LABOR JURISPRUDENCE

TERMINATION
G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017
LEO T. MAULA, Petitioner, v. XIMEX DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC., Respondent.
Termination of Employment

xxxWhile an employer is given a wide latitude of discretion in managing its own affairs,
in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of its
employees, and in the imposition of disciplinary measures on them, the exercise of
disciplining and imposing appropriate penalties on erring employees must be practiced
in good faith and for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or
under valid agreements.17 xxx

xxx Dismissal from employment have two facets: first, the legality of the act of
dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the
manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. 19 The burden of proof
rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause
or that the termination of employment was valid. 20 In administrative and quasi-judicial
proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence or "such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion."21 Thus, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the
employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the employee. 22 When in
doubt, the case should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy
of our labor laws and the 1987 Constitution. xxxx

Act of Dismissal

Respondent manifestly failed to prove that petitioner's alleged act constitutes serious
misconduct.

Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct; it is the 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. 24 The misconduct, to be serious
within the meaning of the Labor Code, must be of such a grave and aggravated
character and not merely trivial or unimportant. 25 Thus, for misconduct or improper
behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to
the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the employer.2

xxx This Court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh. Not every case of
insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty
of dismissal because the penalty to be imposed on an erring employee must be
commensurate with the gravity of his or her offense. 32 Petitioner's termination from
employment is also inappropriate considering that he had been with respondent
company for seven (7) years and he had no previous derogatory record. It is settled
that notwithstanding the existence of a just cause, dismissal should not be imposed, as
it is too severe a penalty, if the employee had been employed for a considerable length
of time in the service of his or her employer, and such employment is untainted by any
kind of dishonesty and irregularity.xxx

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2017januarydecisions.php?id=41

[G.R. No. 207253. August 20, 2014.]

CRISPIN B. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. IRVINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. and

TOMAS SY SANTOS, respondents.

https://www.floresofrinlaw.com/lopez-v-irvine-construction

Case law states that the principal test for determining whether particular employees
are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular
employees," is whether or not the "project employees" 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. The project could either be (1) a
particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the
employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from
the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is
not within the regular business of the corporation. In order to safeguard the rights of
workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to prevent employees from
attaining the status of regular employees, employers claiming that their workers are
project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the
employment was specified at the time they were engaged, but also that there was
indeed a project.

xxx In this case, the NLRC found that no substantial evidence had been presented
by Irvine to show that Lopez had been assigned to carry out a "specific project or
undertaking," with its duration and scope specified at the time of engagement. In view
of the weight accorded by the courts to factual findings of labor tribunals such as the
NLRC, the Court, absent any cogent reason to hold otherwise, concurs with its ruling
that Lopez was not a project but a regular employee. 31 This conclusion is bolstered
by the undisputed fact that Lopez had been employed by Irvine since November
1994, 32 or more than 10 years from the time he was laid off on December 27,
2005. 33 Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that any employee who has rendered
at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee:

Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. — The provisions of written

agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement
of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season. EHITaS

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the

preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee . . . . (Emphasis supplied)

As a regular employee, Lopez is entitled to security of tenure, and, hence, dismissible

only if a just or authorized cause exists therefor. Article 279 of the Labor Code states
this fundamental rule:

Art. 279. Security of tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time
his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied)

xxxxx

G.R. No. 235873, January 21, 2019

ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO, PETITIONER, v. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES

PHILIPPINES, INC.,* RESPONDENT.

Nevertheless, case law qualifies that the exercise of such prerogative "must not be in
violation of the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious." 36 

xxx
Thus, the Court has ruled that it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it
has become overmanned. Rather, it must produce adequate proof of such redundancy
to justify the dismissal of the affected employees, such as but not limited to the new
staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created
positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.

xxx

Particularly, respondent attempted to justify its purported redundancy program by

claiming that on December 18, 2014, it received an e-mail from Amazon informing it of
the latter's plans to "right size the headcount of the account due to business
exigencies/requirements."41 However, such e-mail -much less, any sufficient
corroborative evidence tending to substantiate its contents - was never presented in
the proceedings a quo. At most, respondent submitted, in its motion for reconsideration
before the NLRC, an internal document,42 which supposedly explained Amazon's
redundancy plans. However, the Court finds that this one (1)-page document hardly
demonstrates respondent's good faith not only because it lacks adequate data to justify
a declaration of redundancy, but more so, because it is clearly self-serving since it was
prepared by one Vivek Tiku, the requestor/business unit head of respondent, and not
by any employee/representative coming from Amazon itself. 

xxx

Aside from the lack of evidence to show respondent's good faith, respondent likewise
failed to prove that it employed fair and reasonable criteria in its redundancy program.
Respondent merely presented a screenshot of a table with names of the employees it
sought to redundate based on their alleged poor performance ratings. 43 Indeed, while
"efficiency" may be a proper standard to determine who should be terminated pursuant
to a program of redundancy, said document does not convincingly show that fair and
reasonable criteria was indeed employed by respondent. To reiterate, all that the
screenshot contains is a list of employees with their concomitant performance ratings.
As the LA pointed out, "[t]hough [respondent] incorporated in their Reply a screenshot
of what appears to be a table containing the names of purported employees including
their respective performance ratings, this Office cannot admit this at its face value in
the absence of proof that would substantiate the same." 44 As earlier stated, the
presence of these criteria is evidence that the implementation of redundancy was
painstakingly done by the employer in order to properly justify the termination
from the service of its employees. The aforesaid screenshot barely shows
respondent's actual compliance with this standard.

xxx

[ G.R. No. 245370, July 13, 2020 ] EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., MAMA SHIPPING SARL AND
CAPT. LEOPOLDO ARCILLA, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH
DIVISION) AND JOHN P. LOYOLA, RESPONDENTS.

In labor cases, the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized
cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion is that the
dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. [21] Moreover, not only must the dismissal be for a
cause provided by law, it should also comply with the rudimentary requirements of due process, that is,
the opportunity to be heard and defend one's self. Thus, for dismissal to be valid, the employer must
show through substantial evidence – or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion – that (1) the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause;
and (2) the dismissed employee was afforded due process.

XXXXXX

1. LABOR LAW; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; VIOLATION

OF COMPANY POLICY; EMPLOYEE DISMISSAL; PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO
PROVE VIOLATION OF THE COMPANY POLICY MEANS THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT'S DISMISSAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. — Had petitioner
successfully established by competent evidence the existence of such company
policy as well as the confidential nature of its technology, perhaps things might
have turned out differently. But inasmuch as petitioner failed utterly on both
counts, it follows that there was no basis at all for private respondent's dismissal
on the ground of either disobedience or loss of trust and confidence. The
petitioner's failure to prove violation of the policy necessarily means that private
respondent's dismissal was not justified. It is doctrinal that in an unlawful
dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause for the
employee's dismissal. To warrant dismissal for loss of trust and confidence there
should naturally be some basis therefor. Unsupported by sufficient proof, "loss of
confidence" is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for
dismissal.
2. ID.; REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN EMPLOYEE
DISMISSAL. — Petitioner's failure to give private respondent the benefit of a
hearing and an investigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of
his right to due process of law. It is an established rule of long standing that, to
effect a completely valid and unassailable dismissal, an employer must show not
only sufficient ground therefor but must also prove that procedural due process
had been observed by giving the employee two notices: one, of the intention to
dismiss, indicating therein his acts or omissions complained against, and two,
notice of the decision to dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the
charges against him, in between such notices. "The twin requirements of notice
and hearing constitute essential elements of due process in cases of employee
dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee
concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed
dismissal; upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employee
an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him accordingly to
defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two
requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process
requirement of the 1987 Constitution."
3. ID.; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS NOT OBSERVED IN CASE AT BAR. —
Petitioner's contention that there was no need to conduct a formal hearing before
dismissing private respondent because he was afforded the opportunity to
explain and defend himself in writing, is facile and likewise erroneous, not to
mention misleading. As observed by the Solicitor General, the opportunity
granted to private respondent was to explain his side regarding the report against
him. At that time, there was yet no charge filed by petitioner against private
respondent. It was only when private respondent articulated his views against
petitioner's alleged policy on the secrecy of its technology that it decided to
require him to explain why the company should not terminate his services for
cause. Private respondent was not afforded the chance to be informed of the
details constituting his alleged violation. Moreover, petitioner did not even
present any evidence to prove its allegations against private respondent. On the
contrary, it was private respondent who before the public respondent duly
established that the purported secret propagation technique was no longer secret
as it had attained wide currency via government publications. Unarguable it is
that the act of dismissing an employee without first conducting a formal
investigation is arbitrary and unwarranted, as it affects one's person and
property.
4. ID.; NLRC'S AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO
PRIVATE RESPONDENT UNJUSTIFIED DESPITE HIS WRONGFUL
DISMISSAL; REASON. — While private respondent was wrongfully dismissed by
petitioner without valid cause, this does not automatically mean that petitioner is
liable to private respondent for moral or other damages. In Primero
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court held that ". . . an award (of moral
damages) cannot be justified solely upon the premise (otherwise sufficient for
redress under the Labor Code) that the employer fired his employee without just
cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant
the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, to repeat, that the
act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor,
or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; and of
course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., resulted
therefrom." This was reiterated in Garcia vs. NLRC, where the Court added that
exemplary damages may be awarded only if the dismissal was shown to have
been effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. This the private
respondent failed to do. Because no evidence was adduced to show that
petitioner company acted in bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in
dismissing the private respondent, the labor arbiter did not award any moral and
exemplary damages in his decision. Respondent NLRC therefore had no factual
or legal basis to award such damages in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
However, the Court sustains the award of attorney's fees equivalent to five
percent (5%) of the total monetary award as authorized by the Labor Code.
XXXXXX
In contrast with petitioner's bare allegation are undisputed facts and pieces of evidence adduced by respondents, which cast serious doubt on

the veracity of petitioner's recollection of events.

According to Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution,

“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.”

In cases where workers or employers feel like they are still not being heard, even after having
followed the grievance procedure, they may raise their cases to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The NLRC is a quasi-judicial body under DOLE that is tasked to promote
and maintain industrial peace by resolving labor and management disputes.