Lagatic v NLRC

G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998

Facts:

Petitioner Romeo Lagatic was employed in May 1986 by Cityland, first as a probationary sales
agent, and later on as a marketing specialist. He was tasked with soliciting sales for the company, with the
corresponding duties of accepting call-ins, referrals, and making client calls and cold calls. Cold calls refer
to the practice of prospecting for clients through the telephone directory. Cityland, believing that the same
is an effective and cost-efficient method of finding clients, requires all its marketing specialists to make cold
calls. The number of cold calls depends on the sales generated by each: more sales mean less cold calls.
Likewise, in order to assess cold calls made by the sales staff, as well as to determine the results thereof,
Cityland requires the submission of daily progress reports on the same.

On October 22, 1991, Cityland issued a written reprimand to petitioner for his failure to submit cold
call reports for September 10, October 1 and 10, 1991. This notwithstanding, petitioner again failed to
submit cold call reports for September 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 28, as well as for
October 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14, 1992. Petitioner was required to explain his inaction, with a warning that
further non-compliance would result in his termination from the company. In a reply dated October 18, 1992,
petitioner claimed that the same was an honest omission brought about by his concentration on other
aspects of his job. Cityland found said excuse inadequate and, on November 9, 1992, suspended him for
three days, with a similar warning.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid suspension and warning, petitioner again failed to submit cold call
reports for February 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12, 1993. He was verbally reminded to submit the same and was even
given up to February 17, 1993 to do so. Instead of complying with said directive, petitioner, on February 16,
1993, wrote a note, "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?" and exhibited the same to his co-
employees. To worsen matters, he left the same lying on his desk where everyone could see it.

On February 23, 1993, petitioner received a memorandum requiring him to explain why Cityland
should not make good its previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports, as well as for issuing
the written statement aforementioned. On February 24, 1993, he sent a letter-reply alleging that his failure
to submit cold call reports should trot be deemed as gross insubordination. He denied any knowledge of
the damaging statement, "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS!"

Finding petitioner guilty of gross insubordination, Cityland served a notice of dismissal upon him
on February 26, 1993. Aggrieved by such dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal
dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages and attorney's fees. The
labor arbiter dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On appeal, the same was affirmed by the NLRC; hence
the present recourse.

Issue:

W/N NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed?

Whether or not he was entitled to separation pay, premium pay, and overtime pay

Held:

The petition lacks merit. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be
met, namely: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid
cause.

Employers may, thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their
employees, and when employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule
becomes a part of the contract of employment. It is also generally recognized that company policies and
regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on
the parties and must be complied with. Corollarily, an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a
reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. An employer
cannot rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose . . . lack of regard for his
employer's rules . . . has so plainly and completely been bared." 5 Petitioner's continued infraction of
company policy requiring cold call reports, as evidenced by the 28 instances of non-submission of aforesaid
reports, justifies his dismissal.

With the finding that petitioner's dismissal was for a just and valid cause, his claims for moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, must fail. Resolution is AFFIRMED and this petition is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 73681

COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. vs.

HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION

JUNE 30, 1988

Facts:

Respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of
unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and
coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union members from
joining the union. The Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.

Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union
membership were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees
were due to infractions committed by them and that the management reserves the right to discipline erring
employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union, among others.

The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Unions complaint. It also
ruled that the three dismissed employees were not without fault but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement
of the same. At the same time, respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective
bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three
salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.

Issue:

Whether or not the minister erred in directly certifying the Union based on the latters self-serving
assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in petitioners company and in ordering
the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees.

Held:

The Court held that the minister failed to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed
enjoyed majority representation. The Court held that by relying only on the Notice of Strike, the minister
had encouraged disrespect of the law. He had also erroneously vested upon himself the right to choose the
collective bargaining representative which ought to have been upon the employees.
 The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their
part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage unequal protection of the laws
with respect to the rights of the management and the employees.

The court rendered the decision of the minister reversed and set aside, ordering petitioners to give
the three employees their separation pay.

China Banking Corporation v Borromeo

G.R. No. 156515

Facts:

Respondent Mariano Borromeo was Assistant Vice-President of the Branch Banking Group of
China Banking Corporation for the Mindanao Area.

Without authority from the Executive Committee or Board of Directors of the bank, he approved
several DAUD/BP (Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits/Bills Purhcased) accommodations amounting to
P2,441,375 in favour of Joel Maniwan. Such checks, which are not sufficiently funded by cash, are generally
not honoured by banks. This came to the knowledge of the bank authorities. A memorandum was issued
to the Mariano seeking clarification relative to the matter. The respondent accepted full responsibility for
committing an error in judgment and abuse of discretion.

Mariano resigned from the Bank and apologized for all the trouble I have caused because of the
Maniwan case. The respondent, however, vehemently denied benefitting therefrom.

His acts having constituted violation of the Banks Code of Ethics, the respondent was directed to
restitute the amount of P1,507,736.79 representing 90% of the total loss of P1,675,263.10 incurred by the
Bank. However, in view of his resignation and considering the years of service in the Bank, the management
earmarked only P836,637.08 from the respondents total separation benefits or pay. The said amount would
be released upon recovery of the sums demanded from Maniwan in a civil case filed against him by the
bank with the RTC in Cagayan de Oro City.

The respondent made a demand on the bank for the payment of his separation pay and other
benefits, but the bank maintained its position to withhold the sum of P836,637.08. Thus, Mariano filed with
the NLRC a complaint for payment of separation pay, mid-year bonus, profit share and damages against
the bank.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the bank. Respondent appealed to the NLRC but it affirmed in
toto the findings of the Labor Arbiter. The CA, however, alleging that respondent was denied his right to
due process, set aside the NLRC decision and ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the
Labor Arbiter for further hearings on the factual issues involved.

The bank filed a motion for reconsidered but denied the same. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the bank has the prerogative/right to impose on the respondent what it considered
the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations.

Held:

The petition is meritorious.

The bank was left with no other course but to impose the ancillary penalty of restitution. It was
certainly within the banks prerogative to impose on the respondent what it considered the appropriate
penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations.
 The petitioners bank business is essentially imbued with public interest and owes great fidelity to
the public it deals with. It is expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees. As a corollary, and like all other business enterprises, its prerogative to
discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules
and regulations must be respected. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorized neither oppression
nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to
recognition and respect.

Significantly, the respondent is not wholly deprived of his separation benefits. As the Labor Arbiter
stressed in his decision, the separation benefits due the complainant were merely withheld. Even the
petitioner bank itself gives the assurance that as soon as the bank has satisfied a judgment in the civil
case, the earmarked portion of his benefits will be released without delay.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. The
Resolution of the NLRC is reinstated.