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

Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 224944 (Resolution), [May 5, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc.

 G.R. No. 224944 (Resolution), [May 5, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Suspension of employment; Burden of Proof for monetary claims and benefits 

For claims such as payment of salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th-month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. Conversely, for claims like overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is on the employee to prove actual performance of work beyond regular hours or on designated days.

 

Reggie Orbista Zonio, the petitioner, was employed as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by respondent Romulo Q. Par. Zonio worked alternately seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for a monthly wage of P8,500.00. Deductions of P120.00 were made from his wage every month. Zonio alleged that he was not paid for overtime work, holidays, rest days, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave, and night shift differential. He, along with some colleagues, received a memorandum suspending them for sleeping while on duty without formal investigation. Respondents refused to accept Zonio back after his suspension. 

 

Whether Zonio is entitled to various monetary claims, including overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay.

The petition is partly granted. In labor disputes, the burden of proof regarding monetary claims is shifted depending on the nature of the claim. For claims such as payment of salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th-month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. Conversely, for claims like overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is on the employee to prove actual performance of work beyond regular hours or on designated days. Zonio proved his entitlement to overtime pay and night shift differentials pay through the logbook entries, which were not rebutted by the respondents. Zonio's claim for holiday and rest day premiums was denied due to lack of factual basis. The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of Zonio's monetary award.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

DORELCO Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 240130 (Resolution), [March 15, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

DORELCO Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 240130 (Resolution), [March 15, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M. 

 

Timeliness of Appeal; CBA provision on Voluntary Arbitration; Mediation

 

The 10-day period in Article 276 of the Labor Code should be understood as the time within which the adverse party may move for reconsideration from the voluntary arbitrator's decision. This provides an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the voluntary arbitrator's decision to seek recourse before resorting to the court. After the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice, by a petition for Review under Rule 43, of the Rules of Court. 

 

In 2012, the DORELCO Employees Union-ALU TUCP (Union) and Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Company) submitted a dispute regarding salary adjustments under the collective bargaining agreement to arbitration before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). During this period, several employees retired, some of whom refused to sign quitclaims to receive their retirement benefits pending the arbitration's resolution. The voluntary arbitrator eventually ruled in favor of the employees, ordering the Company to pay salary increases for the years 2010 and 2011. The Company complied with the ruling and paid the retirement benefits, including salary differentials, to the retired employees who had not signed quitclaims. 

Later, the Union sought arbitration again to determine if the retired employees who had signed quitclaims were entitled to the same salary adjustments. The arbitrator ruled against them, stating that the quitclaims barred their claim for salary increases. Dissatisfied, the Union appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the petition, citing procedural grounds and the finality of the arbitrator's decision. The CA denied reconsideration, prompting the Union to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The main issue is the timeliness of the Union's appeal from the voluntary arbitrator's decision. Union argues that the proper period to appeal to the CA should be 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Company maintains that the period to appeal is only 10 days from notice.

 

Whether or not the proper period to appeal to the CA should be 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 

YES. The Supreme Court granted the Union's petition. The Court clarified that the 10-day period mentioned in Article 276 of the Labor Code allows aggrieved parties to file a motion for reconsideration before appealing to the CA within 15 days.  Thus, the proper period to appeal the voluntary arbitrator's decision to the CA is 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The 10-day period in Article 276 of the Labor Code should be understood as the time within which the adverse party may move for reconsideration. After the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice. This interpretation is in line with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and provides an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the voluntary arbitrator's decision to seek recourse before resorting to the court. The Union filed its appeal within the prescribed period. CA erred in dismissing the petition solely on procedural grounds. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CA for a proper resolution on the merits.

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

PAL Maritime Corp. v. Dalisay, G.R. Nos. 218115 & 218170, [January 27, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

PAL Maritime Corp. v. Dalisay

 G.R. Nos. 218115 & 218170, [January 27, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Sickness allowance; Concealment of Seafarer's Illness; Fit-to-work Order; Three-day mandatory reporting requirement 

A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.

 

Darwin Dalisay applied for shipboard employment with PAL Maritime Corporation in 2012. As part of the employment process, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he declared no history of ailments except for a past "Varicocoelectomy" operation in 2003. After passing the examination, Darwin was hired as an able seaman and deployed aboard the vessel M/V Ornella. While on duty, he experienced sharp lower back pain and was eventually diagnosed with "low back pain secondary to Disc Protusion L4-L5 and L5-S1." This led to his repatriation to the Philippines for medical treatment. Subsequently, PAL Maritime discovered Darwin's previous claim for permanent disability benefits from another employer, Phil Transmarine Carriers, Inc., for which he was awarded US $60,000. PAL Maritime discontinued Darwin's medical treatment, alleging malicious concealment of a pre-existing illness. The NLRC ruled in favor of Darwin, citing his honest belief that he was already healed from his previous illness and finding his current ailment work-related. The CA partially granted PAL Maritime's petition, acknowledging Darwin's concealment of a pre-existing illness, and disqualifying him from permanent disability benefits. 

 

Whether Darwin Dalisay is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages despite his alleged fraudulent concealment of a pre-existing illness during the pre-employment medical examination. 

NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, emphasizing that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Any finding that renders an issue on work-relatedness irrelevant since the premise which bars disability compensation is the fraudulent misrepresentation of a pre-existing disease and not the fact that it was pre-existing. The fact that Darwin passed the PEME cannot excuse his wilful concealment, nor can it preclude PAL Maritime from rejecting his claims. Taken together, Darwin is disqualified from all benefits including sickness allowance. Furthermore, attorney's fees were denied due to the lack of bad faith on PAL Maritime's part, as they were justified in rejecting Darwin's claims upon discovering his concealment.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT