organizations aside from the existing one.
2. Petitioners were among the 125 members of the respondent union who were
expelled by the latter for disloyalty in that they allegedly joined the NAFLU — a large federation. Because of the expulsion, petitioners were dismissed by Respondent Corporation. Petitioners sued for reinstatement and backwages stating their
dismissal was without due process. Losing both in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), they elevated their cause to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal was due to a just cause.
HELD
The court held that the dismissal was made in bad faith. There was indeed connivance between the corporation and the Union. The facts show that even if the workers sought help from their union, they were disregarded by the leaders, who were not dismissed. Their plights were not heeded by the corporation. Therefore, the main recourse is to seek help from NAFLU, but such act did not authorize the federation to represent them. Nor is it an act of disloyalty based on the CBA. The members did not even sign documents to prove the allegations. In fact, it is there mere act of preserving what they have; their jobs. The state recognizes the right of the workers to security of tenure and that they may not be terminated without a just cause, which in this case is absent.
55. Kiamco v. NLRC
KIAMCO VS. NLRC
GR. NO. 129449; JUNE 29, 1999 FACTS
1. On 1 July 1992 private respondent PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY (PNOC) through its Energy Research and Development Division, later incorporated as
PNOC-EDC, hired petitioner Cisell Kiamco as a project employee in its Geothermal Agro-Industrial Plant Project in Valencia, Negros Oriental.
2. The Contract of Employment stipulated among others that Kiamco was being hired by the company as a technician for a period of five (5) months from 1 July 1992 to 30 November 1992, or up to the completion of the project, which ever would come first, at a monthly salary of P3,500.00.
3. After the termination of the contract, a second one was entered into by the parties containing basically the same terms and conditions except that the work-time was reduced to twenty-two (22) days per month instead of twenty-six (26) days as
stipulated in the first contract. The period of employment was from 1 December 1992 to 30 April 1993.
4. Thereafter Kiamco was again re-hired, but the third contract was for six (6) months spanning 1 May 1993 to 30 November 1993 with an increased salary of P3,850.00 per month.
5. Then, he received a memorandum about certain infractions he committed. He explained his side, but a preventive suspension order was issued pending investigation.
6. However, respondent contended that an investigation was not necessary since Kiamco ceased to be an employee on November 30, 1993. He appealed before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC but both were denied.
ISSUE
Was petitioner a regular employee entitled to notice and hearing prior to his termination?
HELD
Pursuant to the case of Violeta vs. NLRC, the principal test in determining if one is a regular or project employee or not is whether they were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that Kiamco was correctly labeled by the NLRC as a project employee. The basis for this conclusion is indeed well-founded.
The three (3) Contracts of Employment entered into by Kiamco clearly established that he was a project employee because (a) he was specifically assigned to work for a particular project, which was the Geothermal Agro-Industrial Demonstration Plant Project of private respondents, and (b) the termination and the completion of the project or undertaking was determined and stipulated in the contract at the time of his employment. The argument of private respondents that reinstatement and payment of back wages could not be made since Kiamco was not a regular employee is apparently misplaced. As quoted above, the normal consequences of an illegal dismissal are the reinstatement of the aggrieved
employee and the grant of back wages. These rights of an employee do not depend on the status of his employment prior to his dismissal but rather to the legality and validity of his
Code that could justify his dismissal. Furthermore, private respondents not only failed to give a valid and justifiable reason to terminate Kiamco, but they also ignored the due process requirement of the law. Due process in termination cases requires the employer to furnish the worker or employee sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices, i.e., a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and a subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The records show that the second written notice informing petitioner of his actual dismissal was not complied with. When Kiamco returned to work he was bluntly informed by private respondents that he was already terminated due to the expiration of his employment contract. Indeed, the failure of private respondents to comply with the due process requirement further tainted Kiamco's dismissal with irregularity.
56. Magtulac v. NLRC
MAGLUTAC VS. NLRC
GR. NO. 78345; SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 FACTS
1. Jose M. Maglutac was employed by Commart (Phils.), Inc. sometime in February, 1980 and rose to become the Manager of its Energy Equipment Sales.
2. On October 3, 1984, he received a notice of termination signed by Joaquin S.
Cenzon, Vice-President-General Manager and Corporate Secretary of CMS International, a corporation controlled by Commart.
3. Thereafter, Jose Maglutac filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Commart and Jesus T. Maglutac, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Commart.
4. The complainant alleged that his dismissal was part of a vendetta drive against his parents who dared to expose the massive and fraudulent diversion of company funds to the company president's private accounts, stressing that complainant's efficiency and effectiveness were never put to question when very suddenly he received his notice of termination.
5. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled that the termination was for a just cause, but the latter deleted the amount of moral and exemplary damages. Hence, the instant recourse then by both parties alleging grave abuse of discretion.
6. Complainant for his part, questioned the deletion of damages, and Jesus Maglutac and Commart assailed the ruling that the dismissal was without cause.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal was for a just cause which justifies the award of moral and exemplary damages
HELD
In cases of illegal dismissal, in addition to the reliefs granted under the Labor Code, other forms of damages under the Civil Code may be granted. From the findings of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC, there is sufficient basis for an award of moral and exemplary damages in the instant case. The alleged loss of trust and confidence on
complainant because of his family's establishment of MM International, a company allegedly in direct competition with Commart, was belied by the findings of the Labor Arbiter. The formation of another corporation by complainant's parents including the complainant himself cannot be used to justify the termination of complainant. The formation came about before complainant's parents brought a minority stockholders' derivative suit and in fact, this was with the sanction of respondent company's president.