CHUA–QUA vs. CLAVE

"The heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know" 
- Blaise Pascal

"There are stories of love deemed by others as inappropriate. However, true love defies odds, move mountains, and for this instance, compels a Supreme Court Justice to be extra-mushy in his ruling."

Law students love this case.. in fact it was considered one of the well read cases searched in its original script. The yellowing pages of the SCRA.

Not only because of the tidal reversal decisions it went through from administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial bodies that took cognizance of it by virtue of their respective jurisdictions, but the controversy and the uniqueness of the situation that were it not for it this would have been just another case of illegal dismissal.

In fact one tiny portion of the decision was lifted and went down in courts history as one of the Top 5 Best Supreme Court Love Quotes of all times. The words topped the survey and the case etched its own engraving as one of the most favorite landmark cases of all times.

"If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that 'the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know'." - Chua-Qua vs Clave 189 SCRA 117

The underlined words were of course borrowed from a famous saying of  Blaise Pascal. But the effect had perfectly complemented and fit the whole structure of this high court's lingering quote upon which it was invoked.

The case was decided by a three (3) man division chaired by no less than Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera, the other two justices were Justice Paras and Justice Padilla. Indeed a woman's sense of judgment is never deserving to be downplayed.

Although I am not sure about the ponente who wrote this decision but I'm thinking it was Justice Regalado who penned it. Judging by the choice of words mannerly pervading with great Filipino writers that proliferated and stood engraved in the halls of our Modern Philippine Literature, the likes of Jose Garcia Villa,  Nick Joaquin, Carlos Bulosan, Sionil Jose. Justice Florenz D. Regalado is considered one of the high court's illustrious judicial writers of all times.

Some none-legal writers nowadays even refer to it (the Chua-Clave case) as "A truly remarkable case wherein the Supreme Court ruled in favor of “love”. Yes. This was a love story. The case was decided in 1990 but the dispute arose in 1976. This is a story of a teacher who fell in-love with her student and the student felt the same. Or should we appropriately say the student falling in love with his teacher and the teacher in the course of her lessons have learned to develop feelings for her student.

What aggravated the case is the marriage of both. Herein petitioner (30 years of age) who as we have established was a classroom teacher, entered into matrimony with her student who was fourteen (14) years her junior. This was considered by the school authorities as sufficient basis for terminating her services.

Allow me to proudly present to you the facts of the case:

Private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc. is an educational institution in Bacolod City. Petitioner herein Evelyn Chua was a teacher therein employed since 1963 and was the class adviser in the sixth grade during 1976 where one Bobby Qua was enrolled.  

It was the policy of the school to extend remedial instructions to its students usually conducted after the regular class hours and so therefore Bobby Qua was imparted with such instructions in school by petitioner teacher Evelyn Chua same as other students as well.

But here's the thing.. 

In the course thereof?.. the couple fell in love.

And on December 24, 1975, they got married. Evelyn was 30 years old and Bobby, 16 years old, an age gap of 14 years.

LABOR ARBITER:

Consequently, on February 4, 1976 Tay Tung High School filed with the Labor Arbiter an application for clearance to terminate Evelyn’s employment stating her “actuations as a teacher constitute serious misconduct, if not an immoral act, a breach of trust and confidence reposed upon her and, thus, a valid and just ground to terminate her services”. And that she violated the Code of Ethics for Teachers, the pertinent provision of which states that 'a school official or teacher should never take advantage of his/her position to court a pupil or student’.” And that such act were "abusive and unethical amounting to a conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and would downgrade the high moral values, of the school." 

Evelyn Chua was placed under suspension without pay on March 12, 1976. The Bacolod City NLRC Executive Labor Arbiter to whom the case was certified for resolution, required the parties to submit their position papers and supporting evidence. Affidavits were submitted by private respondent school to bolster its contention that petitioner Evelyn Chua..

First blood drawn... listen to this..

"defying all standards of decency, recklessly took advantage of her position as school teacher, lured a Grade VI boy under her advisory section and 15 years her junior into an amorous relation." 

Tsk tsk - Such strong conclusive words huh?..

What the school was trying to establish here was the existence of an amorous relationship manifested within the premises of the school, inside the classroom, and within the sight of some employees. More specifically, private respondent raised issues on the fact that petitioner stayed alone with Bobby Qua in the classroom after school hours when everybody had gone home, with one door allegedly locked and the other slightly open.

But to the contrary..

Neither was there a direct evidences, or actual witnesses introduced to show that immoral acts were committed during those times, all the respondent school could do was point out that said scenario was enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what transpired and took place during those times.

Now comes the arbitrary decision of the Labor Arbiter..

On September 17, 1976, Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY FORMAL HEARING, rendered an "Award" in favor of private respondent granting the clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner.

APPEAL TO THE NLRC:

Petitioner, however, denied having received any copy of the affidavits referred to. And so on October 7, 1976, petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission claiming denial of due process further contending that there was nothing immoral, nor was it abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher, for a teacher to enter into lawful wedlock with her student.

Our heroine fights back..

December 27, 1976, the National Labor Relations Commission UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordered petitioner's reinstatement with back-wages.

Here's the NLRC's findings..

The Commission stated "Even if we have to strain our sense of moral values to accommodate the conclusion of the Arbiter, we could not deduce anything immoral or scandalous about a girl and a boy talking inside a room after classes with lights on and with the door open. Furthermore, Tay Tung High School naively insisted that the clearance application was precipitated by immoral acts which did not lend dignity to the position of Evelyn Chua. Aside from such gratuitous assertions of immoral acts or conduct unbecoming, no evidence to support such claims was introduced by the school officials. We reviewed the sequence of events from the beginning of the relationship between appellant Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua up to the date of the filing of the present application for clearance in search of evidence that could have proved detrimental to the image and dignity of the school but none has come to our attention."

APPEAL TO DOLE:

Here now comes the school elevating the case to the Minister of Labor who, on March 30, 1977, REVERSED the decision of the NLRC. The teacher was, however, awarded six (6) months salary as financial assistance.

APPEAL to the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL.:

Petitioner appealed the said decision to the Office of the President of the Philippines. (Ferdinand E. Marcos).  After the corresponding exchanges, on September 1, 1978 said office, through Presidential Executive Assistant Hon. Jacobo C. Clave rendered its decision REVERSING the DOLE decision. Private respondent SCHOOL was ordered to reinstate petitioner EVELYN CHUA to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and with full back wages from the time she was not allowed to work until the date of her actual reinstatement.

So.. tsk tsk tsk.. considering that the case run the gamut of three prior adjudications of such administrative and quasi-judicial bodies with alternating reversals, well.. of course we would think that the petitioner teacher's calvary is now ended.. 

but wait.. there's more.. 

In a resolution dated December 6, 1978, public respondent Hon. Jacobo C. Clave, acting on a motion for reconsideration of herein private respondent school and despite opposition thereto, RECONSIDERED and MODIFIED the aforesaid decision, this time giving due course to the application of Tay Tung High School, Inc. to terminate the services of petitioner as classroom teacher but giving her separation pay equivalent to her six (6) months salary. 

So.. ehem.. dig that.. it's like winning the lottery and dying the next day.. 

Public respondent Hon. Jacobo C. Clave reasoned out and may I quote "This Office did not limit itself to the legal issues involved in the case, but went further to view the matter from the standpoint of policy which involves the delicate task of rearing and educating of children whose interest must be held paramount in the school community, and on this basis, this Office deemed it wise to uphold the judgment and action of the school authorities in terminating the services of a teacher whose actuations and behavior, in the belief of the school authorities, had spawned ugly rumors that had cast serious doubts on her integrity, a situation which was considered by them as not healthy for a school campus, believing that a school teacher should at all times act with utmost circumspection and conduct herself beyond reproach and above suspicion"  (The fella has a point.. let's see if it will hold..)

And so our heroine had no choice but to continue the fight elevating the case to the Supreme Court by virtue of a petition for certiorari..

ISSUE:

Was her dismissal valid? Did petitioner commit an immoral act as a teacher warranting dismissal from work?

RULING:

The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying:

“Private respondent (the school) utterly failed to show that petitioner (30-year old lady teacher) took advantage of her position to court her student (16-year old). The petitioner’s dismissal was based solely on her marriage to Bobby Qua and the imputed charges of abuse, immorality and unethical conduct were unsubstantiated. Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis.

If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.”

Petition for certiorari granted, private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner back wages equivalent to three years without deduction and separation pay of one month for every year of service.

Here's a more concrete basis..

Court said.. It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of the school in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily bannered to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy, however, is not at odds with and should not be capitalized on to defeat the SECURITY OF TENURE granted by the Constitution to labor. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. The charge against petitioner not having been substantiated, we declare her dismissal as unwarranted and illegal.

The petition for certiorari was GRANTED and the resolution of public respondent Jacobo Clave is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

The teacher Evelyn Chua-Cua wins the case.. redeems her dignity.. and the heart of the person she loves.

Indeed, the heart has its own mind that even the own mind cannot fathom. 

JGB & ASSOCIATES INC. vs. NLRC

This is such a lovely evening. Just listening to Bossa Nova sittin' on a Lazy Boy drinking cold shaked MP Combat.

And what a wonderful night of class lecture with Judge Villarosa in my Labor Review. The insights were relevant and worth pondering and note-taking, and the humor was fantastic. I think there's nothing more apt or appropriate but to post another labor case that coincides with the Judge's lecture. Good evening guys :)

This is one beautiful case decided by the 5th Division of the NLRC when it reversed the POEA decision on a complaint filed by herein private respondent, an OFW with a 2 year contract to work as a draftsman in Saudi Arabia.

Facts of the case states that private respondent Arturo Arrojado was hired by petitioner JGB and Associates, Inc. for its principal, Tariq Hajj Architects, to work as draftsman in Saudi Arabia.  The contract of employment was for two years with a monthly salary of US$500.00 

TERMINATED

Barely 10 months in the job before the expiration of his contract of employment, Arrejado was given notice by his employer that his employment was terminated for the reason that his performance both in productivity and efficiency was below average.  The termination of his employment took effect on the same day.  

So the guy was immediately scheduled to depart Saudi Arabia three days after his dismissal. Of course unexpectedly the poor guy found himself already back in the Philippines. Like “Damn it what happened?”

POEA COMPLAINT

So barely after 2 weeks of soul searching and introspection (haha I just added that sorry) private respondent filed with the POEA a complaint against JGB and Associates, Inc. and Tariq Hajj Architects alleging illegal dismissal and seeking payment of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, salary differential, refund of S.R. 1,000 which was withheld from him for telephone bills, moral damages and attorney’s fees. (‘attaboy!)

ARROJADO ALLEGED

Private respondent alleged in his complaint that he did his job conscientiously and that HE WAS EVEN ASKED TO MAKE SCALE MODELS, IN ADDITION TO HIS REGULAR DUTIES.  He claimed that he was never reprimanded nor informed of his alleged negligence and incompetence either by his immediate supervisor or by his employer.  He also complained that he was denied due process because his dismissal took effect on the same day he was given notice and claimed that, because he was immediately repatriated, he had no opportunity to challenge his arbitrary dismissal.  

Also private respondent admitted that he signed a waiver of claims but alleged that he did so under compulsion and that, in any event, he was not precluded from questioning the legality of his dismissal and from recovering monetary claims due him.

JGB INC. AVERRED

On the other hand, petitioner averred that private respondent was DISMISSED FOR NEGLECT OF DUTIES AND PERFORMANCE BELOW PAR.  Petitioner also alleged that although no prior notice of dismissal was given to private respondent, he was given in lieu thereof a “notice pay” equivalent to one month salary.  

Petitioner denied liability for salary differential on the ground that the employment contract stipulated that his monthly salary was US$500.00.  Petitioner invoked a quitclaim signed by private respondent as evidence that he had been paid all the monetary claims due him.

POEA DISMISSED ARROJADO COMPLAINT

The POEA dismissed private respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered respondents to pay complainant jointly and severally the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment the amount of SR1,000 representing the refund of the telephone bills deducted from the latter. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

NLRC APPEAL – REVERSED POEA DESCISION

Now here’s where the events turn..

Private respondent ARREJADO appealed to the NLRC, which found private respondent’s dismissal illegal and so the assailed POEA decision was SET-ASIDE hence, ordering respondents JGB INC. Et al. to pay complainant jointly and severally the peso equivalent at the time of payment US$7,875.00 representing the unexpired portion of the contract. US$225.00 representing salary differential for nine (9) months, and S.R. 1,000.00 representing refund for telephone bill.

There you go.. that’s what I’m sayin’.. huh? Ofcourse JGB petitioned the high court for certiorari but let’s see what happened?

JGB PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Hence this petition. Petitioner alleges that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

Did it? Did the 5th Division of the NLRC at that time gravely abused its discretion in reversing the decision of the POEA and ruling that private respondent was illegally dismissed?

RULING:

Here’s the court ruling..

NO. (aw!)

Court finds that JGB failed to prove that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that ARREJADO was illegally dismissed.  

BURDEN OF PROOF

You see the court said..

IN TERMINATION CASES, THE BURDEN OF PROVING JUST CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL IS ON THE EMPLOYER. 

Here’s the deciding factor in the POEA Decision why they came up with such decision, let’s take a look…

In this case, the grounds for the dismissal of ARREJADO were stated in two documents presented by JGB INC. et al. before the POEA: 

(1) the notice of termination given to private respondent and 

(2) the letter of the principal, Tariq Hajj addressed to the agent JGB Inc.

In the termination letter, the foreign employer stated that private respondent’s performance was below average.  The foreign employer stated in another succeeding letter that:

“ever since the early days of Mr. Arrojado with us, we were not fully satisfied with his performance and our expectations from him were much higher than we saw him actually producing. Nevertheless  to be very fare with Mr. Arrojado we gave him a lot of time to develop and to get acquainted with our work, system, environment and standards.  

However and for more than eight (8) months he spent with us, we have not witnessed any development in skills or abilities.  Moreover, we noticed a very evident neglect by Mr. Arrojado of the duties assigned to him. This combined with a very thorough evaluation of his performance which resulted from his continuous and repeated neglect throughout the period he spent with us, our decision was very natural.  We felt that Mr. Arrojado was causing our firm tangible financial lose and considerable technical difficulties due to his incompetent performance.”

Here’s a portion of the stipulated contract between the parties provided in pertinent part:

“D. Termination by Employer.  An Employer may terminate the contract of employment for any of the following causes:

       xxx                                  xxx                                  xxx

(c)     Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties

(d)     Fraud or willful neglect by the employee of his duties”

Court stated..

1. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties. 

2. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.  

3. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latter’s business.

Now here’s the court's findings..

None of these causes is stated in the two letters of the employer as reasons for dismissing private respondent.  None of the reasons there stated even approximates any of the causes provided in the contract of employment for the termination of employment by the employer.

Indeed, the grounds given for private respondent’s dismissal are NOTHING BUT GENERAL, VAGUE AND AMORPHOUS ALLEGATIONS.  

As the NLRC noted, the letters do not state PARTICULAR ACTS which show that private respondent was indeed negligent and that his performance was below par.  Nor did petitioner show the tangible financial loss which it claimed it suffered as a result of private respondent’s alleged neglect of duty.

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, HE HAD ALREADY SERVED HIS EMPLOYER FOR NEARLY TEN MONTHS.  The letter of termination, expressed disappointment that despite the length of time he had been with the company he had not shown any “development in skills or abilities.” It may be assumed, however, that before private respondent was employed, he was tested for his skill and his ability.  WHY PETITIONER SUFFERED HIM SO LONG IN ITS EMPLOY IF HE DID NOT COME UP TO ITS EXPECTATIONS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED.  

Onga naman, dapat fina-5 months nya nalang.. parang dito.. 5 months after work you’re drifting.. “eeeeeeeeeekkkkk!!!! broom!! broom!” And then the government announces ‘This administration have provided jobs.. blah! blah!”    

Here’s what irked the court..

On the other hand, what is clear from the record is that PETITIONER MADE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WORK ON SCALE MODELS, in addition to the latter’s regular work.  If private respondent’s performance was below average, it is difficult to understand why he should be given additional task to perform.

I vaguely understand what scale models are.. I should’ve been an architect but that didn’t happen so I really do not know if this requires excellent or above par design skills..but by the manner that the private respondent alleged this in his complaint and by the court’s judgment alone making due notice.. it must have been a task with considerable skills not to mention the amount of added work.. so..

Court said..

Indeed, the burden of proving JUST CAUSE for terminating an employee-employer relationship is on the employer.  THE EMPLOYEE HAS NO DUTY TO PROVE HIS COMPETENCE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS DISMISSAL.  As the NLRC rightly held:

This is beautiful.. here’s that NLRC decision..

“What is worse, a finding was made that complainant has the burden of proving that he was not incompetent or inefficient.  This is a serious error and contrary to the well-settled rule that in termination cases it is the employer who has the burden of proof that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause.  Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is illegal (PolymedicGeneral Hospital v. NLRC, 134 SCRA 420). 

Hence, there is no valid basis for the Administrator to conclude that there was a semblance of truth to the charges of incompetence or unsatisfactory performance when the complainant failed to rebut the same.  Thus, in the absence of any other evidence submitted by respondents to substantiate the general charges hurled against complainant, the documents, which comprise respondent’s evidence in chief, contain empty and self-serving statements insufficient to establish just and valid cause for the dismissal of complainant (Royal Crown International v. NLRC, 178 SCRA 569).  

For to allow an employer to terminate the employment of his worker merely based on pure allegations and generalities will place the latter on a dangerous situation as he will be at the sole mercy of the former and therefore, the right to security of tenure which were bound to protect will be unduly emasculated.”  Tsk tsk tsk… beautiful.. 

REGARDING QUITCLAIMS 

Court said..

Nor is the quitclaim signed by private respondent a bar to the filing of the complaint.  We have already held in a number of cases that a deed of release or quitclaim can not bar an employee from demanding what is legally due him.  

Oh yan ah.. malinaw yan ah.. (quitclaim kayo ng quitclaim.. that’s a court ruling and is now being applied in this case)

The reason for this is that the employee does not really stand on an equal footing with his employer.  In some cases he may be so penurious that he is willing to bargain even rights secured to him by law.  

And the poor guy was in a foreign country with no one to help him so the more the quitclaim ruling should be applied..

Listen to what the court said.. it’s beautiful.. (dang! I always say 'beautiful')

There is good reason for applying this ruling here because private respondent was made to sign the deed of quitclaim in this case on the same day he was dismissed.  He was in a foreign country and he had no one to help him. In three days he was due for repatriation to the Philippines.  He had no means of questioning his employer’s acts.  He had no choice but to accept what was being offered to him.  NECESSITOUS MEN ARE NOT FREE MEN.

Contemplate on the last previous sentence..

DUE PROCESS

Furthermore, as the NLRC noted, the fact that private respondent had to be granted by the POEA salary differential for nine months and ordered reimbursed in the amount of 1,000 Saudi Riyal belies the claim that private respondent had been paid everything legally due to him.

In the case at bar, private respondent was not only dismissed without cause but his dismissal was made without due process.  He was informed of the reason for his dismissal only at the time his employment was terminated.  Giving him “notice pay” equivalent to his one month salary in lieu of the notice in the contract of employment could not take the place of notice before dismissal as required by law.  The notice required is not a mere technicality but a requirement of due process to which every employee is entitled to insure that the employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not exercised in an arbitrary manner. 

As the employment contract in the case at bar is for a definite period, private respondent is entitled to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract.  The NLRC, therefore, correctly awarded private respondent the amount which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract.  The “notice pay” given to private respondent should be deemed as indemnity for his dismissal without due process. 

The OFW Arrojado wins this case.  I think it was Justices Regalado, Romero and Puno who decided on this case. 

As I have said.. it’s a beautiful case where an administrative body in the person of the NLRC of which herein attached to the DOLE, spearheaded a concluding rightful decision concurred by I think a three man division of the Supreme Court.  

JANG LIM Et al. vs. NLRC (1999)

Dropped by at the supermart this afternoon to get my self some things as quick as possible. Pulled a cart and walked along to get a bucket of biscuits, some malt and powdered milk, sandwich spread and a bottle of olive oil. I was checking out this Hershey chocolate powdered can reading the calorie content label slowly walking with the other hand stretching trying to feel where the cart is and put it in there. I turned surprised and quite puzzled why this lady was smiling at me like nearly laughing and this little girl wearing cute pair of glasses hands on waist was staring at me like "Well I'll be damned that's our cart mister" LOL.

Let's tackle another Labor case.

Petitioners are regular workers of private respondent Cotabato Timberland Co. Inc. (CTCI) who were hired to perform milling and pilling works and the production and manufacture of plywood and veneer by private respondent TIMEX SAWMILL, a subsidiary of respondent CTCI .

ABNORMAL DEMAND

CTCI experienced an abnormal rise in demand for its plywood and other lumber products. CTCIs regular workers could not allegedly cope with this demand, and this in turn led to an increased need for additional manpower on the part of CTCI to enable it to meet such demand

HIRING TO MEET DEMAND

The hiring of herein petitioners was facilitated through Teddy Arabi, who was tapped and hired by private respondent CTCI to recruit petitioners under strict instructions. Majority of herein petitioners are neighbors, friends and provincemates of Teddy Arabi. In short, petitioners were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI before the commencement of their respective work. Teddy Arabi never maintained an office in private respondents company since his main task is simply to recruit, under strict instruction, additional workers as the need arises.  

WORKERS EXPLOITED

The complainants worked on shifting schedules, initially, in three (3) shifts 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; then, 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and finally, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

Respondent Teddy Arabi appeared to have been paid by CTCI on the basis of sawmill production and/or number of workers or time used in a certain job or area of operation. The former respondent in turn paid the complainants their wages, at the rate of P35.00 daily starting July 1989 and P50.00 daily, starting April 1990 which they continued to have up to the time this case was filed on 17 October 1994 

It appears that aside from said basic wages, the complainants were not paid anything else. Considering that herein petitioners were exploited and underpaid, Teddy Arabi was also tasked by private respondent CTCI to double as an enforcer to sweet talk, threaten or silence any worker who would inquire or question their unconscionably P50.00 per day wage rate and other unpaid labor standards benefits.

For effectivity and faster communication, private respondent CTCI provided Teddy Arabi and his brother Ronie (also an employee of CTCI) with hand-held radios so that the latter could immediately contact the former whenever some problem arises from among the workers in the work premises. Because of this set-up, complaining workers usually do not anymore pursue their labor claims against CTCI with the Department of Labor and Employment. This has been the modus operandi of private respondent CTCI.

Petitioners continued working as workers/laborers at TIMEX SAWMILL and were working under the full control and supervision of CTCIs personnel. Eventually, the working conditions threat became uncontrollable and Teddy Arabi became helpless in controlling the workers demands. 

LABOR COMPLAINT

A letter-complaint was filed by agroup of disgruntled workers with the DOLE, Region IX Office, Zamboanga City for unpaid Labor Standards benefits due them. Thereafter, their group of complainants were continuously harassed and intimidated by management people and were told that if they will pursue their complaints, their services will be terminated and no benefits whatsoever shall be paid them.

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Fortunately, private respondent CTCI managed to convince Teddy Arabi to intercede in this problem and subsequently, an amicable settlement was effected between CTCI and the complaining workers. CTCI paid a total of P223,531.25 as settlement to the claims of the workers. However, CTCI, with ill-motives, maliciously made it appear in the signed quitclaims of the complaining workers that Teddy Arabi was the workers employer and the one who paid their claims. However, the checks were issued in the name of CTCI.

Thereafter on June 17, 1994, petitioners were warned verbally by Administration Personnel that allegedly top management has been dissatisfied with their work performance and production output results and that very soon their services will be terminated.

WORKERS TERMINATED

Eventually, petitioners were barred from entering the main gate of respondent CTCI on July 31, 1994 by the company security guards when they reported for work. Petitioners were informed by the guards that they were already terminated effective that day and should not anymore report for work.

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL COMPLAINT FILED TO LABOR ARBITER 

Evidently, petitioners termination was without notice and without the observance of due process required under the Labor Code and the Constitution. Thus, petitioners, in search for justice filed their respective complaints with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch 9, Zamboanga City, for the  ILLEGAL DISMISSAL and other monetary claims.

FAVORABLE LABOR ARBITER DECISION

On May 17, 1995, Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of herein petitioners and against private respondent CTCI. 

RESPONDENT APPEAL TO NLRC - REVERSE

Private respondents appealed the above-quoted decision to public respondent NLRC which promulgated its resolution on October 25, 1995 reversing and setting aside Executive Labor Arbiter decision. 

PETITIONERS CONTENTION

Petitioners defended Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that no employer-employee relationship exist between petitioners and private respondent CTCI.

They also added Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that Teddy Arabi is an independent contractor and the employer of herein petitioners.

ISSUE: 

 Whether the NLRC erred in finding that the petitioners herein are not employees of private respondent CTCI but of Teddy Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor.

RULING:

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is principally determined by the following indications: 

(1) selection and engagement of the employee; 

(2) payment of wages; 

(3) power of dismissal; and 

(4) employers power to control the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and    methods by which the work is to be accomplished. 

Private respondent CTCI denies that it is involved in the selection of petitioners. It explained that it had a verbal contract with Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor, for the latter to undertake some of its milling and piling works.

It is true that the records show that it was Arabi who recruited the petitioners to work for the company, the latter being neighbors, friends and provincemates of the former. However, it must be emphasized that Arabi invited or enlisted the petitioners to work for CTCI only because the latter instructed him to do so. Arabis main task is simply to recruit, under strict instructions from CTCI, additional workers as the need arises. In fact, before the petitioners were dispatched to perform their assigned tasks, they were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI. While it may be argued that Arabi played a role in the eventual selection and employment of the petitioners, it is clear that his involvement therein was at best perfunctory and mechanical. This is because the recruitment only starts when, in the discretion of CTCI, additional manpower is needed. Patently, the exercise of the power to select and engage the petitioners rested solely in CTCI.

POWER OF CONTROL

With respect to the POWER OF CONTROL over the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, CTCI alleges that it neither exercised nor exerted any control over petitioners because they never set foot on its premises. It argues that the control test has no application in the instant case because there was no occasion to control the petitioners. 

Court, however, find persuasive support on record showing that CTCI exercised the power of control over the employees. As correctly found by the labor arbiter, the work activities and schedules of petitioners were set by CTCI. Evidence of CTCIs absolute control and supervision over the manner and conduct of work of the petitioners can be established from the following:(1) the manning/shifting schedules of the petitioners were entirely prepared and approved by CTCI; and (2) photocopies of the company identification cards not only bear the name of the issuing company as COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO., INC., but were likewise countersigned by CTCIs Personnel Officer.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

To further buttress its allegation that Arabi is an independent contractor, CTCI presented in evidence its letter dated August 9, 1993, informing Arabi that payment for the contracted services will be on an output/bundled basis, and its letter dated August 2, 1994, notifying Arabi of its decision to increase the workers milling rate. CTCI also alleges that Arabi paid the workers through billings made on CTCI based on work output.

PAYMENT OF WAGES

With respect to the payment of wages, private respondent CTCI alleges that the names of petitioners were not in the payrolls of the company. CTCI asserts that petitioners do not have any evidence to prove that it paid their salaries, directly or indirectly, or that they were issued payslips by the company.

Court said it is not unaware of the practice among employers of not issuing payslips, precisely to evade the liabilities that correspond to employers as mandated under the Labor Code. Under the current practice a third person, usually the purported contractor (service or manpower placement agency), assumes the act of paying the wage.

From the point of view of the contracted-out workers, the payment of wages must observe the conventional procedure. It is with the labor-only contractor whom they signed their contract of employment. Since the two-tier contract formatting is being made to operationalize, it thus becomes irrelevant whether or not their employer is a downright cabo or a labor-only contractor. What is important is that they receive their wages and are able to identify the person paying them. 

It is thus understandable why the petitioners were unable to present any payslip bearing the name of CTCI as employer. For the lowly workers, especially in far-flung areas where the wages are extremely low, it is enough that they actually receive their pay, oblivious of the need for payslips, unaware of its legal implications. In fine, we believe that the payment of petitioners wages was coursed through Arabi, but the funds therefor came from the coffers of CTCI.

  

The scourge of exploitation of labor, as shown by numerous petitions before us, remains pervasive. It is imperative for all government agencies concerned to exert all-out efforts to prevent any further violation or circumvention of the provisions of the Labor Code through deceptive devices and malpractices. UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE BEHIND LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE JUST CLAIMS OF THEIR WORKERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.

The challenged resolutions rendered by the NLRC  was  SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC  was REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.

Jang Lim and all the workers wins this case. 

CASTILLO vs. NLRC

I miss this girl. She served me well. For lack of a scanned actual digested reading, allow me to post a picture here. I took this shot a long time ago "Macon let's try this background, trial shot, be my model... no don't smile"

Speaking of labor, I had a business once. Rented this stall in a regular mall. I won’t say what type of business but it’s definitely not food. I had this secretary whose so young, around 21 or 22 years old. Reason why I took her is she’s so smart (though lacking in schooling), and, though petite she has this gorgeous mullato features, guys would sometimes line up.

One time I came by the store. 'Caught her telling off the security guards “Baket pinapapark nyo sa iba yung parking slot ng boss ko??”  “Eh mam kase po..” Lol.  “Macon inaway mo daw yung mga guards”  “Eh kasi sir eh..” “Alam ko crush ka ng mga yan kahit ano sabihin mo sunod mga yan.. pero easy lang, nakapark naman ako eh” “Eh kasi naman sir eh..” 

You know there are 4 types of young women in this country, have I told you that?  1. The young and smart and beautiful.  2. The young and smart and ah.. young  3. The young and beautiful.. and ehem.. young.  And  4. is the young.. and young.. and ahh.. young.  (Lol)

So every time men came to the studio-shop when I’m there they ask me “What can I choose from these variations?” I tell them “Oh everything... but the girl”

Here's the case:

Petitioner Carolina Castillo was an employee of private respondent Philippine Commercial & International Bank (PCIB) Ermita branch since April 1981 as Foreign Remittance Clerk. 

(So by position alone it’s deemed she’s one of the staff) 

January 12, 1988, Faisal Al Shahab, a Jordanian national, went to PCIB Ermita branch to claim a foreign remittance in the amount of US$2,000.00. He paid P450.00 as commission charges as computed by Castillo. Upon re-computation, the correct amount of the charges amounted to onlyP248.75.

January 13, 1988 petitioner Castillo received a Memorandum from the branch manager reassigning her temporarily as Remittance Clerk-Inquiry. 

(So this is a demoted assignment, having a disguise of “temporary". This simply means she’s expected to merely handle inquiries, and hands-off from all the processing papers temporarily, I wonder what the reason is)

So this pissed Castillo knowing she had been in effect dismissed from his current position and demoted to a lower non-staff position. And so this prompted her on January 21, 1988, to file with the NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal asking for her reinstatement as Foreign Remittance Clerk plus moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

Subsequently, petitioner received allegedly under protest, a Memorandum dated January 25, 1988 which accordingly, thereby instructing her further to desist from performing functions of other staff positions particularly those of the Remittance Clerk-POP/Collection Items.

(So there you go, the what should have been temporary now seemed to have been final)

On January 25, 1988, Shahab filed a formal complaint with the branch manager of the respondent bank regarding the over-charging of commission on foreign remittances, specifically mentioning petitioner as the one who attended to his withdrawals.The branch manager decided to pursue further investigation on the matter.

On February 2, 1988, the branch manager issued a Memo to petitioner requiring her to explain within seventy-two (72) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her. Petitioner did not submit a written explanation. 

(Yeah what the heck right? She has a pending case submitted in the office of the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal so fuck it) 

And respondent bank deferred further action on the matter.

And so trial ensued in the case for illegal dismissal and on October 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ruling that petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment when she was transferred to the position of Remittance Clerk-Inquiry from her position of Foreign Remittance Clerk.

The Labor Arbiter opined that while the positions of Foreign Remittance Clerk for Inquiry and Foreign Remittance Clerk for Payment Order Collection are within Level III of the position classification of the private respondent bank, the latter position is vested with more power and responsibilities, thus concluding that petitioner was demoted in her position. 

As regards petitioners reassignment, the Labor Arbiter was of the view that although management has the right to control the nature of hiring, the status of the employee and his work assignment, such right must be anchored on just and valid grounds. 

Pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6715 amending 223 (sic) of the Labor Code, respondent PCIB was ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her position as Foreign Remittance Clerk, Ermita Branch, or reinstate her in the payroll as mandated by the same law.

(Here comes the appeal)

On appeal, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision. It ruled that there was no demotion because the position to which she was being reassigned belongs to the same job level as her former position and both positions have the same rate of compensation. 

Public respondent NLRC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment arguing that it is the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.

 ISSUE:

Was there ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? Or Demotion in Rank?

RULING:

The petition is devoid of merit. 

 NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter.

Court ruled has ruled that petitioner claims that she was constructively dismissed. We agree with the respondent Commissions finding rejecting the same. Well-settled is the rule that it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business. An owner of a business enterprise is given considerable leeway in managing his business. 

Our law recognizes certain rights collectively called MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE as inherent in the management of business enterprises. One of the prerogatives of management is the right to transfer employees in their work station. This Court has consistently recognized and upheld the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.  

The Court, as a rule, will not interfere with an employers prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment which includes among others, work assignment, working methods, and place and manner of work. The rule is well-settled that labor laws discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of his business. 

Of course, the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SUBTERFUGE BY THE EMPLOYER TO RID HIMSELF OF AN UNDESIRABLE WORKER. 

In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds, and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Where the employer fails to overcome this BURDEN OF PROOF, the employees demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal. 

So Castillo loses this case, her petition was dismissed. And the NLRC Decision reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling was affirmed.