4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

773 Phil. 271

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 ]
REYNALDO NOBLADO, JIMMY ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO,
MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON, JOSE ESTRIL,
DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA, ROMULO RECOMES,
ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD RON A, RUBEN
MIRAFUENTES,* ARNULFO MALAYO, JAIME REMIAS, JELMER
BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO, FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL
VICTORIA, DANIEL MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA
RAYTA, RAFAEL TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA,
ERNESTO VICTORIA, CERIA ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND VICENTE
CUACHIN,** SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,*** NAMELY:
LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L. CUACHIN, LEONARDO L.
CUACHIN, JUDITH L. CUACHIN, VILMA CUACHIN LLANZANA,
ELVIE CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA,
LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA, AIDA CUACHIN MIRANDILLA,
JULIET CUACHIN AWA, PETITIONERS, VS. PRTNCESITA K.
ALFONSO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated May 29,
2009 and August 18, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 104305. The challenged
Decision modified the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in
NLRC CA No. 03-5804-03, while the questioned Resolution denied herein respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration.

The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

Herein respondent is an independent contractor engaged in landscaping and the operation

and maintenance of a plant nursery under the business name "Cherry Alfonso Plant
Nursery." Petitioners were employees of respondent, having been hired on various dates as
gardeners, landscaper/designer, "leadman," "laborer," and driver.

In separate Complaints filed' on different dates in January and February 2001, petitioners,
together with eleven (11) other co-employees, charged respondent with illegal dismissal.
The Complaints were filed with the arbitration branch of the NLRC, National Capital
Region-North Sector in Quezon City. In their Position Paper, petitioners and the other
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 1/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

complainants alleged that, during their employment, they were not paid their salaries,
overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay and that, subsequently, respondent abruptly terminated their
employment on January 15, 2001 without valid cause and without due process. The
Complaints were consolidated.

In her Position Paper, respondent contended that: petitioners and the other complainants
were gardeners and utility workers whom she hired on a contractual basis; they were
assigned to work in the premises of respondent's client, Sta. Lucia Realty Development,
Inc. (Sta. Lucia); the life of their contracts were dependent on the contract entered into by
her and Sta. Lucia; petitioners and the other complainants committed deliberate and
malicious stoppage of work-related services, serious misconduct and willful disobedience
of a lawful order, gross neglect of their duties which resulted in great damage and
prejudice to Sta. Lucia; as a result, Sta. Lucia canceled its contract with respondent and
even threatened to file a civil action against her; since respondent's contract with Sta.
Lucia has been terminated due to the fault of petitioners and the other complainants, the
untimely termination of their employment cannot be construed as illegal.

On March 31, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision[3] finding respondent
liable for illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the LA's Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondents are hereby' ordered to

reinstate all [petitioners] to their former positions without loss of seniority
rights and other benefits and privileges with full backwages computed from the
time of their illegal dismissal on 15 January 2001 up to their actual
reinstatement which up to this promulgation already amounted to SIX
MILLION NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
(P6,097,300.00) PESOS. Furthermore, respondents are hereby ordered to pay
the sum of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (P1,497,925.00) PESOS, as
discussed above.[4]

SO ORDERED.[5]

The LA found that respondent failed to prove her allegation that petitioners and the other
complainants were guilty of abandoning their work. The LA also ruled that respondent
failed to furnish petitioners and the other complainants a written notice stating the
particular acts or omissions constituting the ground for their dismissal.

Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with the NLRC.

Pending her appeal, respondent filed two Manifestations in March 2005 and November
2005 indicating the withdrawal from the case of eleven (11) of the thirty-eight (38)
original complainants. Respondent submitted the Affidavits of Desistance and/or
Withdrawal, together with the Quitclaim and Waiver of the withdrawing complainants.[6]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 2/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

On January 31, 2007, the NLRC rendered a Decision[7] affirming the LA's decision and
dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. Nonetheless, the NLRC took judicial notice of the
withdrawal of 11 of the 38 original complainants, finding that such desistance and
withdrawal are in accordance with law. The NLRC disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal of the Respondents-

Appellants is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed
decision of the Labor Arbiter dated March 31, 2003 is affirmed. With respect to
other matters such as but not limited to the Attorney's Lien and Withdrawal of
Counsel, which are incidental to the appeal, the same must be litigated at a
proper forum.

SO ORDERED.[8]

The NLRC held that: respondent is petitioners' actual employer; petitioners and the other
complainants are respondent's regular employees, contrary to the latter's claim that
petitioners and the other complainants were project employees; respondent failed to
comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of a valid termination of
employment.

Consequently, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the same was
denied by the NLRC in its Resolution[9] dated March 28, 2008.

Undeterred, respondent appealed to the CA.

In its questioned Decision dated May 29, 2009, the CA partially granted respondent's
appeal. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is PARTLY

GRANTED. The Court SETS ASIDE the award of backwages and in lieu
thereof, [respondent] is hereby ORDERED to pay each [petitioner] the amount
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as nominal damages for failure to comply
fully with the notice requirement as part of due process.

Meanwhile, the award of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay in
favor of [petitioners] is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, let this case be
remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the service incentive
leave pay and 13th month pay.

SO ORDERED.[10]

The CA held that petitioners were not illegally dismissed from their employment since
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 3/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

they voluntarily abandoned their work as shown by the records. It further held that
considering the deliberate stoppage of work, which resulted in the cancellation of
respondent's contract with Sta. Lucia, only the amount of PI 0,000.00 as nominal damages
should be awarded to petitioners for the violation of their right to due process. However,
the CA upheld the validity of the Affidavits of Desistance as well as Quitclaims of the 11
withdrawing complainants.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration[11] against said decision which was
denied by the CA in its assailed Resolution dated August 18, 2009.

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioners cite the following grounds to support their petition:

I. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN

FINDING PETITIONERS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTIES,
GRAVELY MISAPPRECIATED THE FACTS AND THE PIECES OF
EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

II. THAT AS A RESULT OF THE MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS AND

THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WITH DUE RESPECT, THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN FINDING PETITIONERS
GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTIES, MADE MANIFESTLY
MISTAKEN INFERENCES.

III. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING
PETITIONERS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTIES.

IV. THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONERS

WERE GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTIES IS IN CONFLICT
WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE NLRC AND THE LABOR ARBITER THAT
THEY WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT PETITIONERS WERE DISMISSED FOR

A JUST CAUSE BUT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED THAT THERE WOULD BE A QUESTION OF LAW AS TO
THE RETROACTIVITY OF THE AGABON RULING OR AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY IMPOSED.

VI. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD THE AFFIDAVITS OF
DESISTANCE AND QUITCLAIMS OF THE CONCERNED PETITIONERS
DESPITE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND
MISREPRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE NLRC.

VII. WITH DUE RESPECT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 4/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO AWARD PETITIONERS'

ATTORNEY'S FEES.[12]

At the outset, the Court notes that the issues raised by the petitioners are mainly factual. It
is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor
cases.[13] Corollary thereto, this Court has held in a number of cases that factual findings
of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, which are deemed to have acquired expertise in
matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but
even finality, and bind the Court when' supported by substantial evidence.[14] However, it
is equally settled that the foregoing principles admit of certain exceptions, to wit: (1) the
findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the
findings are contrary to those of the trial court;. (8) the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition,
as well as in petitioners main and reply briefs, are not disputed by respondent; (10) the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; and (1.1) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.[15] In the instant case, the Court gives due course to the instant petition
considering that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the LA and the NLRC differ
from those of the CA.

Having disposed of preliminary matters, the Court will now proceed to resolve the issues
raised in the instant petition.

Petitioners' arguments boil down to the basic question of whether or not they were
illegally dismissed from their employment. An additional issue is the validity of the
Affidavits of Desistance and Quitclaims of 11 of the 38 original complainants who
subsequently withdrew their complaints.

As to the main issue, petitioners firmly, contend that they were dismissed without just
cause and due process, thus, the termination of their employment is illegal. They argue
that the CA erred in basing the legality of their dismissal on the sample letters written by
respondent and Sta. Lucia which were-made known only to petitioners when said
documents were attached to respondent's Position Paper at the arbitral stage of the
proceedings. Petitioners also point out that respondent, as employer, failed to discharge the
burden of proving that petitioners' dismissal was legally justified.

The Court finds the petition partly meritorious.

For a dismissal to be valid, the.rule is that the employer must comply with both the
substantive and the procedural due process requirements.[16] Substantive due process
requires that the dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an authorized cause under
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 5/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Articles 282, 283[17] or 284[18] of the Labor Code.[19]

On the other hand, procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.[20] The employer must furnish the employee with two
written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice
apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought;
and (2) the second notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.
[21] Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be

complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard.[22] It is not necessary that
an actual hearing be conducted.[23]

In the present case, the Court' shall first discuss whether respondent was able to comply
with the substantive requirements of the law.

Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the termination of the
employment of an employee, to wit:

Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes:

a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee

of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;

b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed

in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

d. Commission of a crime, or offense by the employee against

the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or duly authorized representatives; and

e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing;

In its decision, the CA held that respondent is not liable for illegal dismissal since
petitioners were guilty of gross neglect of their duties which is a valid cause of termination
under the Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the documentary evidence submitted
by respondent, specifically the sample letters written by respondent, dated January 20 and
25, 2001 and the letters of complaint written by Sta. Lucia, dated January 18, 2001, clearly
established the voluntary and deliberate actions of petitioners to not report for work.

The Court does not agree.

Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 6/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

both gross and habitual.[24] Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of
one's duties.[25] Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform one's duties for a
period of time, depending on the circumstances.[26] Under these standard's and the
circumstances obtaining in the case, the Court finds that the CA erred in concluding that
petitioners were guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties.

The Court quotes with approval the observations made by petitioners that the sample
letters submitted by respondent cannot be a fair and accurate assessment of petitioners'
reputed gross neglect of duties considering that they refer to incidents alter the fact of their
dismissal.[27] Petitioners correctly opined that the CA misappreciated the facts when
evidence on record, specifically the letters dated June 18, 2001 of Sta. Lucia, reveals that
petitioners' alleged "deliberate stoppage of work" and conspiracy "to abandon their daily
assigned tasks which supposedly happened on January 16, 2001 refer to a date which
occurred after their employment was terminated by respondent.[28]

In any case, even assuming that petitioners were indeed negligent, their inaction could
only be regarded as a single or isolated act of negligence that cannot be categorized as
habitual(and gross, and, hence, not a just cause for their dismissal.[29]

More so, since this is the first time that petitioners allegedly committed gross and habitual
neglect of duties, the Court finds that dismissal is too harsh a penalty to impose on
petitioners. The Court reiterates that while jurisprudence recognizes management's
prerogative to discipline its employees, the exercise of this prerogative should at all times
be reasonable and should be tempered with compassion and understanding. Dismissal is
the ultimate penalty that can be imposed on an employee. Where a penalty less punitive
may suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a
consequence so severe for what is at stake is not merely the employee's position but his
very livelihood and perhaps the life and subsistence of his family.[30]

Also worth stressing is the fact that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of
proving that the dismissal of the employee is for a just or an authorized cause.[31] Failure
to dispose of the burden would imply that the dismissal is not lawful, and that the
employee is entitled to reinstatement, backwages and accruing benefits.[32] Furthermore,
dismissed employees are not required to prove their innocence of the employer's
accusations against them.[33] Here, respondent miserably failed to discharge her burden of
proving that petitioners' dismissal was based on a just cause.

Second, turning to the issue of procedural due process, it is apparent that respondent failed
to comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. This is the unanimous finding
of the LA, the NLRC and the CA.

In AJiling v. Feliciano,[34] this Court held that to effect a legal dismissal, the employer
must show not only a valid ground therefor, but also that procedural due process has
properly been observed.[35] When the Labor Code speaks of procedural due process, the
reference is usually to the two-written notice rule envisaged in Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 7/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which provides:

Section 2. Standard of due process.; requirements of notice. - In all cases of

termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed.

I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article

282 of the Labor Code:

(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the 'ground or

grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable
opportunity within which to explain his side;

(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with,

the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity
to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence
presented against him; and

(c) A written notice [of) termination served on the employee indicating

that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, tire foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's

last known address.[36]

None of aforementioned procedural requisites were complied with by the respondent.

Records show that the only effort to comply with procedural due process in dismissing
petitioners were the sample letters written by respondent, which.unfortunately, were not
even sufficiently shown to have been sent to petitioners. In fact, respondent's self-serving
sample letters as well as the letters of Sta. Lucia were only made known to petitioners
when said documents were attached to respondent's Position Paper[37] filed on April 16,
2001, at the arbitral stage of the proceedings. Neither was there any showing that
petitioners were given the chance to explain their side or to respond to the charges against
them and present evidence in their defense.

In fine, respondent's lack of just cause and non-compliance with the procedural requisites
in terminating petitioners' employment taints the latter's dismissal with illegality.

Where the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and there was no due process,
Article 279[38] of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employee is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.[39]
However, if reinstatement is no longer possible, the backwages shall be computed from
the time of the employee's illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.[40]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 8/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

In this case, reinstatement is no longer possible because of the length of time that has
passed from the date of the incident to final resolution of the case. More than fourteen
years have already transpired from the time petitioners were wrongfully dismissed. To
order reinstatement at this juncture will no longer serve any prudent or practical purpose.
[41] Thus, in the instant case, petitioners are entitled to an award of full backwages from
the time they were illegally dismissed on January 15, 2001 up to the finality of this
Decision.

In addition to payment of backwages, petitioners are also entitled to separation pay[42]

equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6)
months considered as one (1) whole year, from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the
finality of this judgment, as an alternative to reinstatement.[43]

Also, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, legal interest shall be imposed on the
monetary awards herein granted at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality
of this Decision until fully paid.[44]

Finally, as to petitioners' allegation that the Affidavits of Desistance with accompanying

Quitclaims and Waivers executed by 11 of the 38 original complainants are invalid, the
NLRC and the CA were one in concluding that these documents are valid. Thus, the Court
finds it sufficient to quote, with approval, the findings of the NLRC on the matter, to wit:

xxxx

1. Nine sets of documents were submitted by the respondents in March 2005

and the other two were presented in November 2005. However, complainants
assailed the same for the First time only after about two years or in April 2007;

2. At. the time the same were submitted by the respondents, complainants were
represented by their original counsel and the latter was furnished with copies of
the said documents;

3. While several complainants signed the Verification attached to the motion

seeking a reconsideration of Our recognition of the eleven Affidavits with
Quitclaims and Waivers, not even one of those who desisted and withdrew had
signed the same; and

4. Similarly, not a single desisting complainant had signed the manifestation

authorizing the new counsel to represent the complainants in all the
proceedings relevant to the instant case.

x x x[45]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 9/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

The Decision dated May 29, 2009 and Resolution dated August 18, 2009 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104305 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The Court REINSTATES with MODIFICATION the March 31, 2003 Decision of the
Labor Arbiter, as follows: (1) the award of full backwages shall be computed from the
time petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment on January 15, 2001 up to
the finality of this Decision; (2) in lieu of reinstatement, respondent is directed to pay
petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, with a
fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year, from the time of their
illegal dismissal up to the finality of this Decision; (3) the monetary awards herein granted
shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the
finality of this Decision until fully paid.

The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin,**** Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concur.

January 7, 2016

N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on ___November 23, 2015___ a Decision, copy attached hereto,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was
received by this Office on January 7, 2016 at 10:02 a.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court

* Also referred to as Ruben Mirafuentas in other parts of the rollo.

** Also referred to as Vincent Cuachin in other parts of the rollo.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 10/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

*** Per Resolution of this Court dated January 10, 20H, rollo, p. 354.

**** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per
Special Order No. 2289 dated November 16, 2015.

[1]Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices

Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; rollo, pp. 39-55.

[2] Id. at 56-58.

[3] Id. at 104-124.

[4]The amount of PI,497,925.00 consists of P807,450.00, representing petitioners' service

incentive leave and 13th month pays and P690,475.00, as attorney's fees, equivalent to
10% of the total monetary award.

[5] Rollo, pp. 123-124.

[6] See rollo, pp. 150-169.

[7] Id. at 170-178.

[8] Id. at 178.

[9] Id. at 189-191.

[10] Id. at 54-55. (Emphasis in the original)

[11] Id. at 246-257.

[12] Id at-12-13.

[13] New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 211 (2003).

[14] Merck Sharp ami Dohme (Phils.), et al. v. Rabies, et al. 620 Phil 505, 512 (2009).

[15] Id.

[16]ALPS Transportation v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 186732, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 423,
430.

[17] Art.
283, Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 11/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the

establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of
Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of
termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker
affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1)
month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of
operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half
(1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6)
months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

[18] Art. 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services
of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of
his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1)
month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is
greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.

[19] ALPS Transportation v. Rodriguez, supra note 16.

[20] Skippers United Pacific, Inc. et al. v. Dom, et al. 681 Phil. 427, 439 (2012).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24]
Cavite Apparel, incorporated v. Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, February 6 2013, 690
SCRA 48, 57.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] See rollo, p. 86.

[28] Id. at 88-89.

[29] St. Luke s Medical Center, Inc., et al. v. Noktrio, 648 Phil. 285, 298 (2010).

[30] Cavile Apparel, Incorporated v. Marquez, supra note 24, at 60.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 12/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[31] San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, 606 Phil. 160, 173 (2009).

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

[34] G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186.

[35] Aliling, v. Felicinno, supra at 209

[36] Id.

[37] Rollo, pp. 72-89.

[38]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.

[39]Perez, et al. v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co., et al., 602 Phil. 522, 543
(2009).

[40]Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, OSB, G.R.
No. 187226, January 28, 2015.

[41] Perez, et al. v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co., et. al., supra note 39.

[42]
Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, GR. No. 170904, November 13, 2013, 709
SCRA 330, 348- 349.

[43]
Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna Ouiambao, supra note 40;
De Guzman v. NLRC, 564 Phil. 600, 614 (2007).

[44] Lens v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, supra note 40,
citing Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 180972, January 20, 2014,
714 SCRA 251, 274-275 and Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 1 89871, August 13,
2013, 703 SCRA 439, 458.

[45] See NLRC Resolution dated March 28, 2008, rollo, p. 190.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 13/14
4/26/25, 3:33 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61478 14/14