J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

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”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Orders dated August 13, 2019, October 1, 2019 and October 7, 2019 of the Regional Trial Court – Branch 58, Makati City in People v. Emerito P. Manalo, et al. (Criminal Case Nos. 19-00774, 19-00775, 19-00778, 19- 00780, 19-00781, 19-00782, 19-00784, 19-00787, 19-00789, 19-00796, 19- 00797, 19-00798, 19-00799, 19-00801, 19-00803, 19-00804, 19-00806, 19- 00807, and 19-00810.), People v. Vicente J. Campa, Jr. et al., (Criminal Case Nos. 19-00773, 19-00777, 19-00783, 19-00786, 19-00793, I 9-00801, 19- 00802, 19–00805, 19-00807, 19-00808, and 19-00809), and People v. Perfecto M. Pascua, et al. (Criminal Case Nos. 19-00790, 19-00794, and 19- 00808.) are NULLIFIED. The charges against VICENTE J. CAMPA, JR. and PERFECTO M. PASCUA are DISMISSED on ground of inordinate delay.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

In Magante v. Sandiganbayan,46 the CoUii noted that prejudice from delay is most serious when a defendant is rendered unable to adequately prepare his case, as here. There is also prejudice when defense witnesses could no longer accurately recall events in the distant past.

In fine, the Court agrees with petitioners that the DOJ was guilty of inordinate delay in issuing its Resolution dated February 8, 2019 only about ten (10) years and five (5) months from the filing of the complaint.

.. . . . .

 Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

Here, petitioners sufficiently established that the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion in denying their motions to dismiss and/or quash. Indeed, procedural rules are clear on the periods for resolving cases and jurisprudence is rich with analogous situations on which the trial court could have based its rulings. As it was, however, the trial court denied petitioners’ motions without properly determining whether there·was inordinate delay in accordance with Cagang. Had the trial court applied the balancing test and guidelines in Cagang, it would have discovered for itself that inordinate delay had indeed attended the DOJ investigation and that petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of their cases had been violated by reason thereof. Thus, a reversal of the assailed rulings is in order.

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”.