Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Tegimenta v. Oco PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karla Lois de Guzman
    1) Mary Anne Oco worked for Tegimenta Chemical Philippines but took frequent absences due to pregnancy. She claims Garcia told her on May 21, 2002 not to report to work anymore, effectively dismissing her. Tegimenta denies dismissing Oco and claims she abandoned her job. 2) The court ruled in Oco's favor, noting Tegimenta did not deny Oco's key claim of being told not to work. According to evidentiary rules, the employer's silence on this point confirms the employee's statement. 3) While Tegimenta pointed out minor inconsistencies in Oco's case, these were insufficient to overcome the legal presumption created by the employer's failure to deny

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tegimenta v. Oco PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karla Lois de Guzman
    79 views1 page
    1) Mary Anne Oco worked for Tegimenta Chemical Philippines but took frequent absences due to pregnancy. She claims Garcia told her on May 21, 2002 not to report to work anymore, effectively dismissing her. Tegimenta denies dismissing Oco and claims she abandoned her job. 2) The court ruled in Oco's favor, noting Tegimenta did not deny Oco's key claim of being told not to work. According to evidentiary rules, the employer's silence on this point confirms the employee's statement. 3) While Tegimenta pointed out minor inconsistencies in Oco's case, these were insufficient to overcome the legal presumption created by the employer's failure to deny

    Original Title

    167. Tegimenta v. Oco.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mary Anne Oco worked for Tegimenta Chemical Philippines but took frequent absences due to pregnancy. She claims Garcia told her on May 21, 2002 not to report to work anymore, effectively dismissing her. Tegimenta denies dismissing Oco and claims she abandoned her job. 2) The court ruled in Oco's favor, noting Tegimenta did not deny Oco's key claim of being told not to work. According to evidentiary rules, the employer's silence on this point confirms the employee's statement. 3) While Tegimenta pointed out minor inconsistencies in Oco's case, these were insufficient to overcome the legal presumption created by the employer's failure to deny

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views1 page

    Tegimenta v. Oco PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karla Lois de Guzman
    1) Mary Anne Oco worked for Tegimenta Chemical Philippines but took frequent absences due to pregnancy. She claims Garcia told her on May 21, 2002 not to report to work anymore, effectively dismissing her. Tegimenta denies dismissing Oco and claims she abandoned her job. 2) The court ruled in Oco's favor, noting Tegimenta did not deny Oco's key claim of being told not to work. According to evidentiary rules, the employer's silence on this point confirms the employee's statement. 3) While Tegimenta pointed out minor inconsistencies in Oco's case, these were insufficient to overcome the legal presumption created by the employer's failure to deny

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    TEGIMENTA CHEMICAL PHILS. and VIVIAN ROSE D. that Tegimenta hired new employees to replace her.

    In
    GARCIA v. MARY ANNE OCO (2013) their defense, petitioners countered that she had
    abandoned her job by being continuously absent without
    [Sereno, CJ] official leave (AWOL). They further narrated that they
    could not possibly terminate her services, because she
    TOPIC Rules of Admissibility - Testimonial
    Evidence - Admissions and still had to settle her accountabilities.
    Confessions - Admissions Against LA observed that the employers did not deny Oco’s claims
    Interest/By Silence that she was simply told not to work. Hence LA ruled in
    DOCTRINE Silence constitutes an admission that
    Oco’s favor and was affirmed by the NLRC. Upon appeal,
    fortifies the truth of the narration
    CA initially reversed the NLRC ruling but subsequently
    pursuant to Rule 130, Sec 32 which
    states: reversed itself upon MR.
    An act or declaration made in the II. ISSUE
    presence and within the hearing or
    observation of a party who does or says WON Oco was verbally dismissed by the petitioners - YES
    nothing when the act or declaration is
    such as naturally to call for action or III. RATIONALE
    comment if not true, and when proper
    Petitioners adamantly try to persuade the Court to believe
    and possible for him to do so, may be
    given in evidence against him their narration that they did not dismiss Oco. To prove
    EVIDENCE Oco’s testimony that Garcia told her to their version of the story, they poke holes in Oco’s
    no longer report to work narration by harping on her allegedly false claim that
    Tegimenta hired replacements and making a big fuss
    about the inconsistency in the termination dates in Oco’s
    I. FACTS complaint and position paper. Unfortunately, these
    Mary Anne Oco worked as a clerk, and later on as a purported defects in Oco’s narration were considered
    material controller, for petitioner Tegimenta Chemical insufficient by the Court to destroy Oco’s case.
    Philippines, Incorporated (Tegimenta), a company owned The LA observed that the employers "did not deny the
    by petitioner Vivian Rose D. Garcia (Garcia). claims of complainant [Oco] that she was simply told not
    Because of her pregnancy, Oco incurred numerous to work." As in Solas v. Power & Telephone Supply Phils.,
    instances of absence and tardiness from March to April Inc., this silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the
    2002. Garcia subsequently advised her to take a vacation, truth of the employee's narration. Section 32, Rule 130 of
    the Rules of Court, provides:
    which the latter did from 1 to 15 May 2002.
    An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
    On her return, Oco worked for the next four working days
    hearing or observation of a party who does or says
    of May. However, on 21 May 2002, Garcia allegedly told
    nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to
    her to no longer report to the office effective that day.
    call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and
    Hence, Oco no longer went to work. She nevertheless
    possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence
    called petitioner at the end of the month, but was informed
    against him.
    that she had no more job to do.
    Considering this rule of evidence, together with the
    On 3 June 2002, respondent filed a Complaint for illegal
    immaterial discrepancies, the Court ruled in favor of Oco.
    dismissal and prayed for reinstatement and back wages
    before the LA. Later on, she amended her Complaint by IV. DISPOSITIVE
    asking for separation pay instead of reinstatement.
    Petition denied.
    In her Position Paper, Oco maintained that petitioner
    verbally dismissed her without any valid cause and
    without due process. To bolster her story, she adduced

    You might also like