J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 12, 2018 and Resolution dated July 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139311 a re REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint in NLRC NCR Case No. 07-10180-13 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PNCC STOPPED GIVING MID-YEAR BONUS TO ITS EMPLOYEES. THE LABOR ARBITER, NLRC AND C.A. RULED THAT PNCC SHOULD CONTINUE GIVING MID-YEAR BONUS ON THE BASIS OF NON-DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. SUPREME COURT SAID UNDER R.A. 10149 GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, WHETHER CHARTERED OR NON-CHARTERED SHOULD NO LONGER GRANT ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY FROM THE PRESIDENT. GRANTING OF THESE BENEFITS MUST CONFORM TO THE COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS UNDER BY APPLICABLE LAWS.

In that case, employees of GSIS Family Bank demanded for the payment of their Christmas bonus which had been annually given them pursuant to their CBA with GSIS Family Bank, a non-chartered GOCC. GSIS Family Bank was advised by the Governance Commission that in view of the enactment of RA l O 149, GSIS Family Bank should no longer grant any additional benefits to its employees without the requisite authority from the President. Thenceforth, GSIS Family Bank stopped granting Christmas bonus to its employees. The Court ruled that while GOCCs without original chatiers are covered by the Labor Code, employees of GOCCs are bereft of any right to negotiate the economic terms of their employment, i. e. salaries, emoluments, incentives and other benefits, with their employers since these matters are covered by compensation and position standards issued by the Department of Budget and Management and applicable laws. GSJS clarified that RA IO 149 applies to both chartered and non-chartered GOCCs.

More, citing PCSO vs. Pulido-Tan, 46 GSIS reiterated that the power of a government-owned or controlled corporation to fix salaries or _ allowances of its employees is subject to and must conform to the compensation and classification standards laid down by applicable laws. For RA 10149 does not differentiate between chartered and non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporations; hence, the provisions of this law equally apply to all GOCCs.

Consequently, therefore, PNCC did not v iolate the non-diminution rule when it desisted from granting mid-year bonus to its employees starting 2013. True, between 1992 and 2011 , PNCC invariably granted this benefit to its employees and never before revoked this grant in strict adherence to the non-diminution rule under Artic le 100 of the Labor Code. Nonetheless, with the subsequent enactment of RA l 0 l 49 in 2011, PNCC may no longer grant this benefit without first securing the requisite authority from the President. As borne by the records, PNCC failed to obtain this authority in v iew of the position taken by the GCG not to forward the request to the President. GCG cited as reasons the infirmity of the grant and the extraneous application of the non-diminution rule thereto.

All told, the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the Cou1i of Appeals each gravely e rred when they peremptorily compelled PNCC to release the questioned mid-year bonus to the employees.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed September 16, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114964 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Respondent Cathay Pacific Airways Limited is ORDERED to PAY petitioner Salvacion A. Lamadrid full backwages and separation pay based on her salary rate at the time of her termination. Let this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for this purpose. The benefits and bonuses she received during her separation amounting to HK.$622,077.54 should be deducted from the final monetary award that would be given to her.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT FOR ALLEGEDLY STEALING MINERAL WATER. SUPREME COURT SAID SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT PETITIONER COMMITTED INFRACTION, DISMISSAL IS HARSH PENALTY. THE COURT APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE OF TOTALITY OF INFRACTIONS.

However, while the weight of evidence points to Lamadrid’s infraction of company policy, We should also consider that this is Lamadrid’s first infraction in her 17 years of service in the airline which involved a mere bottle of water. Concededly, the company laid down the penalties for violation of its policies; however, the evaluation of an employee’s infraction should be dealt with fairness and reason. Simply put, all surrounding circumstances must be considered and the penalty must be commensurate to the violation committed by an employee. Termination of the services of an employee should be the employer’s last resort especially when other disciplinary actions may be imposed, considering the employee’s long years of service in the company, devoting time, effort and invaluable service in line with the employer’s goals and mission, as in Lamadrid’s case. Thus, We emphasize the principle of totality of infractions, viz.:

x x x . It is here that totality of infractions may be considered to determine the imposable sanction for her current infraction. In Merin v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court explained the principle of “totality of infractions” in this wise:

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee.Xx x.65 (Citation Omitted).

During Lamadrid’s span of employment, she did not commit any infraction or was ever sanctioned except in the incident subject of the present controversy. To impose a penalty as grave as dismissal for a first offense and considering the value of the property allegedly taken would be too harsh under the circumstances. Therefore, Lamadrid was illegally dismissed from service.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2019 and Resolution dated March 3, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154289 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Dohle Seafront Crewing Manila, Inc., and Dohle (IOM) Limited are held jointly and severally liable to petitioner Jolly R. Carandan for the following amounts:

1. US$60,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment as total and permanent disability rating in accordance with the 20 IO Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract;

2. Ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees; and

3. Six percent (6%) interest per annum of the total monetary award from the :finality of this Decision until fully paid.53

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER WAS CLAIMING FOR TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS DUE TO CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. RESPONDENT ARGUED THAT UNDER THEIR CBA HE CAN ONLY CLAIM TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISAPLITY BENEFITS IF THE CAUSE IS AN ACCIDENT AND THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT. SUPREME COURT SAID PETITIONER CAN CLAIM NOT UNDER CBA BUT UNDER THE POEA-STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (POEA-SEC).

As in Illescas, petitioner’s cardiovascular disease cannot be said to have been an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens. Heart ailment may be expected from someone who is often exposed in hard manual labor like petitioner.

In any event, although the provisions of the CBA are not applicable here, petitioner is still entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the 2010 POEA-SEC. In Julleza v. Orient Line Philippines, Inc. , 52 the Court held that Julleza’s lumbar spondylosis did not result from an accident, he cannot claim total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA provisions, but under the POEA-SEC. As discussed, cardiovascular disease is specifically listed as a compensable disease under Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Hence, petitioner is entitled to the benefits granted under the 2010 POEA-SEC.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.