People v. Mazo y Ybañez, G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Mazo y Ybañez

 G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Illegal Sale and Possesion of dangerous drugs; Buy-bust Operation;  Chain of Custody 

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of seized drugs as evidence. Provisions of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime.

 

On January 12, 2017, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group planned a buy-bust operation against Nico, based on information alleging drug selling activities in Barangay La Paz, Makati City. During the operation, PO1 Andrew O. Amante acted as the poseur-buyer, with PO1 Nathaniel Maculi and PO1 Stephanie Limjap as back-ups. Nico was identified by an informant and subsequently engaged in a transaction with the poseur-buyer, handing over sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Nico, Joey, and Joy were arrested, and the confiscated items were submitted for examination, resulting in positive drug identification. 

However, critical procedural lapses emerged concerning the chain of custody of the seized drugs. First, there was ambiguity regarding where and when the confiscated items were marked. Although PO1 Andrew O. Amante testified to marking the sachets, details on the actual marking process were lacking, creating uncertainty about the integrity of the evidence. Second, the inventory and photograph of the seized items were conducted not immediately after the seizure but at the barangay hall, without justification for the delay. Moreover, the absence of representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory further undermined the integrity of the process. These lapses raised questions about the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, violating the chain of custody rule under RA 9165. 

 

Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, as required by law, thus ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 

NO. The court acquitted Nico and Joey due to a broken chain of custody. It found that the prosecution failed to satisfy the essential requirement of proving the movement and custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation to their presentation in court. In illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.20 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court.21 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court.22 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate explanations for deviations from these procedural requirements. The apprehending team failed to provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21 Chain of Custody Rule, and they likewise failed to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite procedural lapses. Specifically, there were deficiencies in the marking, inventory, and witness presence during the seizure, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The police officers only made a general statement that the place of arrest was hostile without elaborating any threat on their security. The operatives also failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. Worse, it appears that the barangay official was absent when the drugs were seized. Lastly, no representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating were present to witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized items.

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements to prevent the imprisonment of innocent individuals. Therefore, Nico and Joey were acquitted, and the resolution reversed and set aside, with immediate release ordered unless lawfully held for another cause.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

People v. Arraz y Rodriguez, G.R. No. 252353, [July 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Arraz y Rodriguez

 G.R. No. 252353, [July 6, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Cybercrime Prevention Act; Special penal Law; Rape; Trafficking in Persons 

Each crime has its own set of elements and factual basis, and thus, convictions must be based on separate and independent grounds. The concept of multiple convictions for distinct offenses; it underscores the importance of ensuring that each charge is supported by sufficient evidence and stands on its own merits, without unjustified merging or overlap with other offenses. 

 

Jerrie was charged with multiple offenses including trafficking in persons, rape, and violation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The case involved Jerrie allegedly exploiting AAA252353, enticing her with promises of a better life - whom he hired as a domestic helper, and then subjecting her to sexual exploitation, including live nude shows and intercourse, online prostitution, coerced sexual acts, and distribution of explicit content, which he facilitated through online platforms. Jerrie also allegedly arranged encounters with foreigners who engaged in sexual activities with AAA in exchange for money. The victims, including AAAand CCC, were brought from their hometown to Manila under false pretenses. 

The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from AAA and CCC, who detailed the abuse they suffered at Jerrie's hands, as well as digital evidence retrieved from Jerrie's residence, which included photos and videos of the victims engaged in compromising acts. Law enforcement officers conducted surveillance and an entrapment operation, leading to Jerrie's arrest. Jerrie denied the charges, claiming that the allegations were fabricated and that the victims willingly engaged in sexual activities with him and others. 

 

Whether or not Jerrie is guilty for trafficking in persons, rape, and violation of the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. 

YES. The court rendered a comprehensive ruling, affirming Jerrie's guilt on all charges. Regarding trafficking in persons, the court found Jerrie guilty based on the prosecution's evidence demonstrating his exploitation of AAA for commercial sex acts through force, coercion, and intimidation. For the rape charges, the court relied on AAA credible testimony detailing multiple instances of sexual assault perpetrated by Jerrie, rejecting his defenses of denial and questioning the victim's credibility. Additionally, Jerrie was found guilty of violating cybercrime laws by engaging in online exploitation and distributing lewd content for profit.

The court imposed appropriate penalties, including life imprisonment, hefty fines, and awards for damages to the victim, reflecting the gravity of the offenses and the need for deterrence and restitution. Ultimately, the court dismissed Jerrie's appeal, underscoring the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and upholding the rule of law in combating heinous crimes.

 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW TEXT

People v. Sualog, G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Sualog

 G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Murder; Qualifying Circumstance of treachery not proved - charged modified to homicide on appeal 

Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. In order for aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, they must be specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial. Likewise, it is insufficient for the prosecution to merely indicate the presence of qualifying circumstances without describing the acts that constitute those circumstance. Failure to do so may result in the disregard of such circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty. 

 

John Francis Sualog was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay, and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay. The incidents occurred on October 12, 2003, in the Municipality of Libertad, Province of Antique, Philippines. The charges were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi, Antique, with each count alleging that John Francis, armed with a bolo, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, hacked, and stabbed the victims, causing their instantaneous deaths. The prosecution asserted the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances, including evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime, and superior strength, with the commission of the offenses characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. John Francis pleaded guilty to the charges, and the RTC convicted him of three counts of murder, imposing the death penalty for each case. 

 

Whether or not the killings qualify as murder and whether the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution were properly proven. 

NO. While the killings were initially charged as murder with qualifying aggravating circumstances, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently alleged in the Information. The Court ruled out treachery due to a lack of clear evidence on how the attack commenced and developed. The prosecution also did not establish with moral certainty that the three victims were utterly oblivious to the impending attack or that they had no opportunity to mount a meaningful defense. Inarguably, there was reasonable doubt on how the aggression started, developed, and ended.

Likewise, evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of when John Francis decided to commit the crime and had sufficient time to reflect on its consequences. The Court discounted evident premeditation because there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.The aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy were also disregarded due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, John Francis was found guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder.

Considering his plea of guilt, the Court applied the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal for each count. Civil liability was also modified, with John Francis directed to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages for each count, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The grant of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.

 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Leocadio y Labrador, G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Leocadio y Labrador

 G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Rape with Homicide; Exempting Circumstance of Accident; Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt 

The court emphasized that for accident to be considered an exempting circumstance, there must be a complete absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused. In this case, the court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, that constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion, that points to the accused's guilt to the exclusion of all others. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the crime, the court found the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to be sufficient for conviction.

 

On March 26, 2002, AAA, a 12-year-old girl, was sent by her parents, BBB and CCC, to collect payment from their neighbor, Milo Leocadio y Labrador (Milo), for rice cakes. AAA did not return home, causing her parents to search for her. The next day, they reported her disappearance to the police. It was later discovered that AAA's lifeless body was found in Milo's house. She was found under Milo's bed with a cloth wrapped around her mouth and nose, hands tied behind her back, and signs of sexual assault and multiple injuries. 

During the trial, Milo admitted to killing AAA but claimed it was accidental. He stated that he was sleeping when AAA suddenly touched his shoulder, causing him to unconsciously throw a punch that led to her death. Milo denied any sexual assault and maintained that he did not rape AAA. He asserted that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a single blow he delivered, which led to her accidental death. 

 

Whether or not Milo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape with homicide. 

YES. The Court affirms the decision finding Milo guilty of rape with homicide. Despite Milo's claim of accidental killing, the circumstances do not support the exemption from criminal liability due to accident. The court emphasized that accident requires the absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused, and Milo's actions did not meet this standard.

In crimes against persons, such as rape with homicide, the intent to kill is presumed if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the perpetrator. The court noted that AAA's death, caused by asphyxia and multiple injuries, indicated a deliberate and intentional act by Milo. The extent and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim suggested an intent to kill, which belies Milo's claim of accidental killing.

The defense of accident is struck down due to Milo's failure to establish it with clear and convincing proof. Additionally, circumstantial evidence convincingly links Milo to the rape and murder of AAA. In this case, the prosecution presented a chain of events and medical findings that pointed to Milo's guilt. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the rape and murder, the circumstantial evidence, including AAA's disappearance after visiting Milo's house and the nature of her injuries, formed a solid basis for conviction. Hence, Milo is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without parole and ordered to pay various damages to the victim's heirs with legal interest. 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Ortiz v. Forever Richsons Trading Corp., G.R. No. 238289, [January 20, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Ortiz v. Forever Richsons Trading Corp.

 G.R. No. 238289, [January 20, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal and Money Claims; Labor-only Contracting 

The prohibition against labor-only contracting is established in Article 106 of the Labor Code. This doctrine prohibits arrangements where a contractor merely supplies workers to an employer without substantial capital or control over the workers.

 

Oscar S. Ortiz (Oscar) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Forever Richsons Trading Corporation (now Charverson Wood Industry Corporation) and Adan Co (respondents) on June 28, 2013. He alleged that he was hired by Forever Richsons in June 2011 under a 5-month employment contract with Workpool Manpower Services (Workpool Manpower). Despite the contract's expiration, Oscar continued working for the respondents. When news of successful cases by previous employees spread, respondents required workers to sign new contracts, blank papers, and vouchers. Oscar refused and was subsequently dismissed. 

 

Whether or not Oscar’s dismissal was legal. 

NO. The court ruled in favor of Oscar. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the validity of dismissal, courts must closely examine the nature of the contracting relationship between parties. Specifically, the case emphasizes the prohibition against labor-only contracting, where a contractor supplies workers to an employer without substantial capital or control over the workers, as defined in Article 106 of the Labor Code.  The Court found that Workpool Manpower was a labor-only contractor, as it lacked substantial capital and control over its workers. Oscar, who performed tasks essential to the respondents' business and was paid by them, was considered a regular employee. Since his dismissal lacked valid cause, he was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Clark Development Corp. v. Association of CDC Supervisory Personnel Union, G.R. No. 207853, [March 30, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Clark Development Corp. v. Association of CDC Supervisory Personnel Union

 G.R. No. 207853, [March 30, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Collective Bargaining Agreement; Employee Union of GOCCs

 

Collective bargaining agreements, which violate laws or regulations, are void and cannot create rights or obligations. The right of government employees to self-organization and collective bargaining are subject to limitations and increases in salaries and benefits must comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those issued by the President.

 

The Clark Development Corporation (CDC), responsible for managing the Clark Special Economic Zone, renegotiated a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its supervisory employees union, granting additional benefits. However, the Governance Commission for Government-Owned and-Controlled Corporations (GCG) opined that the CBA violated Executive Order (EO) No. 7 by granting increases in salaries and benefits without the President's authorization. Despite recommendations for deferment or renegotiation, CDC failed to implement the CBA, leading the union to file a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. 

 

Whether the renegotiated CBA, which granted additional benefits to CDC's supervisory employees, is valid and enforceable despite the absence of the President's authorization as mandated by EO No. 7.

NO. The Court ruled that the renegotiated economic provisions of the CBA were void for violating EO No. 7, which imposed a moratorium on increases in salaries and benefits in government-owned corporations. The Court emphasized that the moratorium continued until specifically authorized by the President, and since there was no such authorization, the increases granted under the CBA were invalid. Furthermore, the Court rejected the presumption of the President's approval, noting that the law must be interpreted according to its plain meaning, and any doubts should not be resolved in favor of labor when the language of the law is unambiguous. Therefore, CDC had valid reasons not to implement the increases, as any contract violating the law is void and cannot create rights or obligations.

 

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Dela Cruz v. First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 254830, [June 27, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Dela Cruz v. First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

 G.R. No. 254830, [June 27, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Dismissal; Retirement Benefits; Jurisdiction of National Electrification Administration; Labor tribunal Jurisdiction

 

Forfeiture of retirement benefits may occur as a consequence of dismissal from service, particularly when such dismissal is based on grave offenses and is accompanied by a finding of guilt.

Jose Dela Cruz started as a line personnel and was eventually promoted to the position of general manager at First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative, Inc. (FIBECO) in 2001. However, in 2007, due to administrative complaints initiated by concerned employees, Dela Cruz was investigated and found guilty of grave offenses including nepotism, insubordination, misuse of FIBECO properties/funds, and gross incompetence. As a result, FIBECO's Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 42, Series of 2007, dismissing Dela Cruz from service effective May 1, 2007. This dismissal was affirmed by the National Electrification Administration (NEA) in Resolution No. 79 dated October 18, 2007. Dela Cruz's subsequent illegal dismissal cases were ruled upon by the courts, culminating in a decision upholding NEA's jurisdiction and the finality of its resolution on May 3, 2017. 

Dela Cruz reached the compulsory retirement age on August 28, 2013. Despite his dismissal, he sought retirement benefits pursuant to FIBECO Board Resolution No. 05-2014 and NEA Memorandum No. 2005-015, but his application was denied by FIBECO. Dela Cruz then filed a claim for retirement benefits before the Labor Arbiter (LA), arguing that he was entitled to such benefits for his long tenure at FIBECO, including his service as general manager until his retirement.

 

 

Whether the labor tribunal has jurisdiction over Dela Cruz's claim for retirement benefits.

NO. The National Electrification Administration (NEA) has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over administrative matters involving officers of electric cooperatives, including retirement benefits claims. Therefore, FIBECO's denial of Dela Cruz's retirement benefits claim should have been brought to the NEA's disposal. The labor tribunal does not have jurisdiction over such claims.

 

 

Whether Dela Cruz is entitled to retirement benefits.

NO. Dela Cruz's dismissal from service entails the forfeiture of retirement benefits as per NEA rules. In cases where an officer is found guilty of grave offenses and penalized with removal from service, the forfeiture of retirement benefits is inherent unless otherwise provided in the decision. Since NEA Resolution did not provide for Dela Cruz's entitlement to retirement benefits despite his dismissal, the Court deleted the award for retirement benefits. The Court denied Dela Cruz's petition for review on certiorari, upholding the CA's decision to delete the award of retirement benefits and affirming the validity of his dismissal from service.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Conjusta v. PPI Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 252720, [August 22, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Conjusta v. PPI Holdings, Inc.

 G.R. No. 252720, [August 22, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Independent job contractor; totality of facts and circumtances threshold shows labor-only contracting

 

Previous declarations that a company is an independent job contractor cannot validly be the basis in concluding its status as such in another case involving a different employee. The totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances, distinct in every case, must be assessed in determining whether an entity is a legitimate job contractor or a labor-only contractor. 

PPI Holdings, Inc. (PPI), the franchisee of Pizza Hut in the Philippines, initially hired Rico Palic Conjusta (Conjusta) as a messenger for its human resources department and later for its accounting department. Despite being transferred to a manpower agency and then to Consolidated Buildings Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI), Conjusta continued to work as PPI's messenger in its accounting department. However, CBMI terminated Conjusta's services along with his coworkers, leading Conjusta to file an illegal dismissal case against PPI, CBMI, and their owners, claiming to be PPI's regular employee for 14 years. 

PPI argued that it should not be held solidarily liable for the monetary awards with CBMI since the latter is a legitimate job contractor, and, consequently, was Conjusta's direct employer. PPI also contended that CBMI carried out its services independently, with its own means, method, and manner, as stipulated in the service agreements. 

 

Whether or not CBMI was a legitimate job contractor and, consequently, was Conjusta's direct employer.

NO. The Supreme Court found that CBMI engaged in labor-only contracting rather than legitimate job contracting. For a contractor to be considered legitimate, it must operate independently from the control and supervision of the principal employer, carry out its services according to its own manner and method, and have substantial capital or investments in the forms of tools, machines, equipment, buildings and other assets. Failure to meet these criteria may result in the contractor being deemed a labor-only contractor, in which case the principal employer becomes solidarily liable for the employees' claims as if they were directly employed by the principal. 

Here, despite CBMI's registration and presentation of financial statements indicating substantial capital, the Court determined that CBMI did not operate independently from PPI's control and supervision. The contracts between PPI and CBMI indicated that CBMI provided manpower only, without undertaking the performance of services according to its own manner and method. Additionally, there was evidence that PPI exercised control over the work of CBMI's employees, including Conjusta, the petitioner in the case. CBMI was considered a labor-only contractor, making PPI Conjusta's direct employer. Consequently, PPI and CBMI were held solidarily liable for Conjusta's illegal dismissal and monetary claims.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT

U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw, G.R. No. 225263, [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw

 G.R. No. 225263, [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

OFW Contracts of employment; illegal dismissal; finality to factual findings by Labor Arbiters 

Courts generally accord respect and finality to factual findings made by lower tribunals, especially when these findings are supported by evidence and confirmed by higher courts. This principle emphasizes the deference given to the expertise of labor agencies in assessing evidence and resolving disputes in labor cases.

 

UR Employed International Corporation (UREIC) hired Mike A. Pinmiliw, Murphy P. Pacya, Simon M. Bastog, and Ryan D. Ayochok (collectively, respondents) as construction workers in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, for its principal, The W Construction (TWC). The respondents' contracts were for two years with a basic monthly salary of RM800. However, upon their arrival in Malaysia, they faced adverse working conditions, including unsafe living conditions, unpaid overtime work, and the discovery that they only had tourist visas. Despite reporting their grievances to their broker and sending an email seeking assistance, their conditions did not improve. Eventually, Ryan was terminated, allegedly due to writing derogatory statements to the Baguio Midland Courier, while the other respondents were promised repatriation but were only sent home later. The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against UREIC and its administrator, Pamela T. Miguel. 

 

Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed and entitled to monetary claims against UREIC and Pamela T. Miguel.

YES. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found that the respondents were constructively dismissed due to the unbearable working conditions set by the employer, and Ryan's termination lacked procedural and substantive due process. The LA awarded the respondents backwages, refund of placement fees, damages, and attorney's fees but dismissed claims for overtime pay and illegal deductions, except for one respondent, Mike, who presented proof of illegal deductions. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed UREIC's petition for certiorari, affirming the NLRC's ruling. The CA emphasized the relaxed application of technical rules in labor cases and upheld the substantial evidence of illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court (SC) denied UREIC's petition, ruling that the doctrines of primary administrative jurisdiction and immutability of judgment did not apply. The SC affirmed the lower courts' findings of illegal dismissal and upheld the monetary awards, which would earn legal interest at 6% per annum until fully paid.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Universal Robina Corp. v. Maglalang, G.R. No. 255864, [July 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Universal Robina Corp. v. Maglalang

 G.R. No. 255864, [July 6, 2022]

SEOCND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal; qualified theft; Serious misconduct 

The penalty of dismissal for an employee's misconduct must be proportionate to the offense committed. The severity of the penalty imposed should be reasonable and justified based on the circumstances of the case, including the employee's length of service, previous record, the value of the property involved, and the effect on the employer's operations. Dismissal should be warranted only when the employee's misconduct is serious, directly related to their duties, and performed with wrongful intent. 

 

Roberto, employed as a machine operator at Universal Robina Corporation (URC) since November 17, 1997, encountered an incident on March 26, 2015. While cleaning his motorcycle seat in the company parking lot with alcohol provided by the company, he inadvertently brought a bottle of ethyl alcohol into his bag. Upon inspection by a security guard, Roberto realized his mistake and disposed of the bottle, which was then found to belong to the company. Consequently, he was criminally charged with qualified theft, detained for five days, and placed under preventive suspension. URC issued a Notice to Explain, followed by a Notice of Termination, alleging serious misconduct. Roberto's explanations were rejected, leading to his dismissal on May 14, 2015. Despite attempts at reconciliation, URC refused reinstatement. Roberto's subsequent illegal dismissal case was initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, upheld by the NLRC, but reversed by the CA on September 15, 2020. 

 

Whether Roberto's dismissal from URC constitutes illegal termination and if he is entitled to reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. 

YES. The Supreme Court, after considering the circumstances, ruled in favor of Roberto, deeming his dismissal illegal. While employers have the right to dismiss employees for serious misconduct, such actions must be justified and proportionate to the offense. Roberto's 18-year tenure, clean record, and the minimal value of the item in question weighed against the severity of the penalty imposed. URC's decision to terminate him was deemed disproportionate, especially considering Roberto's lack of a position of trust and confidence. The compromise agreement between the parties concerning the criminal case did not preclude Roberto from seeking redress for his employment-related grievances. Thus, the CA's decision granting separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was upheld, although backwages and attorney's fees were denied due to URC's good faith in dismissing Roberto. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the separation pay owed to Roberto.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Yañez, G.R. No. 214662, [March 2, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Yañez

 G.R. No. 214662, [March 2, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.

 

Suspension of employment; Sexual Harassment 

Employers must observe procedural due process and comply with the requirements of relevant law when investigating and imposing disciplinary measures on employees accused of misconduct, including sexual harassment. When due process is complied with, the court will respect the employer's prerogative to impose disciplinary sanctions on erring employees, provided that such actions are undertaken in good faith and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

 

Frederick Yañez, a supervisor at PAL Passenger Handling Division, received a notice detailing an alleged incident involving him and flight attendant Nova Sarte. Sarte reported that Yañez had touched her inappropriately during a ground stop before their return flight, and she had experienced similar incidents previously. Despite Yañez's denial of the charges, PAL proceeded with an administrative hearing and subsequently suspended him for three months based on the findings of the investigating committee. Dissatisfied, Yañez filed a complaint for illegal suspension against PAL, claiming salary during the suspension period and moral damages. 

 

Whether PAL's actions, including the suspension of Yañez, complied with procedural due process and the requirements of Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act). 

YES. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), holding that Yañez's suspension was valid and reasonable. The Court emphasized that Yañez was adequately informed of the charges against him and was given ample opportunity to present his side during the investigative process. PAL's actions were found to be following the procedural requirements of Republic Act No. 7877 concerning the investigation of sexual harassment complaints. The Court also affirmed PAL's right to impose disciplinary measures on its employees, provided that such measures are done in good faith and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, Yañez's suspension for three months was deemed legal, and his claims for salary during the suspension period and damages were dismissed.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, [June 27, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc.

G.R. No. 242928, [June 27, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Sickness allowance; Concealment of Seafarer's Illness; Concealed illness unrelated to seafarer's disability

 

Section 20 (E) of the CBA, which disqualifies a seafarer from claiming disability benefits for knowingly concealing a pre-existing illness only applies when the concealed illness or injury contributed to the seafarer's disability. In the absence of these conditions, the employer remains liable for work-related injury or illness. 

Petitioner Loue B. Mutia was hired as an assistant cook by respondent C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. (C.F. Sharp) on behalf of Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL). Mutia's employment contract was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that granted disability benefits of up to US$100,000.00 in case of disability resulting in loss of profession. Mutia underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he ticked the box "No" when asked about any previous medical conditions, including ear trouble and deafness. However, his audiometry results showed "mild hearing loss, bilateral." Mutia experienced back pain and eye problems while working on the ship and was eventually diagnosed with "L5-S1 desiccation with annular tear," "Multiple Sclerosis," "Blurring of Vision," and "Neuromyelitis optica." He was repatriated to the Philippines and sought disability benefits. 

 

Whether there is material concealment of a pre-existing illness as contemplated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that will bars Mutia's claim for disability benefits. 

NO. The Court held that Mutia's prior ear illness did not constitute a pre-existing illness as defined in the CBA. The employer failed to prove that Mutia's acute otitis media, which he allegedly concealed, had any causal connection to his present medical conditions diagnosed with "L5-S1 desiccation with annular tear," "Multiple Sclerosis," "Blurring of Vision," and "Neuromyelitis optica . The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish the concealment of a pre-existing illness. In this case, the respondents solely relied on Mutia's affidavit of quitclaim, which did not provide sufficient evidence of concealment. The Court further explained that Section 20 (E) of the CBA, which disqualifies a seafarer from claiming disability benefits for knowingly concealing a pre-existing illness, should be interpreted narrowly. It only applies when the concealed illness or injury contributed to the seafarer's disability. In the absence of these conditions, the employer remains liable for work-related injury or illness. Since Mutia's prior ear illness was unrelated to his present medical conditions, there was no intent to deceive or profit from the concealment. Therefore, Mutia was entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Bacabac v. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement, Inc., G.R. No. 228550, [July 28, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Bacabac v. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement, Inc.

 G.R. No. 228550, [July 28, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Disability benefits and Sickness allowance; Work-related Seafarer's Illness 

When the seafarer suffers from an illness or injury while on board the vessel, and the resulting disability is not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, then it is presumed to be a work-related illness. If the company physician's assessment is incomplete or inadequate, and there is no valid certification before the expiration of the prescribed period, the seafarer's disability may be conclusively considered total and permanent, entitling them to benefits. 

 

NYK-FIL Shipmanagement Inc., acting on behalf of NYK Shipmanagement Pte Ltd. (respondents), employed Joemar Babiera Bacabac as an oiler on November 25, 2011. He was deployed on board the MV IKI on December 8, 2011, for a nine-month period. On March 11, 2012, Joemar experienced dizziness and abdominal pain while on duty, later diagnosed with kidney dysfunction and underwent dialysis and surgery. He was medically repatriated on May 21, 2012, and diagnosed with Severe Acute Cholangitis, declared non-work-related by the company doctor. Joemar filed a complaint for disability benefits and other claims, awarded by the labor arbiter but reversed by the NLRC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 

 

Whether Joemar is entitled to disability benefits, sickness allowance, and other claims based on the work-relatedness of his illness.

YES. The Supreme Court held that Joemar is entitled to disability benefits and sickness allowance. As provided for in the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), there is a presumption of work-relatedness of a seafarer's illness if it manifests or is discovered during the term of their employment contract. This presumption arises when the seafarer suffers from an illness or injury while on board the vessel, and the resulting disability is not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. Joemar’s illness, manifesting during his employment contract, is disputably presumed work-related. 

Additionally, there’s a need for a complete and justified medical assessment by the company physician to ascertain the degree of the seafarer's disability benefits. If the company physician's assessment is incomplete or inadequate, and there is no valid certification before the expiration of the prescribed period, the seafarer's disability may be conclusively considered total and permanent, entitling them to benefits. Here, the company physician's assessment was inadequate, lacking justification for declaring Joemar's illness non-work-related. Thus, Joemar is deemed totally and permanently disabled, and the sickness allowance is granted. Reimbursement of medical expenses and damages was denied due to insufficient evidence. Attorney's fees were awarded.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT