ASG Law

Tag: illegal dismissal

  • Security Guard Floating Status: Defining Constructive Dismissal and Employer Obligations

    The Supreme Court ruled that security guards who are not reassigned within six months of being placed on floating status, without a valid business reason such as a lack of available client contracts, are considered constructively dismissed. This decision clarifies the responsibilities of security agencies to their employees, emphasizing that prolonged floating status can be deemed an illegal termination if not properly managed or justified.

    The Case of the Unassigned Guards: When Does ‘Floating Status’ Sink to Constructive Dismissal?

    This case arose from a complaint filed by Igmedio C. Sarmiento, Jose Jun Cada, and Ervin R. Robis against Soliman Security Services, Inc. and Teresita L. Soliman for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and other labor violations. The guards claimed they were constructively dismissed after being relieved from their posts and not given new assignments. The security agency, however, argued that the guards were placed on floating status due to client requirements and were directed to report for new assignments, which they allegedly failed to do. The central legal question is whether the prolonged unassigned status of the security guards constituted constructive dismissal, thereby entitling them to backwages and separation pay.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the concept of **floating status** in the security services industry. While recognizing this practice as a valid exercise of management prerogative, the Court emphasized that it must be exercised in good faith. The court acknowledged that security agencies often operate under contracts allowing clients to request guard replacements. The employer has the prerogative to transfer employees, provided there is no demotion and the transfer is not discriminatory. However, the Court also recognized that security guards do not receive salary or financial aid during floating status, which creates potential for abuse.

    The Court then addressed the issue of **constructive dismissal**. While the guards were not explicitly terminated, the lack of reassignment after a significant period led the Court to find that they were effectively dismissed. The Court applied Article 292 (formerly Article 286) of the Labor Code by analogy, setting a maximum of six months for temporary off-detail. This provision, however, does not permit agencies to keep guards on floating status for up to six months without valid reason, but instead relates to business suspensions. The Court stated clearly that placing employees on floating status requires a bona fide suspension of operation.

    The Court scrutinized the agency’s claim that the guards were directed to report for new assignments. The agency provided notices directing the guards to “clarify their intentions” for not seeking new assignments. However, the Court deemed these notices as mere afterthoughts, sent after the illegal dismissal complaint was filed. The Court noted that the agency had an opportunity to clarify the assignment issue during a labor arbiter hearing but failed to provide specifics. The court stated,

    We rule that such notices were mere afterthoughts… The complaint clarified the intention of respondents. Indeed, respondents’ complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement is inconsistent with the agency’s claim that respondents did not report for reassignment despite the notices directing them to do so. It is evident that the notices sent by the agency were mere ostensible offers for new assignments. It was intended to cover the illegality of the termination of respondents’ employment.

    The Court further elaborated on the employer’s obligations when facing a lack of service agreements, referencing Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001 (DO 14-01) of the Department of Labor and Employment. Section 9.3 of DO 14-01 allows for dismissal with separation pay if the agency cannot provide work after six months, to wit:

    If after a period of 6 months, the security agency/employer cannot provide work or give assignment to the reserved security guard, the latter can be dismissed from service and shall be entitled to separation pay as described in subsection 6.5

    According to Section 6.5, lack of assignment for six months is an authorized cause for termination, requiring separation pay. However, the Court stressed that this only applies when the agency experiences a surplus of guards due to a lack of clients. Otherwise, placing a guard on floating status without justification is constructive dismissal. If the floating status is justified, the lapse of six months creates an authorized cause for termination, but with entitlement to separation pay.

    Procedurally, the Court emphasized compliance with Article 289 (previously Art. 283) of the Labor Code, requiring written notice to the employee and DOLE one month before termination. Sec. 9.2 of DO 14-01 reiterates this requirement. The court summarized the key points on floating status and DO 14-01:

    • The floating status should not exceed six months.
    • Before six months, the agency must recall the guard for a new assignment.
    • If no reassignment occurs due to lack of service agreements, the guard may be permanently retrenched with procedural compliance.

    The Court emphasized that bad faith placement on floating status, such as failure to reassign with sufficient agreements, leads to liability for illegal dismissal. And the lapse of six months without either reassignment or valid dismissal with separation pay constitutes constructive dismissal. Finally, the Court upheld the appellate court’s decision regarding the monetary claims and deferred to the NLRC’s quasi-judicial authority on factual computations, holding that certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of judgment.

    FAQs

    What is floating status for security guards? Floating status refers to the period when a security guard is between assignments, waiting for a new post after being relieved from a previous one. During this time, they are temporarily off-duty.
    How long can a security guard be on floating status? The Supreme Court has set a maximum of six (6) months for temporary off-detail or floating status, drawing an analogy from Article 292 of the Labor Code.
    What happens if a security guard is not reassigned after six months? If a security guard is not reassigned after six months, it may be considered constructive dismissal, especially if the lack of reassignment is not due to a valid business reason, such as a lack of available client contracts.
    What is constructive dismissal? Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes working conditions so unbearable that an employee is forced to resign or, as in this case, is effectively terminated due to prolonged lack of assignments.
    What are the employer’s obligations if they cannot reassign a guard? If a security agency cannot provide work or give an assignment to a security guard after six months, they can dismiss the guard but must provide separation pay as outlined in Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001.
    What notice is required before terminating a guard due to lack of assignment? The employer must serve a written notice on the security guard and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before the intended date of termination, as per Article 289 of the Labor Code and DO 14-01.
    What if the agency fails to comply with these obligations? If the agency fails to reassign the security guard or validly dismiss them with corresponding separation pay after six months, the security guard may be considered to have been constructively dismissed, entitling them to remedies like backwages and separation pay.
    What constitutes bad faith placement on floating status? Placing a security guard on floating status in bad faith includes failure to reassign the guard despite the existence of sufficient service agreements. This means there’s no legitimate business need for the temporary retrenchment.
    What happens if a guard files an illegal dismissal case and refuses reassignment? The Court deemed notices from the agency to report for reassignment as afterthoughts, especially after an illegal dismissal complaint was filed. The intention behind the filing of the complaint is inconsistent with the claim that the guard did not report for re-assignment despite the notices to do so.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Soliman Security Services clarifies the responsibilities of security agencies in managing the floating status of their employees. Security agencies must ensure that employees are not left in prolonged uncertainty without reassignment or proper compensation. Compliance with labor laws and regulations, including timely reassignment or proper termination with due notice and separation pay, is essential to avoid liability for illegal dismissal.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. VS. IGMEDIO C. SARMIENTO, G.R. No. 194649, August 10, 2016

  • Mitigating Dismissal: Proportionality in Disciplinary Actions for Rank-and-File Employees

    The Supreme Court ruled that dismissing an employee for a minor infraction, like taking a scrap of electrical wire, is too harsh, especially given long service and a clean record. This decision emphasizes that disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the offense, considering the employee’s tenure and the absence of significant loss to the employer, protecting rank-and-file employees from overly strict penalties.

    Scrap Wire, Harsh Punishment: Was Holcim’s Dismissal of a 19-Year Employee Justified?

    Holcim Philippines, Inc. faced a legal challenge after dismissing Renante J. Obra, a packhouse operator with 19 years of service, for attempting to take a piece of scrap electrical wire from the company premises. The incident occurred when a security guard asked Obra to inspect his bag. Obra initially refused but then admitted to having the wire, explaining he believed it was discarded and requesting permission to take it home. When permission was denied, he returned to the Packhouse Office to remove the wire.

    Holcim viewed Obra’s actions as serious misconduct, citing company rules against unauthorized removal of property and expectations of honesty and integrity. Obra, however, argued that he acted in good faith, believing the wire was scrap and for disposal. He also emphasized his long tenure and lack of prior offenses. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with Holcim, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding the dismissal too harsh and awarding separation pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, leading Holcim to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    At the heart of the legal matter was whether Holcim justly dismissed Obra. The Supreme Court needed to determine if Obra’s actions constituted serious misconduct warranting termination, or if the punishment was disproportionate to the offense. The court examined the gravity of the misconduct, the company’s policies, and Obra’s employment history to reach a decision.

    The Supreme Court partly sided with Obra. It stated that employers have the right to discipline employees, including dismissal, but this right is subject to state regulation. The court emphasized that the severity of the punishment must align with the offense’s gravity. Justice Perlas-Bernabe, writing for the Court, stated:

    Time and again, the Court has held that infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee.

    The Court agreed with the CA and NLRC that Obra’s misconduct did not warrant dismissal. The decision hinged on several factors, including the minor value of the wire, Obra’s belief that it was for disposal, the lack of damage to Holcim, and Obra’s remorse. The Court also highlighted Obra’s 19 years of service and his position as a packhouse operator, which did not involve a high degree of trust or managerial responsibility. The court referenced similar cases, such as Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial Corporation, where a long-term employee’s dismissal for a minor infraction was deemed excessive.

    The Court found that Obra’s actions did not qualify as **serious misconduct** under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, which defines just causes for dismissal. To constitute serious misconduct, the employee’s actions must be:

    • Improper or wrong conduct.
    • A transgression of an established rule.
    • Willful and intentional.
    • Grave and aggravated, not trivial.

    Since the wire was practically of no value, and Obra lacked wrongful intent, the Court found the dismissal too harsh. The Court emphasized that ill will or wrongful intent could not be ascribed to Obra because he volunteered information about the wire and offered to return it if taking it outside the premises was not permissible.

    While the Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal, it modified the CA’s decision regarding the award of separation pay. The Court reiterated the general rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages, but noted exceptions exist.

    The Court determined that **reinstatement** was the appropriate remedy because the strained relations between the parties were not adequately proven. The NLRC’s decision lacked factual basis to support the claim that reinstatement was no longer a feasible option. The Court emphasized that strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, supported by substantial evidence. Since Obra had expressed remorse and a willingness to continue working for Holcim, reinstatement was deemed viable.

    The Court, however, denied the award of backwages, citing Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. v. Pionilla. It held that backwages could be denied if the dismissal was too harsh and the employer acted in good faith. Here, the Court found that Obra was not entirely faultless and should not profit from his wrongdoing. This balanced approach acknowledges the employee’s transgression while recognizing the disproportionate penalty of dismissal.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Holcim Philippines justly dismissed Renante J. Obra for attempting to take a piece of scrap electrical wire from the company premises, or if the dismissal was a punishment disproportionate to the offense.
    What was Obra’s defense? Obra argued that he believed the electrical wire was scrap material destined for disposal and that he acted in good faith without any intention to steal. He also highlighted his 19 years of service with the company and his lack of prior offenses.
    What is ‘serious misconduct’ in the context of labor law? Serious misconduct, as a ground for dismissal, involves improper or wrong conduct that is willful, intentional, and of a grave and aggravated nature, not merely trivial or unimportant. It implies a wrongful intent and a transgression of established rules.
    Why did the Supreme Court modify the Court of Appeals’ decision? The Supreme Court modified the decision by deleting the award of separation pay and instead directing the reinstatement of Obra to his former position, emphasizing that strained relations were not sufficiently proven to warrant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
    Why was Obra denied backwages despite being illegally dismissed? Obra was denied backwages because the Court found that his transgression, even though not deserving of dismissal, warranted the denial of backwages, considering that Holcim acted in good faith and Obra was not entirely faultless in the incident.
    What does this case say about the proportionality of disciplinary actions? The case underscores the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions, meaning that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, taking into account the employee’s tenure, past record, and the actual impact of the misconduct.
    What is the ‘strained relations’ doctrine? The ‘strained relations’ doctrine is an exception to the rule of reinstatement, where separation pay may be awarded instead if the relationship between the employer and employee is so damaged that reinstatement is no longer viable; however, this must be proven with substantial evidence.
    What was the significance of Obra’s position as a packhouse operator? Obra’s position as a packhouse operator was significant because it was not a position of high trust or managerial responsibility, which meant that his actions did not involve a breach of trust that would automatically justify dismissal.

    This case serves as a reminder to employers to carefully consider the circumstances surrounding an employee’s actions and to ensure that disciplinary measures are fair and proportionate. Dismissal should be reserved for serious offenses that truly warrant such a severe penalty, especially when dealing with long-term employees who have otherwise unblemished records.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Holcim Philippines, Inc. vs. Renante J. Obra, G.R. No. 220998, August 08, 2016

  • Proportionality in Dismissal: Balancing Employee Misconduct and Length of Service

    The Supreme Court held that dismissing an employee for attempting to take a scrap of electrical wire was too harsh, considering his 19 years of service and the minor value of the item. This decision underscores the principle that disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the offense, especially when long-term employees are involved. The court emphasized that dismissal should be reserved for serious misconduct, not minor lapses in judgment. This ruling protects employees from unduly severe penalties and reinforces the importance of considering mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings.

    A Wire Too Far? When a Minor Infraction Leads to Major Consequences

    This case revolves around Renante J. Obra, an employee of Holcim Philippines, Inc., who was dismissed for attempting to take a piece of scrap electrical wire from the company premises. Obra had been employed as a packhouse operator at Holcim’s La Union Plant for nineteen years. On July 10, 2013, while exiting the plant, a security guard asked to inspect his backpack. Obra confessed to having a piece of scrap wire and requested the guard not to report the incident. He offered to return the wire to his locker if he couldn’t take it out. The security guard refused, leading Obra to return to the Packhouse Office where he removed the wire from his bag. This incident led to Obra’s dismissal for serious misconduct, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

    The central legal question is whether Holcim Philippines, Inc. justly dismissed Renante J. Obra for attempting to take company property, specifically a piece of scrap electrical wire, considering the circumstances of the incident and his length of service. This issue hinges on whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the offense committed, and whether Obra’s actions constituted serious misconduct warranting such a severe disciplinary measure. The Supreme Court weighed the employer’s right to enforce company rules against the employee’s right to security of tenure, ultimately seeking to balance the interests of both parties.

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially sided with Holcim, ruling that Obra’s dismissal was valid due to theft. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding the penalty of dismissal unduly harsh given the minor nature of the misconduct. The NLRC emphasized that Obra believed the wire was for disposal, the company suffered no damage, and Obra showed remorse. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, agreeing that Holcim failed to prove a prohibition on taking scrap materials and that Obra’s actions were merely a lapse in judgment. The Supreme Court partially affirmed the CA’s decision.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the employer’s right to discipline employees but emphasized that such rights are subject to state regulation. The court stated, “There is no question that the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of dismissing its employees for just causes. This right is, however, subject to reasonable regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.” The court agreed with the CA and NLRC that Obra’s misconduct did not warrant dismissal. The court noted that Holcim never denied the wire was for disposal and that Obra’s remorse and long service were mitigating factors.

    The court referenced several similar cases to support its conclusion. In Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial Corporation, the dismissal of a Chief Cook for taking squid heads (considered scrap goods) was deemed excessive. Similarly, in Farrol v. CA, the dismissal of a bank district manager for a shortage used to pay employee benefits was also found too harsh. The court also cited Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v. NLRC, where the dismissal of an employee for trying to take boots, an aluminum container, and hamburger patties was considered disproportionate. These cases collectively underscore the principle that the severity of the penalty should align with the gravity of the offense.

    The Supreme Court considered Obra’s nineteen years of service and the minor value of the wire. The court highlighted that Obra did not hold a position of trust and confidence, further diminishing the justification for dismissal. Misconduct, the Court explained, implies wrongful intent, not a mere error in judgment. The court stated, “To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, the employee’s misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.” In Obra’s case, the item was of little value, and he showed no clear intent to steal.

    The Court distinguished this case from Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM) – KATIPUNAN, where an employee was dismissed for hiding canned goods. In that case, the employee tried to conceal the stolen items, indicating wrongful intent, while Obra volunteered information about the wire in his bag. This distinction emphasized the importance of evaluating the intent and circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct.

    Despite finding the dismissal invalid, the Supreme Court modified the CA’s decision regarding separation pay. The Court held that the existence of “strained relations” between employer and employee cannot be used as a blanket justification for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Court stated that “strained relations be demonstrated as a fact and adequately supported by substantial evidence showing that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.” The Court found no such evidence in this case, noting Obra’s willingness to return to work and redeem himself. Therefore, reinstatement was deemed the appropriate remedy.

    Finally, the Court addressed the issue of backwages, denying the award following the precedent set in Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. v. Pionilla. In that case, reinstatement without backwages was ordered because the dismissal was too harsh, and the employer acted in good faith. The Supreme Court stated, “Having established that respondent’s dismissal was too harsh a penalty for attempting to take a piece of scrap wire that was already for disposal and, hence, practically of no value, and considering that petitioner was in good faith when it dismissed respondent for his misconduct, the Court deems it proper to order the reinstatement of respondent to his former position but without backwages.” Because Obra was not entirely faultless, he should not profit from his wrongdoing.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the dismissal of an employee for attempting to take a piece of scrap electrical wire was a just and proportionate penalty, considering his length of service and the circumstances of the incident. The court examined whether the employee’s actions constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court decided that the employee’s dismissal was too harsh. It ordered his reinstatement without backwages, finding that the misconduct was not serious enough to justify termination, especially given his 19 years of service and the fact that the item was of little value.
    What is ‘serious misconduct’ under the Labor Code? Under the Labor Code, serious misconduct is an improper or wrong conduct that is willful in character, implies wrongful intent, and is of such grave and aggravated nature that it justifies dismissal. It is not a mere error in judgment, but a transgression of established rules with wrongful intent.
    What does ‘strained relations’ mean in labor law? ‘Strained relations’ refers to a situation where the relationship between an employer and employee is so damaged that reinstatement is no longer a viable option. However, it must be demonstrated with substantial evidence, not just assumed because of a labor dispute.
    Why was separation pay denied in this case? Separation pay was denied because there was no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the relationship between the employer and employee was so strained that reinstatement was impossible. The court found that the employee was willing to return to work, and his position did not involve a high degree of trust.
    What is the significance of the employee’s length of service? The employee’s length of service (19 years) was a significant factor in the court’s decision. It weighed in favor of a more lenient penalty, as the court considered that long-term employees should not be dismissed for minor infractions, especially if they have a clean record.
    What is the role of ‘good faith’ in dismissal cases? The ‘good faith’ of the employer is considered in determining whether backwages should be awarded. If the employer acted in good faith when dismissing the employee, the court may order reinstatement without backwages, especially if the employee was not entirely without fault.
    What does it mean to reinstate ‘without backwages’? Reinstatement ‘without backwages’ means the employee is returned to their former position but is not compensated for the wages they lost during the period of their illegal dismissal. This is often applied when the employee committed some fault, but the dismissal was too harsh.
    How does this case affect employers in the Philippines? This case serves as a reminder to employers to ensure that disciplinary actions are proportionate to the offense. It emphasizes the need to consider mitigating factors, such as length of service, the value of the item involved, and the employee’s intent, before imposing the penalty of dismissal.
    How does this case affect employees in the Philippines? This case provides employees with assurance that they will not be unduly penalized for minor infractions, especially if they have a long and unblemished service record. It reinforces the principle that dismissal is a severe penalty that should be reserved for serious misconduct, not mere errors in judgment.

    This ruling reinforces the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and safeguards employees from unduly harsh penalties. It serves as a reminder to employers to carefully consider all factors before dismissing an employee, particularly those with long service records. By emphasizing the need for a balanced approach, the Supreme Court protects the rights of employees while recognizing the legitimate interests of employers.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. RENANTE J. OBRA, G.R. No. 220998, August 08, 2016

  • Breach of Trust and Termination: When is Dismissal Too Harsh in Philippine Labor Law?

    In the Philippine legal system, employers can terminate employees for a breach of trust, but the punishment must fit the crime. The Supreme Court’s decision in Supra Multi-Services, Inc. v. Labitigan clarifies that while a breach of trust can justify termination, especially for managerial employees, it doesn’t always warrant dismissal. The court ultimately sided with the company, stating that because the employee was in a position of trust, and she was insubordinate, dismissal was a valid penalty. This ruling underscores the importance of loyalty and honesty in the workplace, especially for those in positions of responsibility, and highlights the balance between employee rights and employer protection under Philippine labor laws.

    The Case of the Overzealous Accounting Supervisor: Was Her Dismissal Justified?

    Supra Multi-Services, Inc. (SMSI) terminated Lanie Labitigan, their Accounting Supervisor, for dishonesty and insubordination. Labitigan had been granting herself a pro-rated Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), even though she wasn’t entitled to it under Wage Orders NCR-09 and NCR-10. SMSI argued this was a breach of trust, while Labitigan claimed she was preventing wage distortion and had tacit approval. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with Labitigan, awarding separation pay, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, finding sufficient cause for dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with the NLRC on the breach of trust but deemed dismissal too harsh, awarding separation pay instead. This brought the case to the Supreme Court (SC) to determine if the dismissal was justified and whether separation pay was warranted.

    The heart of the legal matter revolves around Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, which allows termination for “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her employer.” The SC emphasizes that for managerial employees, like Labitigan, a lesser degree of proof is required to establish a breach of trust compared to rank-and-file employees. The court quoted Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., highlighting this distinction:

    But as regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.

    Building on this principle, the SC found Labitigan’s position as Accounting Supervisor to be one of trust and confidence. She managed the company’s finances and had the discretion to prepare the payroll. Her actions, therefore, had significant implications for SMSI’s financial interests. The court rejected Labitigan’s defense of preventing wage distortion, noting that she was the only employee earning above minimum wage who received the ECOLA. The court said that Wage distortion, as defined by Wage Order Nos. NCR-09 and NCR-10, refers to:

    “Wage Distortion” refers to a situation where an increase in the prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and * among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of differentiation.

    The court underscored that Labitigan presented no concrete evidence to support her claim of wage distortion, which is vital to her position. Even assuming good faith initially, the Notice of Personnel Action explicitly ordering the cancellation of her ECOLA should have stopped her. Continuing to grant herself the allowance despite this notice constituted insubordination and a clear breach of trust. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the amount of ECOLA was small, but stated that its accumulated value and Labitigan’s abuse of her position as Accounting Supervisor demonstrated breach of trust.

    The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ decision to award separation pay. The SC referenced Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katipunan, emphasizing that separation pay is not warranted when termination is due to the employee’s fault, such as serious misconduct or breach of trust. Awarding separation pay in such cases would be a “misplaced compassion” and would condone dishonest behavior. The Court has consistently held that separation pay is only appropriate when the termination is due to causes not attributable to the employee or in cases of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is not feasible. In addition, while the employee had worked for the company for 11 years, the court added that the length of her employment did not mitigate but aggravated her offense.

    The court’s decision also addressed the issue of Labitigan’s outstanding cash advances. While acknowledging that labor tribunals have jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, the SC clarified that this jurisdiction does not extend to claims unrelated to the termination itself. Petitioners’ termination was due to respondent’s ECOLA collection, and not due to cash advances. The court has no jurisdiction to determine the truth or falsity of charges that were not a part of the notices and hearings. As a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction to order payment of these cash advances in this case. Finally, the SC denied SMSI’s claims for moral and exemplary damages, finding no factual or legal basis for such an award.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The central issue was whether the termination of Lanie Labitigan, an Accounting Supervisor, for breach of trust was valid, and whether she was entitled to separation pay despite the breach.
    What is the legal basis for terminating an employee for breach of trust? Article 282(c) of the Labor Code allows employers to terminate employees for “fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her employer or duly authorized representative.”
    What is the difference in the degree of proof required for managerial versus rank-and-file employees in cases of breach of trust? For managerial employees, a lesser degree of proof is required. The mere existence of a basis for believing the employee breached the employer’s trust is sufficient, while rank-and-file employees require proof of involvement in the alleged events.
    What is the definition of wage distortion under the Wage Orders? Wage distortion refers to a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates among employee groups.
    Is an employee entitled to separation pay if terminated for a just cause, such as breach of trust? No, separation pay is generally not warranted when an employee is terminated for a just cause, such as serious misconduct or breach of trust, as it would reward undesirable behavior.
    What happens if an employee’s length of service is long? Does it mitigate the penalty for breach of trust? While length of service is sometimes considered, it does not automatically mitigate the penalty for serious offenses like breach of trust. In this case, the court found that it aggravated the offense.
    What is the jurisdiction of labor tribunals regarding claims for payment of debts? Labor tribunals have jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, but not over claims unrelated to the termination itself, such as claims for the payment of debts that are separate from the reason for termination.
    What was the final order of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision to award separation pay, affirmed the NLRC’s decision to dismiss the complaint for illegal dismissal, and ordered Labitigan to pay back SMSI the ECOLA she had unlawfully granted herself from November 2002 to July 2005.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Supra Multi-Services, Inc. v. Labitigan serves as a reminder of the importance of trust and loyalty in the employer-employee relationship. It underscores that managerial employees, in particular, hold a position of responsibility that demands a high degree of integrity. A breach of this trust, even if the financial impact is relatively small, can justify termination, and separation pay is not warranted. The case also provides a clear framework for understanding the scope of labor tribunals’ jurisdiction and the factors considered when determining the appropriateness of disciplinary actions in the workplace. The court’s decision highlights the need for employees to prove such wage distortion by providing the necessary documentation, showing the calculation of wages amongst different employee groups.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SUPRA MULTI-SERVICES, INC. VS. LANIE M. LABITIGAN, G.R. No. 192297, August 03, 2016

  • Substantial Evidence Required: Illegal Dismissal and Pilferage Allegations in Employment Cases

    In Rodfhel Baclaan, et al. v. Beauty Lane Phils., Inc./Ms. Ma. Henedina D. Tobojka, the Supreme Court ruled that employees Rodfhel Baclaan, et al. were illegally dismissed, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in employee termination cases. The Court found that Beauty Lane Phils., Inc. failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the employees’ involvement in the alleged pilferage of company products. This decision underscores the principle that employers must meet a high evidentiary standard when accusing employees of misconduct leading to dismissal, protecting employees from arbitrary termination based on mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence.

    Pilferage Accusations: When Circumstantial Evidence Falls Short in Dismissal Cases

    Beauty Lane Phils., Inc., a distributor of beauty products, suspected its employees of stealing “Brazilian Blowout” products after discovering inventory discrepancies. An investigation led to Notices to Explain and Preventive Suspension issued to petitioners Rodfhel Baclaan, Torrefiel, Myra Suacillo, Lorlie Orenday, Sheela Lao, and Leodelyn Libot. These employees were later terminated for allegedly pilfering products. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding insufficient proof of involvement. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reinstated the LA’s ruling, prompting the employees to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in reinstating the LA ruling, which upheld the employees’ dismissal. The petitioners argued that the evidence against them was circumstantial and did not sufficiently prove their participation in the alleged theft. They maintained they had no direct access to the stolen items and that the accusations were based on unsubstantiated claims. Building on this assertion, the NLRC initially sided with the employees, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking them to the pilferage. The NLRC stressed that for dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts is essential.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, underscored the principle that in employee termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a lawful cause. The Court cited Moreno v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila, 513 Phil. 533, 547 (2008), emphasizing that equipoise is not enough and the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence justifying the dismissal. The Court acknowledged the divergence in findings between the LA/CA and the NLRC, which warranted a thorough review of the records.

    The Court found that the employees did not merely offer bare denials but provided explanations and context regarding their roles and responsibilities. For instance, employees like Torrefiel and Orenday detailed the process of order placement and delivery, highlighting that warehouse supervisors had primary control over the products. Similarly, Lao and Libot clarified that their roles as beauty educators for specific product lines limited their access to the allegedly stolen items. These explanations challenged the CA’s assertion that the employees’ access to the products was undisputed. Respondents dismissed petitioners on the strength of circumstantial evidence which did not establish their participation in the pilferage.

    The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the employer, particularly the statements from Mendoza and Gonzales implicating Torrefiel and Lao in selling “Brazilian Blowout” products at lower prices. However, the Court noted that these statements did not prove the employees pilfered the items from Beauty Lane. Instead, Torrefiel and Lao provided a credible explanation, supported by an affidavit from Lea Tagupa, the owner of Skinsational Salon. Tagupa stated that she had asked the employees to help resell products she previously bought from Beauty Lane but could not sell in her salon. As the Supreme Court emphasized, substantial evidence means “that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise” (Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gonzaga, 710 Phil. 676, 687-688 (2013)).

    The court also addressed the issue of due process, particularly concerning Suacillo and Orenday. The NLRC observed that the Notices to Explain and Preventive Suspension issued to them did not specify the charges against them, violating their right to due process. The Court reiterated that two written notices are required before termination of employment: “(1) the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him” (Convoy Marketing Corporation v. Albia, G.R. No. 194969, October 7, 2015). The failure to inform an employee of the charges against them deprives them of due process.

    The Supreme Court concluded that the employer failed to prove by substantial evidence that the employees were involved in the alleged pilferage. Citing the case of Landtex Industries v. CA, 556 Phil. 466, 487 (2007), the Court emphasized that unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions are insufficient to justify an employee’s dismissal. Therefore, the Court found that the CA committed reversible error in granting the employer’s certiorari petition, as the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding the employees to have been illegally dismissed.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the employer, Beauty Lane Phils., Inc., provided substantial evidence to justify the dismissal of its employees for alleged pilferage. The Supreme Court assessed whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, which upheld the dismissal.
    What does ‘substantial evidence’ mean in labor cases? In labor cases, substantial evidence refers to the amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence but less than evidence required in criminal cases.
    What was the role of circumstantial evidence in this case? The employer relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, such as inventory discrepancies and the presence of employees at certain locations. The Court found that this evidence was insufficient to prove the employees’ direct involvement in the pilferage, highlighting the need for more concrete proof.
    What is required for a valid dismissal based on ‘loss of trust and confidence’? For a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the act that would justify the loss of trust must be based on a willful breach of trust. The breach must be founded on clearly established facts, which were not present in this case.
    What are the due process requirements for employee dismissal? The due process requirements for employee dismissal include providing the employee with two written notices. The first notice should inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought, and the second notice should inform them of the employer’s decision to dismiss.
    What was the significance of the Lea Tagupa affidavit? The Lea Tagupa affidavit provided a credible explanation for why the employees were selling the products, stating that she had asked them to help resell items she could not sell in her salon. The NLRC gave more weight to her statement as she was a disinterested party with no apparent reason to lie.
    How did the Court view the conflicting statements from Mendoza and Gonzales? The Court viewed the statements from Mendoza and Gonzales with skepticism, noting that they were also under investigation and potentially biased. The Court found their statements insufficient to prove that the employees pilfered the products from Beauty Lane.
    What was the outcome for Suacillo and Orenday? The Court found that Suacillo and Orenday were not afforded due process because the notices they received did not specify the charges against them. Additionally, there was a lack of evidence linking them to the alleged pilferage, leading the Court to conclude that their dismissal was illegal.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder to employers that terminating employees based on suspicion or weak circumstantial evidence can lead to legal repercussions. Employers must ensure they have substantial evidence to support allegations of misconduct and adhere to due process requirements to avoid findings of illegal dismissal. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting employees’ rights and ensuring fairness in employment practices.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: RODFHEL BACLAAN, et al. vs. BEAUTY LANE PHILS., INC., G.R. No. 214186, August 03, 2016

  • Breach of Trust: The Employer’s Right to Terminate Based on Loss of Confidence

    The Supreme Court upheld an employer’s right to terminate an employee for breach of trust and loss of confidence due to unliquidated cash advances. The Court emphasized that employers have the right to protect themselves from employees who demonstrate untrustworthiness, especially in positions requiring a high degree of responsibility. This ruling reinforces the importance of accountability and honesty in the workplace, providing employers with legal grounds to dismiss employees who violate the trust placed in them.

    When Mistress Becomes a Risk: Can Jealousy Mask a Just Dismissal?

    Mary June Celiz, a high-ranking employee at Cord Chemicals, Inc., found herself embroiled in a legal battle after her dismissal. Cord Chemicals alleged that Celiz failed to account for substantial unliquidated cash advances, leading to a breach of trust. Celiz contended that her dismissal was rooted in personal animosity, specifically the jealousy of her employer, Leonor Sanz, who suspected Celiz of having an affair with her deceased husband, Francisco. The central legal question revolved around whether the dismissal was justified by the unliquidated cash advances or motivated by personal reasons and whether due process was observed in the termination.

    The case began when Cord Chemicals served Celiz with a Notice to Explain, citing her failure to liquidate cash advances amounting to P713,471.00. Celiz, who had been with the company since 1992 and risen to the position of Chief of Sales and Senior Operations Manager, was placed on preventive suspension. She requested more time to review her files, which was granted, but she claimed that access to her office was restricted. Following an investigation, Cord Chemicals dismissed Celiz for serious breach of trust and confidence. Celiz then filed a case for illegal dismissal and monetary benefits, arguing that the charges were fabricated and that she was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself.

    The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Cord Chemicals, finding that the dismissal was for just cause and after observance of due process. This decision was upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Celiz then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA, however, sided with the labor tribunals, stating that Cord Chemicals had presented clear and compelling proof of Celiz’s failure to account for the unliquidated advances.

    In its decision, the CA emphasized that Celiz, as a high-ranking employee, held a position of trust that she had violated. The court cited the principle that loss of trust and confidence does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but rather substantial evidence demonstrating the employee’s misconduct. The CA also noted that Celiz was afforded procedural due process, as she was given notice of the charges against her, an opportunity to explain, and access to company records. Ultimately, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the labor tribunals.

    Dissatisfied with the CA’s ruling, Celiz filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA failed to adhere to the Court’s pronouncements on loss of trust and confidence and procedural due process. Celiz contended that the evidence against her was insufficient and that her dismissal was motivated by personal animosity rather than legitimate business concerns. She cited the case of Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas, which held that loss of trust and confidence must be genuine and supported by substantial evidence.

    However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court reiterated that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. It emphasized that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA were unanimous in finding that Celiz was not illegally dismissed, and therefore, the Court saw no reason to re-evaluate the evidence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that there was substantial evidence demonstrating that Celiz had failed to liquidate her cash advances, providing just cause for her dismissal.

    The Court emphasized the principle that in cases of dismissal for breach of trust and confidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Instead, it is sufficient that the employer had reasonable grounds to believe that the employee was responsible for misconduct that rendered her unworthy of the trust demanded by her position. In this case, the Court found that Cord Chemicals had discharged its burden of proof, presenting sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court affirmed that Cord Chemicals had observed the requirements of procedural due process. Celiz was given a Notice to Explain outlining the charges against her, and she was granted access to company records to prepare her defense. Despite being given ample opportunity, Celiz was only able to liquidate a small portion of the cash advances, leading to her dismissal. The Court found no evidence of ill motive or bad faith on the part of Cord Chemicals, noting that the company had initially been willing to grant Celiz a graceful exit until the discovery of the unliquidated advances.

    The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the employer’s right to terminate employees for loss of trust and confidence when there is substantial evidence of misconduct. It also highlights the importance of procedural due process, ensuring that employees are given notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to defend themselves. This decision provides clarity on the standards for just cause termination and serves as a reminder to employees of the importance of maintaining the trust placed in them by their employers.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Mary June Celiz was illegally dismissed by Cord Chemicals, Inc. based on the grounds of breach of trust and loss of confidence due to unliquidated cash advances.
    What was the employer’s justification for dismissing Celiz? Cord Chemicals justified Celiz’s dismissal based on her failure to liquidate a substantial amount of cash advances, which they argued constituted a serious breach of trust and confidence, given her high-ranking position in the company.
    What did Celiz argue in her defense? Celiz argued that her dismissal was motivated by personal animosity, specifically the jealousy of her employer, Leonor Sanz, and that she was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself against the charges.
    What did the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decide? The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both ruled in favor of Cord Chemicals, finding that Celiz’s dismissal was for just cause and after observance of due process, thus upholding the legality of her termination.
    What was the Court of Appeals’ ruling? The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, stating that Cord Chemicals had presented clear and compelling proof of Celiz’s failure to account for the unliquidated advances and that she was afforded procedural due process.
    What was the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court denied Celiz’s petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court found that there was substantial evidence demonstrating that Celiz had failed to liquidate her cash advances, providing just cause for her dismissal.
    What constitutes ‘substantial evidence’ in cases of loss of trust? In cases of loss of trust, substantial evidence does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that the employer had reasonable grounds to believe that the employee was responsible for misconduct that rendered them unworthy of the trust demanded by their position.
    What is required for procedural due process in termination cases? Procedural due process requires that the employee be given a notice to explain the charges against them, an opportunity to be heard and defend themselves, and a subsequent notice of the employer’s decision to terminate their employment.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of trust and accountability in the employer-employee relationship. By upholding the employer’s right to terminate an employee for breach of trust based on substantial evidence of misconduct, the Court reinforces the principle that employees in positions of responsibility must be held to a high standard of honesty and integrity.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: MARY JUNE CELIZ VS. CORD CHEMICALS, INC., G.R. No. 200352, July 20, 2016

  • Voluntary Resignation vs. Constructive Dismissal: Protecting Employee Rights in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, employees are protected from illegal dismissal. This case clarifies the line between voluntary resignation and constructive dismissal, where an employee is forced to resign due to unbearable working conditions. The Supreme Court emphasizes that for constructive dismissal to exist, the employer’s actions must make continued employment impossible or unreasonably difficult, leading the employee to involuntarily leave their job. This decision underscores the importance of proving that the resignation was not voluntary but was a direct result of the employer’s actions.

    Leaving by Choice or Forced Out? Examining Constructive Dismissal Claims

    The case of Ernesto Galang and Ma. Olga Jasmin Chan v. Boie Takeda Chemicals, Inc. and/or Kazuhiko Nomura revolves around the question of whether the petitioners, Galang and Chan, were constructively dismissed from their positions at Boie Takeda Chemicals, Inc. (BTCI). Both long-term employees, they claimed that the appointment of a less experienced colleague to the position of National Sales Director, coupled with threats of dismissal if they underperformed, forced them to resign. They also argued that the retirement package offered to them was less favorable than those given to previous retirees in similar positions. This situation highlights a common issue in labor law: determining whether an employee’s departure is truly voluntary or the result of employer actions that effectively compel resignation.

    The petitioners asserted that the actions of BTCI’s General Manager, Nomura, particularly the promotion of Villanueva, created an environment where their continued employment became untenable. They argued that Villanueva’s lack of qualifications and experience made the situation unbearable, especially after Nomura allegedly threatened them with dismissal if they failed to meet expectations under the new National Sales Director. According to the petitioners, the promotion of Villanueva was a deliberate attempt to ease them out of the company.

    BTCI, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioners’ resignations were voluntary and that the appointment of Villanueva was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The company argued that there was no demotion, diminution of pay, or other adverse actions that would constitute constructive dismissal. BTCI also claimed that the retirement benefits paid to the petitioners were in accordance with the company’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which, although not directly applicable to managerial positions, served as a basis for their retirement package. Furthermore, BTCI clarified that any additional financial assistance given to previous retirees was due to exceptional circumstances, such as serious health problems.

    The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that they were constructively dismissed. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, holding that the petitioners failed to prove that their resignations were involuntary. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision, stating that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that the petitioners were not constructively dismissed. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine whether the CA erred in sustaining the NLRC’s decision.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that **constructive dismissal** occurs when an employee’s continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely due to the employer’s actions. This can include demotion, reduction in pay, or an unbearable work environment caused by discrimination or disdain. The key element is the lack of voluntariness in the employee’s separation from employment. The Court noted that the petitioners were neither demoted nor did they receive a reduction in pay or benefits. Their primary grievance stemmed from the appointment of Villanueva, which they perceived as unfair and detrimental to their careers.

    However, the Court also recognized that employers have the **inherent right to manage their business** effectively, including the prerogative to determine the qualifications and fitness of employees for promotion or reassignment. This right is limited only by laws, collective bargaining agreements, and instances of unlawful discrimination or grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Court found no evidence that BTCI acted with grave abuse of discretion in promoting Villanueva. The petitioners failed to present any evidence of BTCI’s rules or policies that were violated in the promotion process. Moreover, the Court noted that Villanueva possessed combined experience in both sales and marketing, and an independent consulting agency had recommended his appointment.

    The Supreme Court further addressed the petitioners’ claim that they were entitled to a higher retirement package. The Court reiterated that entitlement to retirement benefits must be based on existing laws, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, or established employer policies. In this case, the petitioners’ retirement benefits were based on the CBA, and they received more than what is mandated by the Labor Code. The Court found no evidence of a consistent and deliberate company practice of providing a more generous retirement package to employees in similar positions. The instances cited by the petitioners were either not comparable in terms of rank or occurred within a short period, which did not establish a company practice.

    The Court cited the case of Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), where it held that an employee claiming constructive dismissal after availing of a voluntary retirement program has the burden of proving that their decision to retire was involuntary. The petitioners in this case failed to meet that burden. The Court found that the petitioners had previously expressed their intention to retire and that the circumstances they claimed forced them into early retirement were not so severe as to render their continued employment impossible. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision that the petitioners were not constructively dismissed and were not entitled to a higher retirement package.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the petitioners were constructively dismissed from their employment and whether they were entitled to a higher retirement package than what they received.
    What is constructive dismissal? Constructive dismissal is when an employee resigns because the working conditions have become so intolerable or difficult that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign. It is considered an involuntary resignation.
    What is management prerogative? Management prerogative refers to the inherent right of employers to control and manage their business, including decisions related to hiring, firing, promotion, and reassignment of employees, subject to legal limitations.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not constructively dismissed. They voluntarily retired from service and received their complete retirement package and other monetary claims from BTCI.
    What evidence did the petitioners present? The petitioners presented evidence that a less experienced colleague was promoted over them and that they were threatened with dismissal if they did not perform well under the new director. They also presented evidence that other retirees received more generous retirement packages.
    Why did the Court reject the petitioners’ claim of constructive dismissal? The Court found that the petitioners failed to prove that their resignation was involuntary and that the circumstances they faced were so intolerable as to force them to resign. The promotion of another employee was deemed a valid exercise of management prerogative.
    How were the petitioners’ retirement benefits calculated? The petitioners’ retirement benefits were calculated based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between BTCI and the BTCI Supervisory Union, which provided a formula based on the employee’s length of service.
    Were the petitioners entitled to a higher retirement package? The Court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to a higher retirement package because they failed to prove that the company had an established practice of providing more generous benefits beyond those specified in the CBA.

    This case underscores the importance of clearly demonstrating the involuntary nature of a resignation when claiming constructive dismissal. Employees must provide substantial evidence to prove that the employer’s actions created an unbearable work environment that forced them to leave. Moreover, claims for additional retirement benefits must be supported by proof of a consistent company practice, not just isolated instances of more generous packages.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ernesto Galang and Ma. Olga Jasmin Chan v. Boie Takeda Chemicals, Inc. and/or Kazuhiko Nomura, G.R. No. 183934, July 20, 2016

  • Independent Contractor vs. Employee: Defining the Boundaries of Control in Labor Law

    The Supreme Court, in Valeroso v. Skycable Corporation, affirmed that the absence of employer control over the means and methods of a worker’s performance indicates an independent contractor relationship, not employment. This ruling clarifies that simply monitoring results is insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship, impacting how businesses engage independent contractors and how workers are classified under labor law.

    Soliciting Subscriptions or Subservient Service? Determining Employment Status at Skycable

    This case revolves around Antonio Valeroso and Allan Legatona, who claimed illegal dismissal against Skycable Corporation. Valeroso and Legatona alleged they were regular employees, tasked with soliciting cable subscriptions, and were unjustly terminated. Skycable countered that the petitioners were independent contractors engaged through a Sales Agency Agreement, and later, employees of Armada Resources & Marketing Solutions, Inc., an independent contractor itself. The central legal question is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Valeroso, Legatona, and Skycable.

    The core of this dispute lies in the application of the **four-fold test** to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This test includes: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The Supreme Court emphasized the **right of control test** as the most crucial factor.

    The Court dissected the evidence presented by Valeroso and Legatona, finding it insufficient to prove an employer-employee relationship with Skycable. The certifications issued by Skycable’s Sales Territory Manager were deemed mere accommodations for loan applications, not proof of employment. Payslips from 2001 to 2006 were considered outdated, as the petitioners’ alleged employment with Skycable was under scrutiny for the years 2007 to 2009. The Supreme Court underscored that the essence of control indicative of employment goes beyond merely seeking a desirable outcome; it involves dictating the means and methods to achieve that outcome.

    The Court elaborated on the degree of control necessary to establish an employer-employee relationship, stating:

    [Guidelines indicative of labor law ‘control’ do not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the result.”

    In this context, Skycable’s actions—updating petitioners on new promos, price listings, meetings, imposing quotas, and providing commendations—were viewed as monitoring results, not dictating the means and methods of soliciting cable subscriptions. This distinction is crucial because monitoring results is consistent with an independent contractor relationship, where the contractor has the autonomy to determine how to achieve the desired outcome.

    The petitioners invoked the case of Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commission, which introduced a two-tiered test to ascertain the true relationship between employer and employee. However, the Supreme Court found the two-tiered test inapplicable here due to the existence of a written Sales Agency Agreement that explicitly defined the relationship as an independent contractorship. Even if the two-tiered test were applied, the absence of control would still preclude an employer-employee relationship.

    The Sales Agency Agreement played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The Court noted:

    While the existence of employer-employee relationship is a matter of law, the characterization made by the parties in their contract as to the nature of their juridical relationship cannot be simply ignored, particularly in this case where the parties’ written contract unequivocally states their intention to be strictly bound by independent contractorship.

    This underscores the importance of clear contractual language in defining the nature of a working relationship. Moreover, the Court considered Legatona’s Release and Quitclaim, where he acknowledged performing sales activities as an independent contractor, further supporting the absence of an employment relationship. Sworn testimonies from De la Cuesta and Navasa affirmed that the petitioners were employees of Armada, an independent contractor providing marketing services to Skycable.

    The petitioners also argued that they should be considered regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code because their functions were necessary and desirable to Skycable’s business. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that Article 280 is used to distinguish between regular and casual employees when an employment relationship already exists, not to determine whether such a relationship exists in the first place. As the Supreme Court clarified:

    Article 280 is not the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for purposes of determining [their rights] to certain benefits, [such as] to join or form a union, or to security of tenure. Article 280 does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.

    Drawing parallels with other cases, the Court cited Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation and Sandigan Savings & Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, where commission-based salespersons, operating with autonomy and without direct supervision, were deemed independent contractors. The petitioners, like the salespersons in these cases, exercised their functions without intrusive oversight, further solidifying their status as independent contractors.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Antonio Valeroso and Allan Legatona (petitioners) and Skycable Corporation (respondent), or whether they were independent contractors. This determination hinged on the application of the four-fold test, particularly the element of control.
    What is the ‘control test’ and why is it important? The ‘control test’ is a crucial factor in determining employment status. It examines whether the employer controls not only the results of the work but also the means and methods by which the work is accomplished, with the presence of control indicative of an employment relationship.
    Why were the certifications and payslips presented by the petitioners deemed insufficient? The certifications were considered mere accommodations for loan applications, not proof of employment, while the payslips were outdated and did not cover the relevant period of alleged employment. The Court emphasized the need for substantial evidence during the contested period.
    What role did the Sales Agency Agreement play in the Court’s decision? The Sales Agency Agreement explicitly defined the relationship between the parties as an independent contractorship, which the Court considered a significant indicator of their intention. This agreement served as primary evidence against the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
    How did the Court distinguish between monitoring results and controlling the means of work? The Court clarified that monitoring results, such as updating on new promos and imposing quotas, does not equate to controlling the means and methods of how the work is performed. The latter involves dictating the specific processes and techniques used to achieve the desired outcome.
    What is the significance of Article 280 of the Labor Code in this case? Article 280 distinguishes between regular and casual employees but is not used to determine the existence of an employment relationship in the first place. It only applies when an employment relationship has already been established.
    How did previous cases influence the Court’s decision in this case? The Court referenced cases such as Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation and Sandigan Savings & Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, where commission-based salespersons operating autonomously were deemed independent contractors. These precedents supported the classification of the petitioners as independent contractors.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for businesses and workers? This ruling clarifies the criteria for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors, emphasizing the importance of control. Businesses must be mindful of the extent of control they exert over workers to avoid misclassification, while workers need to understand their rights and protections based on their employment status.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Valeroso v. Skycable Corporation underscores the importance of the control test in determining employment status and affirms the validity of independent contractor relationships when properly structured and documented. This case serves as a guiding precedent for employers and workers alike, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to legal standards in defining working relationships.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ANTONIO VALEROSO AND ALLAN LEGATONA, VS. SKYCABLE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 202015, July 13, 2016

  • Due Process in Employment Termination: Balancing Cause and Procedure

    The Supreme Court has clarified that while an employer can terminate an employee for a valid reason, failing to strictly adhere to procedural due process will not invalidate the dismissal if a just or authorized cause exists. However, the employer must still compensate the employee with nominal damages for the procedural lapse. This means employers need to ensure they follow the correct steps when dismissing employees, even if there’s a legitimate reason for the termination. Ignoring these procedures can lead to financial penalties, even if the dismissal itself is upheld.

    When Overstated Expenses Lead to Dismissal: Did the Company Follow the Rules?

    Rowena Santos, a clinician at Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc., was terminated for several reasons, including overstating transportation expenses, insubordination, and a negative attitude. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Santos, citing a failure to comply with the two-notice requirement for termination. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified this decision, finding that there were just causes for termination but acknowledging the procedural lapses. The central legal question revolves around whether Integrated Pharma followed the correct procedures in dismissing Santos, and what the consequences are for failing to do so.

    The Supreme Court (SC) ultimately sided with the CA’s decision, emphasizing that while just cause existed for Santos’ dismissal, the company failed to fully comply with procedural due process. The Court noted that Santos was indeed habitually tardy, as evidenced by performance evaluations and memoranda. This tardiness was deemed excessive, affecting the company’s overall productivity. Moreover, the Court found Santos guilty of insubordination, defined as the willful disobedience of reasonable and lawful employer orders. Specifically, she failed to remit collections on time, did not bring a demonstration unit to the office as instructed, and overstated her travel expenses despite instructions to report the correct amount.

    The issue of overstated travel expenses was particularly scrutinized. Santos claimed she spent P10.00 on tricycles to reach Fort Bonifacio Hospital, while her supervisor discovered that only P2.00 multicabs were available. The Court sided with the company, finding that deliberately misreporting travel expenses constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct. Quoting Article 282 of the Labor Code, the Court emphasized that an employer may terminate employment for:

    ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes:

    (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.

    xxxx

    (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

    The Court clarified that even if an employee is allotted a certain amount for expenses, they cannot keep the remainder if the actual expense is less. This act of deliberately misdeclaring expenses constitutes dishonesty and serious misconduct, both lawful grounds for dismissal.

    While the SC acknowledged that Santos had already been reprimanded for some infractions mentioned in a previous memorandum, these past offenses could still be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for subsequent violations. In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court noted that past offenses are relevant in assessing an employee’s liability for a present violation.

    Nor can it be plausibly argued that because the offenses were already given the appropriate sanctions, they cannot be taken against him. They are relevant in assessing private respondent’s liability for the present violation for the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty. To sustain private respondent’s argument that the past violation should not be considered is to disregard the warnings previously issued to him.

    However, the SC also pointed out a critical flaw in the dismissal process. Even with a just cause for termination, the employer must still adhere to procedural due process. This involves providing the employee with two written notices and conducting a hearing. The first notice informs the employee of the specific acts or omissions that could lead to dismissal, while the second informs them of the employer’s decision to terminate employment.

    In this case, the Court found that Integrated Pharma failed to meet these requirements. While the company presented two written notices, both were inadequate. The first notice did not indicate an impending termination or give Santos a reasonable timeframe to submit an explanation. The second notice, allegedly refused by Santos, was not properly served and did not provide sufficient time for her to respond. Critically, no hearing or conference was scheduled for Santos to present her case.

    The Court cited King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, outlining the requirements for the first written notice:

    (1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. ‘Reasonable opportunity’ under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.

    Because Integrated Pharma did not follow these procedures, the Court upheld the CA’s decision to award Santos nominal damages, despite affirming the existence of just cause for her dismissal. The Court relied on Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, stating that a lack of statutory due process does not invalidate a dismissal for cause but warrants compensation for the procedural violation.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an employee’s dismissal was legal when just cause existed but procedural due process was not strictly followed by the employer. The court had to balance the employer’s right to manage its business with the employee’s right to due process.
    What is “just cause” for termination? “Just cause” refers to specific reasons outlined in the Labor Code that allow an employer to terminate an employee. These reasons include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross negligence, fraud, or breach of trust.
    What is “procedural due process” in termination cases? Procedural due process requires employers to follow specific steps when terminating an employee, including providing two written notices and conducting a hearing. The notices must clearly state the reasons for the intended termination and give the employee an opportunity to respond.
    What are the two notices required for due process? The first notice informs the employee of the specific acts or omissions that could lead to dismissal, giving them a chance to explain. The second notice informs the employee of the employer’s decision to terminate their employment.
    What happens if an employer fails to follow due process? If an employer fails to follow procedural due process, the dismissal may not be considered illegal if there is just cause, but the employer may be required to pay nominal damages to the employee. This compensates the employee for the procedural violation.
    What are nominal damages? Nominal damages are a small amount of money awarded to a plaintiff who has suffered a legal wrong but has not experienced substantial financial loss. In this context, it compensates the employee for the employer’s failure to follow proper procedure.
    Can past offenses be considered in a termination case? Yes, past offenses can be considered when determining the appropriate penalty for a current violation. These past offenses can help an employer justify a stricter penalty, such as termination, if the employee has a history of misconduct.
    What does it mean to be “habitually tardy”? Habitual tardiness refers to a repeated pattern of being late, which negatively affects the employee’s performance and the company’s productivity. This can be considered a form of neglect of duty and a just cause for termination.
    What constitutes insubordination? Insubordination is the willful disobedience of reasonable and lawful orders from an employer. For it to be a just cause for dismissal, the order must be lawful, made known to the employee, and related to their job duties.
    What is considered dishonesty in the context of employment? Dishonesty in employment includes acts like falsifying documents, stealing company property, or misrepresenting expenses. These acts breach the trust between the employer and employee and can be grounds for termination.

    This case underscores the importance of balancing the employer’s right to manage their business with the employee’s right to due process. Even when just cause exists for termination, employers must meticulously follow the required procedures to avoid liability for nominal damages. By adhering to these guidelines, companies can minimize legal risks and ensure fair treatment of their employees.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Rowena A. Santos v. Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc., G.R. No. 204620, July 11, 2016

  • Upholding Employee Rights: When Can an Employer Claim Loss of Confidence?

    The Supreme Court ruled in Susan D. Capili v. Philippine National Bank that PNB illegally dismissed Susan Capili because it failed to prove with substantial evidence that there was just cause for her dismissal. The Court emphasized that loss of confidence as a ground for termination must be genuine and based on work-related misconduct, not on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated claims. This decision reinforces the importance of due process and the need for employers to provide concrete evidence when citing loss of confidence as a reason for dismissing an employee, especially those in positions of trust.

    Reviving Old Grievances: Can a Bank Justify Dismissal on Previously Dismissed Charges?

    Susan D. Capili, an Assistant Vice President at the Philippine National Bank (PNB), faced dismissal based on alleged loss of confidence stemming from issues including a complaint from a Korean national, Hyun Duk Cho, regarding anomalous transactions; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) cases (issuance of worthless checks); and alleged falsification of personnel records. These charges led to an administrative case where PNB initially provisionally dismissed most charges, pending the resolution of one BP 22 case in Bulacan. When the Bulacan case was also dismissed, Capili sought clearance, but PNB revived previously dismissed charges to justify her termination. The central legal question is whether PNB could validly dismiss Capili based on these revived charges and whether the bank’s actions constituted a genuine loss of confidence or a pretext for unjustified dismissal.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on whether PNB had substantiated its claim of loss of confidence with sufficient evidence. The Court referenced Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code, which requires that dismissal be for a just cause and that the employee be given due process. In cases of loss of confidence, the employee must hold a position of trust, and there must be an act justifying the employer’s loss of trust. The burden of proof lies with the employer, who must present substantial evidence to support the dismissal.

    The Court scrutinized PNB’s actions, noting that in its initial decision, the Administrative Adjudication Panel (AAP) had already cleared Capili of several charges, including Hyun’s complaint and the falsification charge. The Makati BP 22 case was dismissed, and the Bulacan case was the only remaining issue. Despite this, PNB later revived the Makati case and introduced Capili’s alleged derogatory NBI record as new grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court found this inconsistent with PNB’s own guidelines, specifically Paragraph 3.6 of PNB General Circular No. 2-1345, which states that loss of confidence must not be simulated, used as a subterfuge, arbitrarily asserted, or a mere afterthought.

    The Court emphasized that PNB’s revival of previously dismissed charges constituted a mere afterthought. The initial AAP decision had already determined that Hyun’s complaint and the Makati BP 22 case were insufficient grounds for dismissal. By resurrecting these issues, PNB violated its own policy guidelines. Moreover, the Court found that Capili had provided valid defenses for the misconduct imputed against her. Her transactions with Hyun were personal and did not involve PNB. She had disclosed her interest in Sandino Builders (SB) by having a PNB bank account for it. The BP 22 cases had been settled and dismissed. Therefore, there was no breach of trust that justified PNB’s loss of confidence.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed PNB’s reliance on BSP Circular No. 513, which pertains to the disqualification of bank officers or employees from holding a director position due to questionable character. The Court pointed out that this circular applied to directors, not to employees like Capili, who was not a director and had not been convicted of any offense. The NLRC also correctly observed that the NBI record under “Capili, Susan” was not definitively linked to the petitioner, and she had provided court clearances showing no convictions or pending cases against her. Thus, PNB’s reliance on this circular was unfounded.

    Building on these points, the Court highlighted the significance of Capili’s performance appraisal. Despite the pending administrative case and the BP 22 issues, PNB had given Capili a “Very Good” rating in her work performance. This indicated that PNB continued to have confidence in her ability to perform her duties effectively. The Court cited General Bank & Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that loss of confidence must be genuine and not simulated or used as a subterfuge. The employer’s actions must align with their stated loss of confidence, which was not the case here.

    The Supreme Court further addressed the issue of Capili’s reinstatement pending appeal, referencing Article 229 of the Labor Code, which mandates that a Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering reinstatement is immediately executory. In cases where the employer opts for payroll reinstatement, as in Aboc v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, the employee is entitled to wages during the appeal period until a final reversal by a higher court. The Court clarified that mere deposit of salary to the NLRC Cashier does not constitute sufficient compliance with payroll reinstatement. The employee must actually receive the salary.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC’s decision. PNB failed to prove by substantial evidence that there was just cause for Capili’s dismissal. The Court granted Capili’s petition, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the NLRC’s ruling that PNB had illegally dismissed Capili. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to due process and providing concrete evidence when claiming loss of confidence as a ground for termination.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Philippine National Bank (PNB) validly dismissed Susan Capili based on loss of confidence, considering that some of the charges against her had been previously dismissed or were not work-related.
    What is the legal basis for dismissing an employee due to loss of confidence? Article 297 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an employee if there is a justified loss of trust and confidence, provided the employee holds a position of trust and has committed an act that warrants such loss of confidence.
    What evidence did PNB present to justify Capili’s dismissal? PNB presented a complaint from a Korean national, Hyun Duk Cho, BP 22 cases (issuance of worthless checks), and alleged falsification of personnel records as evidence to justify Capili’s dismissal.
    How did the Labor Arbiter (LA) rule on Capili’s dismissal? The LA ruled that PNB was guilty of illegally dismissing Capili and ordered her reinstatement with full backwages, salaries, 13th-month pay, and attorney’s fees.
    What was the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) decision? The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision, stating that the loss of trust and confidence must relate to work-related acts and that Capili’s BP 22 cases were personal and did not pertain to her duties.
    What did the Court of Appeals (CA) decide in this case? The CA set aside the NLRC’s decision, finding that Capili’s issuance of worthless checks gave PNB reasonable ground to lose trust in her, thus rendering her dismissal legal.
    How did the Supreme Court rule on the issue of Capili’s dismissal? The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and reinstated the NLRC’s ruling, finding that PNB failed to prove by substantial evidence that there was just cause supporting Capili’s dismissal.
    What is payroll reinstatement, and how does it apply in this case? Payroll reinstatement means that the employee is reinstated on the payroll, receiving wages during the appeal period, even if they are not physically working. The Court clarified that merely depositing the salary to the NLRC is not sufficient; the employee must actually receive the salary.
    What was the significance of the PNB’s previous decision in the administrative case? PNB’s initial decision provisionally dismissed most charges against Capili, pending the resolution of the Bulacan BP 22 case. The Supreme Court found that PNB could not revive previously dismissed charges to justify her dismissal after the Bulacan case was also dismissed.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder that employers must have a legitimate and justifiable basis for dismissing an employee based on loss of confidence. Employers must provide substantial evidence and adhere to due process in their decisions. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of protecting employee rights and ensuring fair labor practices.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SUSAN D. CAPILI, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 204750, July 11, 2016