HAYDEN KHO SR. VS DOLORES Corporation.

More importantly, aside from

NAGBANUA, ET. AL. respondents' bare allegations, there is a dearth of
evidence on record that would indicate that Kho
G.R. No. 237246. July 29, 2019
was a corporate officer at the time the restaurant,
where respondents worked, closed down.
FACTS: Verily, absent any finding that Kho was a corporate
Dolores filed the complaint for illegal dismissal officer of the Corporation who willfully and
with payment of separation pay. They were knowingly assented to patently unlawful acts of the
employed by the Corporation in the Tres Pares as latter, he cannot be held personally liable for the
cooks, cashiers, or dishwashers. They posited that corporate liabilities arising from the instant case.
Spouses Kho's daughter, Sheryl Kho, posted a
notice in the company premises that the restaurant
Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc.
would close down on January 19, 2011. They tried
vs. Arnulfo M. Egos, G.R. 222748, April 2019).
to seek an audience with Hayden Kho Sr. but to no
avail.
LA: Kho should be solidarily liable. On April 9, 1992, petitioner Airborne Maintenance
and Allied Services Inc. (Airborne) hired the
1. The Corporation fail to prove that it closed
services of respondent Arnulfo Egos as janitor. He
down its business due to financial distress as it did
was assigned at the Balintawak branch of Meralco,
not offer financial documents to corroborate its
a client of Airborne.
claim.
2. It failed to comply with the notice
requirement under Article 298 of the Labor Code. On June 30, 2011, the contract between Airborne
and Meralco-Balintawak branch expired and a new
NLRC dismissed the complaint
contract was awarded to Landbees Corp. which
1. It stressed that mere failure to comply with absorbed all employees of Airborne except
the procedural due process does not constitute an respondent, who allegedly had a heart ailment.
unlawful act that would render Kho personally Respondent consulted another doctor who declared
liable. him in good health and fit to work. He showed a
2. Kho was not the Corporation's President at duly issued medical certificate to Airborne but the
the time of the closure. same was disregarded. Feeling aggrieved,
respondent filed a complaint for constructive illegal
CA: reversed and set aside Ruling of NLRC dismissal on Aug. 5, 2011.
because Kho acted in bad faith when he assented to
the sudden and abrupt closure of the restaurant
despite the absence of a board resolution Airborne insisted that respondent was never
authorizing the closure. dismissed from the service. It claimed that when its
ISSUE: Whether or not Kho is solidarily liable with contract with Meralco was terminated, it directed all
the Corporation for the payment of respondents' its employees including respondent to report to its
money claims. office for reposting. When respondent failed to
comply with the directive, it sent him letters dated
RULING: No. The NLRC ruling must be reinstated. Aug. 12, 2011 and Sept. 21, 2011 to his last known
A plain reading of the Corporation's GIS for the address reiterating the previous directive but which
years 2007 and 2008 show that Kho was not the were returned with a notation “RTS unknown.” It
Corporation's President as he was merely its further argued that it had placed respondent on
Treasurer, while the GIS for the year 2009 indicates floating status when the contract with Meralco was
that he is no longer a corporate officer of the terminated.
 afterthought, subsequently sent notices/letters to
respondent directing him to report to work. These,
Does Airborne’s defense find merit?
however, were not received by respondent as the
address was incomplete.
Ruling: No.
Here, the totality of the foregoing circumstances
The Court finds that petitioner failed to prove that shows that petitioner’s acts of not informing
the termination of the contract with Meralco respondent and the Dole of the suspension of its
resulted in a bona fide suspension of its business operations, failing to prove the bona fide suspension
operations so as to validly place respondent in a of its business or undertaking, ignoring
floating status. respondent’s follow-ups on a new assignment, and
belated sending of letters/notices which were
returned to it, were done to make it appear as if
In implementing this measure, jurisprudence has set respondent had not been dismissed. These acts,
that the employer should notify the Department of however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which
Labor and Employment (Dole) and the affected petitioner is liable.
employee, at least one month prior to the intended
date of suspension of business operations. An
employer must also prove the existence of a clear
and compelling economic reason for the temporary Rodessa Q. Rodriguez vs. Sintron Systems Inc.
shutdown of its business or undertaking and that and/or Joselito Capaque, G.R. 240254, July 24,
there were no available posts to which the affected 2019).
employee could be assigned.

Here, a review of the submissions of the parties

PETITIONER Rodessa Q. Rodriguez filed a
shows that petitioner failed to show compliance
complaint against respondents Sintron Systems Inc.
with the notice requirement to the Dole and
and/or Joselito Capaque for constructive illegal
respondent.
dismissal, non-payment of service incentive pay,
separation pay, damages and attorney’s fees.
Making matters worse for petitioner, it also failed to
prove that after the termination of its contract with
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of
Meralco it was faced with a clear and compelling
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
economic reason to temporarily shut down its
which in turn affirmed the decision of the Labor
operations or a particular undertaking. It also failed
Arbiter (LA) dismissing Rodriguez’s complaint for
to show that there were no available posts to which
lack of merit. The CA concluded that since there
respondent could be assigned.
was neither dismissal nor abandonment, the remedy
would have been reinstatement without payment of
Also, not only did petitioner fail to prove it had backwages. However, the CA noted that the
valid grounds to place respondent on a floating relationship between the parties was already
status, but the National Labor Relations strained. Hence, reinstatement may no longer be
Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals both ordered. In the end, the CA made the parties bear
correctly found that respondent even had to ask for their own losses.
a new assignment from petitioner, but this was
unheeded. Further, when respondent filed the
complaint on Aug. 5, 2011, petitioner, as an
Did the CA err in denying Rodriguez’s employee-employer relationship between the parties
reinstatement? subsists.

Ruling: Yes. Hence, there is no need for reinstatement. Hence,

too, there can be no payment of separation pay.
Separation pay is generally not awarded to an
The Court cannot agree with the CA as regards to employee whose employment was not terminated.
the remedy it has afforded the parties.

In the present case, there is no compelling evidence

Indeed, in cases where the parties failed to prove the to support the conclusion that the parties’
presence of either dismissal of the employee or relationship has gone so sour so as to render
abandonment of his work, the remedy is to reinstate reinstatement impracticable. The CA, which was the
such employee without payment of backwages. only tribunal here to have declared the presence of
There is, however, a need to clarify the import of strained relations, failed to discuss its basis in
the term “reinstate” or “reinstatement” in the supporting this conclusion.
context of cases where neither dismissal nor
abandonment exists. The Court has clarified that
“reinstatement,” as used in such cases, is merely an In sum, the Court affirms the factual findings of the
affirmation that the employee may return to work as lower tribunals that Rodriguez failed to substantiate
he was not dismissed in the first place. It should not her claim that she was dismissed by SSI,
be confused with reinstatement as a relief constructively or otherwise. SSI likewise failed to
proceeding from illegal dismissal as provided under prove by substantial evidence that Rodriguez had
Article 279 of the Labor Code. abandoned her work. Moreover, the doctrine of
strained relations does not apply in the present case
and may not excuse the parties from resuming their
Reinstatement under the aforequoted provision employment relationship or justify the award of
restores the employee who was unjustly dismissed separation pay. This being the case, SSI must be
to the position from which he was removed, that is, ordered to reinstate Rodriguez to her former
to his status quo ante dismissal. In the present case, position without payment of backwages. If
considering that there has been no dismissal at all, Rodriguez voluntarily chooses not to return to work,
there can be no reinstatement as one cannot be she must then be considered as having resigned
reinstated to a position he is still holding. Instead, from employment. This is, however, without
the Court merely declares that the employee may go prejudice to the parties willingly continuing with
back to his work and the employer must then accept their former contract of employment or entering
him because the employment relationship between into a new one
them was never actually severed.

Bookmedia Press Inc. and Benito J. Brizuela vs.

Moreover, as there can be no reinstatement in the Leonardo Sinajon and Yanly Abenir, G.R.
technical sense of Article 279, the doctrine of 213009, July 17, 2019).
strained relations likewise has no application. This
doctrine only arises when there is an order for
reinstatement that is no longer feasible. It cannot be
invoked by the employer to prevent the employee’s PETITIONER Bookmedia Press Inc. (Bookmedia)
return to work nor by the employee to justify hired respondents Yanly Abenir and Leonardo
payment of separation pay. As discussed, there Sinajon in 1995 and 1996, respectively, as in-house
having been no abandonment nor dismissal, the security personnel.
 only to the gravest infractions the ultimate penalty
On July 20, 1997, petitioner Benito J. Brizuela of dismissal. It is essential that the infraction
(Brizuela) received a report from a security guard committed by an employee is serious, not merely
which claims that respondents, earlier in the day, trivial, and be reflective of a certain degree of
had left the company premises moments after depravity or ineptitude on the employee’s part, in
punching-in their respective time cards. The report order for the same to be a valid basis for the
also alleged that Sinajon returned on the evening of
termination of his employment.
the same day and punched-out his and Abenir’s
time cards.
The actions of the respondents on July 20, 1997, to
In their letters of explanation, the respondents our mind, lack the elements of willfulness or
admitted to punching-in their time cards and then seriousness so as to warrant their dismissal.
leaving work early on July 20, 1997, but explained
that they merely did so because they had to attend to The respondents’ act of leaving the workplace early,
some emergencies in their respective homes on that though unauthorized and violative of company time
day. policy, was certainly not motivated by any wanton
desire to transgress the said policy. As explained by
Petitioner Bookmedia dismissed both respondents the respondents in their letters, they only felt
from the service alleging that the incident was only compelled to leave work early on July 20, 1997
the latest in a string of past incidents where because of emergencies they had to address in their
respondents were caught committing the same
respective homes.
infractions. The grounds for their dismissal were,
among others, serious misconduct, willful
disobedience of an employer’s lawful order, or Viewed in such context, the failure of the
fraud. respondents to seek permission prior to leaving
early could thus be attributed to a momentary lapse
Was their dismissal justified? of judgment on their part, rather than to some
design to circumvent Bookmedia’s time policy. For
Ruling: No. this reason, such transgression of a company policy
cannot be characterized either as serious misconduct
The just causes of serious misconduct, willful or a willful disobedience of the employer’s order.
disobedience of an employer’s lawful order and
fraud all imply the presence of “willfulness” or
“wrongful intent” on the part of the employee. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs.
Hence, serious misconduct and willful disobedience Maximo C. Mamaril, et.al., G.R. No. 225725,
of an employer’s lawful order may only be January 16, 2019).
appreciated when the employee’s transgression of a
rule, duty or directive has been the product of
ON Nov. 21, 2006, respondents Maximo C.
“wrongful intent” or of a “wrongful and perverse Mamaril and 15 others filed a complaint against
attitude,” but not when the same transgression petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
results from simple negligence or “mere error in (Lepanto) with a claim for payment of overtime
judgment.” In the same vein, fraud and dishonesty pay, among others.
can only be used to justify the dismissal of an
employee when the latter commits a dishonest act The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the decision
that reflects a disposition to deceive, defraud and of the National Labor Relations Commission
betray his employer. (NLRC) awarding respondents overtime pay. The
CA noted that both lawyer Weldy Manlong, the
The requirement of willfulness or wrongful intent in administrative service group manager of petitioner,
the appreciation of the aforementioned just causes, and Edgar K. Langeg, the assistant security
superintendent of the security and communications
in turn, underscores the intent of the law to reserve
services department, hinted in their respective with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance
affidavits that respondents were ordered to render with the rule that one who pleads payment has the
overtime work and work during the holiday and burden of proving it.
their rest day. They pointed out that some of these
security guards remained at their post beyond the In this case, Lepanto failed to discharge such
regular eight working hours to keep an eye on the burden of proof. Lepanto submitted daily time
strikers. Edgar Langeg specifically stated that the
sheets showing that respondents rendered eight-
overtime work that the security guards rendered
hour work days, signed by respondents and
during the duration of the strike was approved by
the administrative group manager and resident countersigned by a Col. Doromal as the department
manager of petitioner. head. However, as found by the CA in its decision
dated 21 October 2015:
Petitioner Lepanto contested with the Supreme
Court the award of overtime pay. Then again the daily time sheets presented by
petitioner are not substantial proof that private
Can the CA decision be sustained? respondents did not render overtime work. It can be
plainly observed from these daily time sheets that
Ruling: Yes. the number of hours worked by private respondents
were uniform and were written by the same hand.
In Damasco v. NLRC, 400 Phil. 568, 586 (2000), For this reason, these daily time sheets should be
we held that an employer’s formal admission that an taken with a grain of salt xx x.
employee worked beyond eight hours should entitle
the employee to overtime compensation. Petitioner, nonetheless, insists that it paid private
respondents’ overtime pay and holiday pay. Hence,
In this case, such admissions, that respondents petitioner should have at least presented copies of
rendered overtime work and work during their its payroll or copies of the pay slips of respondents
holiday and rest days on the period specified to show payment of these benefits.
therein, can be gleaned from the affidavits executed
by Lepanto’s managers, Weldy Manlong, and Edgar However, it failed to do so. Due to such failure of
Langeg. Thus, respondents are clearly entitled to the petitioner, there arises a presumption that such
these benefits. evidence, if presented, would be prejudicial to it.
Likewise, petitioner could be deemed to have
This Court has repeatedly ruled that any doubt waived its defense and admitted the allegations of
arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the private respondents.
the employer and the employee must be resolved in
favor of the latter. As an employer, it is incumbent
upon Lepanto to prove payment.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs.
In G & M (Phils.) Inc. v. Cruz, 496 Phil. 119, 124- Maximo C. Mamaril et. al. [ G.R. No. 225725,
125 (2005), we held that the burden of proving January 16, 2019 ]
payment of monetary claims rests on the employer
since the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records,
remittances and other similar documents—which PONENTE: Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
will show that overtime, differentials, service
incentive leave, and other claims of workers have
been paid—are not in the possession of the worker SUBJECT:
but in the custody and absolute control of the
employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal
certainty that the obligation has been discharged LABOR LAW:
i. Loss of trust and confidence as valid ground for Ngalew, Anongos, Sabino, and Eckwey, who all
dismissal saw him on roving patrol, while the theft was taking
place.
ii. Rest day, holiday and overtime pay
FACTS: Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company (Lepanto) hired Maximo C. Mamaril After the investigation, Lepanto dismissed Mamaril
(Mamaril) as security guard. He was assigned to the from employment for dishonesty and breach of trust
Security Reaction Force (SRF), a group of security and confidence.
guards tasked to do special duties for the company.

This prompted Mamaril to file a complaintagainst

On 8 October 2006, Lepanto Security Guard Lepanto with the National Labor Relations
Intelligence Operatives Arthur Bangkilas Commission Regional Arbitration Branch –
(Bangkilas) and Romeo Velasco (Velasco) Cordillera Administrative Region (NLRC RAB-
apprehended Eliseo Sumibang, Jr. (Sumibang), an CAR) for illegal dismissal and money claims.
employee of Lepanto, for stealing skinned copper
wires. Mamaril, the guard on duty at that time, was
also apprehended since he allegedly conspired with Several security guards of Lepanto and members of
Sumibang so that the wires would be brought out the SRF also filed a complaintwith the NLRC RAB-
and loaded into a tricycle. CAR for payment of overtime pay, rest day pay,
night shift differentials, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees.
According to Bangkilas and Velasco, they were
asked to do surveillance work at the Tubo Collar
area, particularly the shaft gate, due to reliable Upon motion of all the complainants, which
information that pilferage of copper wires was Lepanto did not object to, the three separate cases
rampant. On the night of 8 October 2006, Bangkilas were consolidated.
and Velasco were positioned at the back of the store
located along the national road, which was more or
less 40 meters from the Tubo Collar gate, when the The Labor Arbiter of the NLRC RAB-CAR ruled in
incident occurred. Bangkilas and Velasco saw a favor of Lepanto. The Labor Arbiter declared that
tricycle, with two passengers onboard and with its as a security guard in charge of the handling,
headlights switched off, stop at the Tubo Collar custody, care, and protection of company property,
gate. They saw that when the man door was opened Mamaril occupied a position of trust and
by the assigned duty guard Mamaril, someone went confidence. Thus, he was terminated for a just
out, and then something was loaded into the cause. With regard to the money claims, the Labor
tricycle. Then Bangkilas and Velasco came out Arbiter declared that Mamaril et. al. failed to
from hiding, and apprehended Sumibang. discharge the burden of proving that they are
entitled to such money claims.

At the formal hearing, Mamaril denied that he was

involved or that he conspired with Sumibang in the Mamaril et. al. filed an appeal to the NLRC. In a
alleged qualified theft. Mamaril claimed that he was Resolution, the NLRC partially granted the appeal
on roving patrol when the theft occurred. Mamaril and declared that the dismissal of Mamaril from the
stated that his only fault, if any, was that he forgot service was without any valid and just cause. The
to secure the man door. Padlocking the man door is NLRC likewise ordered Lepanto to pay them
a standard operating procedure of the company if overtime pay, holiday pay, and rest day pay.
the man door is not in use. Mamaril submitted the
sworn affidavits of mechanics Gao-an, Grupo,
Lepanto filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
with the CA. In a Decision dated 21 October 2015, However, the allegation of qualified theft as
the CA decided in favor of Mamaril et. al. justification for the loss of confidence was not
founded on clearly established facts. The theft
happened at night. Based from the pictures of the
ISSUES:
man door and the spot where Arthur Bangkilas and
Romeo Velasco were hiding, there is a considerable
A. Whether Mamaril was dismissed by Lepanto distance between the two. Moreover, it is highly
without a just and valid cause. unlikely for Bangkilas and Velasco to positively
identify Mamaril at such distance and with poor
B. Whether Mamaril et. al. are entitled to be lighting conditions.
compensated for work rendered on overtime,
holiday, and rest days.
Mamaril’s admission that he did not lock properly
the man door before he went on his roving patrol
RULING: does not also amount to a breach of trust and
confidence. Such breach, to be a ground for
termination, must be willful. That is, it must be
A. Mamaril was dismissed without just and
done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely,
valid cause.
without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an
act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
In dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the inadvertently.
employer to show that the employee was dismissed
for a valid and just cause. Here, Lepanto dismissed
B. Mamaril et. al. are entitled to holiday pay,
Mamaril based on loss of trust and confidence. To
rest day and overtime pay. They actually rendered
be a valid ground for dismissal, the loss of trust and
overtime work after their tour of duty. Such is, in
confidence must be based on a willful breach and
fact, admitted by Lepanto.
founded on clearly established facts. A breach is
willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and
purposely, without justifiable excuse, as Lepanto nonetheless insists that it paid Mamaril et.
distinguished from an act done carelessly, al. overtime pay and holiday pay. Hence, it should
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Loss of have at least presented copies of its payroll or
trust and confidence must rest on substantial copies of the pay slips to show payment of these
grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, benefits. However, it failed to do so. Due to such
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the failure of Lepanto, there arises a presumption that
employee would eternally remain at the mercy of such evidence, if presented, would be prejudicial to
the employer. The employer, thus, carries the it.
burden of clearly and convincingly establishing the
facts upon which loss of confidence in the employee
may be made to rest. ————————————————-

It is undisputed that Mamaril was hired by Lepanto THINGS DECIDED:

as a security guard. Lepanto asserts that as a
member of the SRF, Mamaril was not an ordinary
security guard but an in-house security officer privy In dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the
to the workings of management, and thus, held a employer to show that the employee was dismissed
position of trust and confidence. for a valid and just cause.
To be a valid ground for dismissal, the loss of trust 9, 2012 administrative hearing mentioned in the
and confidence must be based on a willful breach said termination letter because he was never given
and founded on clearly established facts. any notice or even notified of the said hearings.
Loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial Consequently, he filed a case for illegal dismissal
grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, with money claims against the petitioners. The LA
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the dismissed the complaint. The LA found that there
employee would eternally remain at the mercy of were substantial documentary evidence showing
the employer. that there was a just and valid cause for respondent's
dismissal on the grounds of incompetence and gross
and habitual neglect of duties. Upon appeal, the
SM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NLRC dismissed respondent’s appeal and affirmed
JOANN HIZON, ATTY. MENA OJEDA, JR., the LA. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with
AND ROSALINE QUA, PETITIONERS, VS. the CA which granted the petition and reversed and
TEODORE GILBERT ANG, RESPONDENT. set aside the ruling of the labor tribunals. The CA
found that respondent has been illegally dismissed
G.R. No. 220434, July 22, 2019 and that the allegation of gross and habitual neglect
FACTS of duty is not supported by any substantial
evidence.
This case arose from a complaint for illegal
dismissal with money claims by Respondent against ISSUE
the Petitioners. Respondent was hired by SMDC as whether respondent may be dismissed from
its Project Director since December 2006. employment on the ground of loss of trust and
Sometime in January 2012, he applied for a two- confidence.
week vacation leave, from March 30, 2012 to April
HELD
15, 2012, which was approved by Qua. On March 7,
2012, he received a Notice to Explain from Atty. YES. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an
Ojeda, Jr., concerning the cost status of one of his employee who is guilty of acts inimical to his
assigned projects and on March 13, 2012, he interests. This is more so in cases involving
submitted his explanation on the various issues and managerial employees or personnel occupying
concerns. On March 20, 2012, Atty. Ojeda, Jr. and positions of responsibility. In the present case,
Hizon called him for a meeting where he was respondent was holding an executive position in
informed that the management, without stating SMDC as Project Director and there is no doubt that
specific reasons, wants him to resign from his respondent is a managerial employee. As such, he
current work. should have recognized that such intricate position
requires the full trust and confidence of his
Respondent went on his scheduled vacation and
employer.
reported back to work on April 16, 2012. After
office hours, respondent received Memorandum Due to the nature of his occupation, respondent's
with subject Show Cause Notice, which contained, employment may be terminated for willful breach
among others, a statement informing him of a 30- of trust under Article 297(c) of the Labor Code. To
day preventive suspension without pay. justify a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and
confidence, the concurrence of two (2) conditions
On May 17, 2012, he informed Hizon that his
must be satisfied: (1) the employee concerned must
suspension was over and he will report back to
be holding a position of trust and confidence; and
work; but he received a phone call from the HRD
(2) there must be an act that would justify the loss
Manager that he does not need to report to work
of trust and confidence. These two requisites are
because he was already dismissed. Respondent
present in this case.
received a termination letter dated May 15, 2012.
He was surprised to learn of an alleged May 7 and
The first requisite has already been determined.
Respondent, as SMDC's project director, is holding ON MARCH 7, 2008, respondents Antonio P.
a position of trust and confidence. As to the second Magno Jr. and Melchor L. Ocampo Jr. filed against
requisite, that there must be an act that would justify petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., a
the loss of trust and confidence, however, the complaint for illegal suspension and money claims
degree of proof required in proving loss of trust and which was later amended to include a prayer for
confidence differs between a managerial employee reinstatement, backwages, damages, attorney’s fees
and a rank and file employee: and payment of their salaries corresponding to their
In terminating managerial employees based on suspension.
loss oftrust and confidence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required, but the mere
existence of a basis for believing that such In a decision promulgated on Oct. 30, 2008, the
employee has breached the trust of his Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Coca-Cola guilty of
employer suffices. illegally suspending and dismissing respondents.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Set against these parameters, the Court holds that in a decision dated Oct. 30, 2008 ruled that
respondent was validly dismissed based on loss of respondents were legally dismissed but their
trust and confidence. Respondent was not an suspension was illegal. The Court of Appeals (CA)
ordinary company employee. His position as one of promulgated a decision dated March 7, 2012 which
SMDC's Project Director is clearly a position of upheld the legality of respondents’ dismissal and
responsibility demanding an extensive amount of correspondingly denied for lack of merit their
trust from petitioners. The entire project account claims for reinstatement, backwages, moral and
depended on the accuracy of the classifications exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
made by him. It was reasonable for the petitioners
to trust that respondent had basis for his calculations
and specifications. Coca-Cola contended that any entitlement of
respondents to accrued wages should be limited to
Respondent's failure to properly manage these their basic pay only. There is no factual or legal
projects clearly is an act inimical to the company's basis of the inclusion in respondents’ accrued wages
interests sufficient to erode petitioners' trust and of benefits and amounts in increase of their basic
confidence in him. He failed to perform what he had pay, including the supposed cash equivalent and
represented or what was expected of him, thus, their vacation and sick leave benefits. It prayed for a
petitioners had a valid reason in losing confidence judgment directing respondents to return to it any
in him which justified his termination. and all amounts that they received as part of their
accrued wages in excess of their basic pay.
The right of an employer to freely select or
discharge his employees is subject to the regulation
by the State in the exercise of its paramount police Does this contention find merit?
power. However, there is also an equally
established principle that an employer cannot be
Ruling: No.
compelled to continue in employment an employee
guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the
employer and justifying loss of confidence in him. Subject to submission of proof of receipt of benefits
at the time of their dismissal, Magno’s and
Ocampo’s accrued backwages should include their
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. vs. Antonio basic salary as well as the allowances and benefits
P. Magno, Jr., et al., G.R. 212520, July 3, 2019). that they have been receiving at the time of their
dismissal. In accordance with the claims previously
put forward by Magno and Ocampo, accrued
backwages may include, but are not limited to,
allowances and benefits such as transportation
benefits, cellphone allowance, 13th month pay, sick
leave and vacation leave in the amounts at the time
of their dismissal. Magno and Ocampo should also
prove that they have been receiving the amounts
that correspond to merit or salary increases,
incentive pay and medicine at the time of their
dismissal so that they may validly qualify for
receipt of such as part of their accrued backwages.

In Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, 660 Phil. 434,455 (2011),

we ruled that an order for reinstatement entitles an
employee to receive his accrued backwages from
the moment the reinstatement order was issued up
to the date when the same was reversed by a higher
court without fear of refunding what he had
received. Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, 731 Phil. 685
(2014), further clarified Pfizer: The start of the
computation of the backwages should be on the day
following the last day when the dismissed employee
was paid backwages, and end on the date that a
higher court reversed the LA’s ruling of illegal
dismissal. The date of reversal should be the end
date, and not the date of the ultimate finality of such
reversal.

Considering that the kind of monetary awards

granted to Magno and Ocampo have differed
throughout the course of the present case, the LA
should determine the day following the last day
when Magno or Ocampo received the amount for
such allowance or benefit. In any event, the last day
of the period of computation of Magno’s and
Ocampo’s backwages should be July 27, 2010. This
is the date of promulgation of the NLRC decision
which ruled that Magno and Ocampo were legally
dismissed. This Court’s Entry of Judgment in G.R.
202141 on Oct. 31, 2012 should not have any
bearing on the determination of the last day of the
period of computation. (