10/19/2017 G.R. No.

152894

SECONDDIVISION

CENTURYCANNING G.R.No.152894
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
versus VELASCO,JR.,JJ.




COURTOFAPPEALSand Promulgated:
GLORIAC.PALAD,
Respondents. August17,2007

xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

[1] [2]
Thisisapetitionforreview oftheDecision dated12November2001andtheResolution
dated5April2002oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.60379.

TheFacts
On15July1997,CenturyCanningCorporation(petitioner)hiredGloriaC.Palad(Palad)asfish
cleaneratpetitionerstunaandsardinesfactory.Paladsignedon17July1997anapprenticeship

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 1/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

[3]
agreement with petitioner. Palad received an apprentice allowance of P138.75 daily. On 25
July 1997, petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program for approval to the Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) of the Department of Labor and
Employment(DOLE).On26September1997,theTESDAapprovedpetitionersapprenticeship
[4]
program.

Accordingtopetitioner,aperformanceevaluationwasconductedon15November1997,where
petitionergavePaladaratingofN.I.orneedsimprovementsinceshescoredonly27.75%based
ona100%performanceindicator.Furthermore,accordingtotheperformanceevaluation,Palad
incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As a consequence, petitioner issued a termination
[5]
notice dated 22 November 1997 to Palad, informing her of her termination effective at the
closeofbusinesshoursof28November1997.

Paladthenfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissal,underpaymentofwages,andnonpaymentof
prorated13thmonthpayfortheyear1997.

On25February1999,theLaborArbiterdismissedthecomplaintforlackofmeritbutordered
petitionertopayPaladherlastsalaryandherprorated13thmonthpay.Thedispositiveportion
oftheLaborArbitersdecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the complaint
for illegal dismissal filed by the complainant against the respondents in the aboveentitled case
should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, the respondents are hereby
ordered to pay the complainant the amount of ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY
TWOPESOS(P1,632.00),representingherlastsalaryandtheamountofSEVENTHOUSAND
TWOHUNDREDTWENTYEIGHT(P7,228.00) PESOSrepresenting her prorated 13th month
pay.

Allotherissuesarelikewisedismissed.

[6]
SOORDERED.



On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification the
LaborArbitersdecision,thus:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisionoftheArbiterdated25February1999ishereby
MODIFIEDinthat,inaddition,respondentsareorderedtopaycomplainantsbackwagesfortwo
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 2/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

(2) months in the amount of P7,176.00 (P138.75 x 26 x 2 mos.). All other dispositions of the
ArbiterasappearinginthedispositiveportionofhisdecisionareAFFIRMED.

[7]
SOORDERED.



UpondenialofPaladsmotionforreconsideration,Paladfiledaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari
withtheCourtofAppeals.On12November2001,theCourtofAppealsrenderedadecision,the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the questioned decision of the NLRC is hereby SET
ASIDEandanewoneentered,towit:

(a)findingthedismissalofpetitionertobeillegal
(b)orderingprivaterespondenttopaypetitionerherunderpaymentinwages
(c)orderingprivaterespondenttoreinstatepetitionertoherformerpositionwithoutlossof
seniorityrightsandtopayherfullbackwagescomputedfromthetimecompensationwas
withheldfromheruptothetimeofherreinstatement
(d)orderingprivaterespondenttopaypetitionerattorneysfeesequivalenttoten(10%)per
centofthemonetaryawardhereinand
(e)orderingprivaterespondenttopaythecostsofthesuit.

[8]
SOORDERED.



TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCourtofAppealsheldthattheapprenticeshipagreementwhichPaladsignedwasnotvalid
and binding because it was executed more than two months before the TESDA approved
petitioners apprenticeship program. The Court of Appeals cited Nitto Enterprises v. National
[9]
Labor Relations Commission, where it was held that prior approval by the DOLE of the
proposed apprenticeship program is a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship
agreementcanbevalidlyenteredinto.

TheCourtofAppealsalsoheldthatpetitionerillegallydismissedPalad.TheCourtofAppeals
ruledthatpetitionerfailedtoshowthatPaladwasproperlyapprisedoftherequiredstandardof
performance. The Court of Appeals likewise held that Palad was not afforded due process
becausepetitionerdidnotcomplywiththetwinrequirementsofnoticeandhearing.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 3/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

TheIssues
Petitionerraisesthefollowingissues:


1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
HOLDINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTWASNOTANAPPRENTICEand

2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PROVEN THE
EXISTENCEOFAVALIDCAUSEINTERMINATINGTHESERVICEOFPRIVATE
[10]
RESPONDENT.



TheRulingoftheCourt

Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.

RegistrationandApprovalbytheTESDAofApprenticeshipProgramRequiredBeforeHiring
ofApprentices

TheLaborCodedefinesanapprenticeasaworkerwhoiscoveredbyawrittenapprenticeship
[11]
agreementwithanemployer. OneoftheobjectivesofTitleII(TrainingandEmploymentof
SpecialWorkers)oftheLaborCodeistoestablishapprenticeshipstandardsfortheprotectionof
[12]
apprentices. Inlinewiththisobjective,Articles60and61oftheLaborCodeprovide:

ART.60.Employmentofapprentices.Onlyemployersinthehighlytechnicalindustriesmay
employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the Minister of
LaborandEmployment.(Emphasissupplied)


ART.61.Contentsofapprenticeshipagreements.Apprenticeshipagreements,includingthewage
ratesofapprentices,shallconformtotherulesissuedbytheMinisterofLaborandEmployment.
The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship agreements
providingforwageratesbelowthelegalminimumwage,whichinnocaseshallstartbelow
75 percent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with
apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. The
Ministryshalldevelopstandardmodelprogramsofapprenticeship.(Emphasissupplied)


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 4/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

[13]
InNittoEnterprisesv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, theCourtcitedArticle61of
theLaborCodeandheldthatanapprenticeshipprogramshouldfirstbeapprovedbytheDOLE
before an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the person hired will be considered a regular
employee.TheCourtheld:
Inthecaseatbench,theapprenticeshipagreementbetweenpetitionerandprivaterespondentwas
executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an apprentice in the trade of care
maker/molder. On the same date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner and
submittedtotheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.However,theapprenticeshipagreement
wasfiled only on June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence of approval bythe Department of
LaborandEmployment,theapprenticeshipagreementwasenforcedthedayitwassigned.
Basedontheevidencebeforeus,petitionerdidnotcomplywiththerequirementsofthelaw.Itis
mandatedthatapprenticeshipagreementsenteredintobytheemployerandapprenticeshall
be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the
MinisterofLaborandEmployment.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed
apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship
agreementcanbevalidlyenteredinto.
The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and
Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give
risetoanemployerapprenticerelationship.
Article57oftheLaborCodeprovidesthattheStateaimstoestablishanationalapprenticeship
program through the participation of employers, workers and government and nongovernment
agenciesandtoestablishapprenticeshipstandardsfortheprotectionofapprentices.Totranslate
suchobjectivesintoexistence,priorapprovaloftheDOLEtoanyapprenticeshipprogramhasto
be secured as a condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully
enforced.TheroleoftheDOLEinapprenticeshipprogramsandagreementscannotbedebased.
Hence,sincetheapprenticeshipagreementbetweenpetitionerandprivaterespondenthasnoforce
andeffectintheabsenceofavalidapprenticeshipprogramdulyapprovedbytheDOLE,private
respondents assertion that he was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy (kargador or
pahinante)deservescredence.Heshouldrightlybeconsideredasaregularemployeeofpetitioner
[14]
asdefinedbyArticle280oftheLaborCodexxx.(Emphasissupplied)


[15]
RepublicActNo.7796 (RA7796),whichcreatedtheTESDA,hastransferredtheauthority
over apprenticeship programs from the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE to the
[16]
TESDA. RA 7796 emphasizes TESDAs approval of the apprenticeship program as a pre
requisiteforthehiringofapprentices.SuchintentisclearunderSection4ofRA7796:
SEC.4.DefinitionofTerms.AsusedinthisAct:

xxx

j) Apprenticeship training within employment with compulsory related theoretical instructions
involvingacontractbetweenanapprenticeandanemployeronanapprovedapprenticeable
occupation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 5/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

k) Apprentice is a person undergoing training for an approved apprenticeable occupation
duringanestablishedperiodassuredbyanapprenticeshipagreement

l)ApprenticeAgreementisacontractwhereinaprospectiveemployerbindshimselftotrainthe
apprentice who in turn accepts the terms of training for a recognized apprenticeable
occupationemphasizingtherights,dutiesandresponsibilitiesofeachparty

m) Apprenticeable Occupation is an occupation officially endorsed by a tripartite body and
approvedforapprenticeshipbytheAuthority[TESDA](Emphasissupplied)


Inthiscase,theapprenticeshipagreementwasenteredintobetweenthepartiesbeforepetitioner
fileditsapprenticeshipprogramwiththeTESDAforapproval.PetitionerandPaladexecutedthe
apprenticeshipagreementon17July1997whereinitwasstatedthatthetrainingwouldstarton
[17]
17July1997andwouldendapproximatelyinDecember1997. On25July1997,petitioner
submittedforapprovalitsapprenticeshipprogram,whichtheTESDAsubsequentlyapprovedon
[18]
26 September 1997. Clearly, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced even before the
TESDA approved petitioners apprenticeship program. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement is
voidbecauseitlackedpriorapprovalfromtheTESDA.

TheTESDAsapprovaloftheemployersapprenticeshipprogramisrequiredbeforetheemployer
isallowedtohireapprentices.PriorapprovalfromtheTESDAisnecessarytoensurethatonly
employersinthehighlytechnicalindustriesmayemployapprenticesandonlyinapprenticeable
[19]
occupations. Thus,underRA7796,employerscanonlyhireapprenticesforapprenticeable
occupations which must be officially endorsed by a tripartite body and approved for
apprenticeship by the TESDA. This is to ensure the protection of apprentices and to obviate
possibleabusesbyprospectiveemployerswhomaywanttotakeadvantageofthelowerwage
rates for apprentices and circumvent the right of the employees to be secure in their
employment.

TherequisiteTESDAapprovaloftheapprenticeshipprogrampriortothehiringofapprentices
wasfurtheremphasizedbytheDOLEwiththeissuanceofDepartmentOrderNo.6804on18
August2004.DepartmentOrderNo.6804,whichprovidestheguidelinesintheimplementation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 6/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

oftheApprenticeshipandEmploymentProgramofthegovernment,specificallystatesthatno
enterprise shall be allowed to hire apprentices unless its apprenticeship program is
[20]
registeredandapprovedbyTESDA.


SincePaladisnotconsideredanapprenticebecausetheapprenticeshipagreementwasenforced
beforetheTESDAsapprovalofpetitionersapprenticeshipprogram,Paladisdeemedaregular
employeeperformingthejobofafishcleaner.Clearly,thejobofafishcleanerisnecessaryin
[21]
petitionersbusinessasatunaandsardinesfactory.UnderArticle280 oftheLaborCode,an
employment is deemed regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
whichareusuallynecessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer.

IllegalTerminationofPalad

WeshallnowresolvewhetherpetitionerillegallydismissedPalad.
[22]
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the services of an
[23] [24]
employee for just causes or for authorized causes. Furthermore, under Article 277(b)
[25]
oftheLaborCode,theemployermustsendtheemployeewhoisabouttobeterminated,a
writtennoticestatingthecausesforterminationandmustgivetheemployeetheopportunityto
be heard and to defend himself. Thus, to constitute valid dismissal from employment, two
requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and (2) the
[26]
employeemustbeaffordedanopportunitytobeheardandtodefendhimself.

Inthiscase,theLaborArbiterheldthatpetitionerterminatedPaladforhabitualabsenteeismand
poorefficiencyofperformance.UnderSection25,RuleVI,BookIIoftheImplementingRules
oftheLaborCode,habitualabsenteeismandpoorefficiencyofperformanceareamongthevalid
causes for which the employer may terminate the apprenticeship agreement after the
probationaryperiod.

However, the NLRC reversed the finding of the Labor Arbiter on the issue of the legality of
Paladstermination:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 7/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

Astothevalidityofcomplainantsdismissalinherstatusasanapprentice,sufficetostatethatthe
findings of the Arbiter that complainant was dismissed due to failure to meet the standards is
nebulous.Whatclearlyappearsisthatcomplainantalreadypassedtheprobationarystatusofthe
apprenticeship agreement of 200 hours at the time she was terminated on 28 November 1997
whichwasalreadythefourthmonthoftheapprenticeshipperiodof1000hours.Assuch,under
theCode,shecanonlybedismissedforcause,inthiscase,forpoorefficiencyofperformanceon
thejoborintheclassroomforaprolongedperioddespitewarningsdulygiventotheapprentice.

We noted that no clear and sufficient evidence exist to warrant her dismissal as an
apprenticeduringtheagreedperiod.Besidestheabsenceofanywrittenwarningsgivento
complainant reminding her of poor performance, respondents evidence in this respect
consisted of an indecipherable or unauthenticated xerox of the performance evaluation
allegedly conducted on complainant. This is of doubtful authenticity and/or credibility,
being not only incomplete in the sense that appearing thereon is a signature (not that of
complainant) side by side with a date indicated as 1/16/98. From the looks of it, this
signature is close to and appertains to the typewritten position of Division/Department
Head, which is below the signature of complainants immediate superior who made the
evaluationindicatedas111597.

The only conclusion We can infer is that this evaluation was made belatedly, specifically,
after the filing of the case and during the progress thereof in the Arbitral level, as shown
that nothing thereon indicate that complainant was notifiedof the results. Its authenticity
therefor,isabigquestionmark,andhencelacksanycredibility.Evidence,tobeadmissible
in administrative proceedings, must at least have a modicum of authenticity. This,
respondentsfailedtocomplywith.Assuch,complainantisentitledtothepaymentofherwages
[27]
fortheremainingtwo(2)monthsofherapprenticeshipagreement. (Emphasissupplied)




Indeed,itappearsthattheLaborArbitersconclusionthatpetitionervalidlyterminatedPaladwas
basedmainlyontheperformanceevaluationallegedlyconductedbypetitioner.However,Palad
allegesthatshehadnoknowledgeoftheperformanceevaluationconductedandthatshewasnot
eveninformedoftheresultoftheallegedperformanceevaluation.Paladalsoclaimsshedidnot
receiveanoticeofdismissal,norwasshegiventhechancetoexplain.Accordingtopetitioner,
PaladdidnotreceivetheterminationnoticebecausePaladallegedlystoppedreportingforwork
afterbeinginformedoftheresultoftheevaluation.

Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of proving that the
[28]
terminationwasforavalidorauthorizedcause. Petitionerfailedtosubstantiateitsclaimthat
Paladwasterminatedforvalidreasons.Infact,theNLRCfoundthatpetitionerfailedtoprove
the authenticity of the performance evaluation which petitioner claims to have conducted on
Palad,wherePaladreceivedaperformanceratingofonly27.75%.Petitionermerelyreliesonthe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 8/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

performance evaluation to prove Palads inefficiency. It was likewise not shown that petitioner
ever apprised Palad of the performance standards set by the company. When the alleged valid
causefortheterminationofemploymentisnotclearlyproven,asinthiscase,thelawconsiders
[29]
thematteracaseofillegaldismissal.

Furthermore,Paladwasnotaccordeddueprocess.Evenifpetitionerdidconductaperformance
evaluation on Palad, petitioner failed to warn Palad of her alleged poor performance. In fact,
Paladdeniesanyknowledgeoftheperformanceevaluationconductedandoftheresultthereof.
[30]
PetitionerlikewiseadmitsthatPaladdidnotreceivethenoticeoftermination becausePalad
allegedlystoppedreportingforwork.Therecordsarebereftofevidencetoshowthatpetitioner
evergavePaladtheopportunitytoexplainanddefendherself.Clearly,thetworequisitesfora
validdismissalarelackinginthiscase.

WHEREFORE,weAFFIRMtheDecisiondated12November2001andtheResolutiondated
5April2002oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.60379.

SOORDERED.



ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 9/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESDANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 10/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894

[1]
UnderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.,
concurring.
[3]
CArollo,pp.5758.
[4]
Id.at63.
[5]
Id.at59.
[6]
Id.at3233.
[7]
Id.at42.
[8]
Rollo,p.29.
[9]
G.R.No.114337,29September1995,248SCRA654.
[10]
Rollo,p.70.
[11]
Article58(b)oftheLaborCode.
[12]
Article57(3)oftheLaborCode.
[13]
Supranote9.
[14]
Id.at660661.
[15]
OtherwiseknownastheTESDAActof1994.
[16]
Sections5and18ofRA7796provide:

SEC.5.TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority,Creation.Toimplementthepolicydeclaredinthis
Act,there is hereby created aTechnical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), hereinafter
referredtoastheAuthority,whichshallreplaceandabsorbtheNationalManpowerandYouthCouncil(NMYC),
theBureauofTechnicalandVocationalEducation(BTVE)andthepersonnelandfunctionspertainingtotechnical
vocational education in the regional offices of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and the
apprenticeshipprogramoftheBureauofLocalEmploymentoftheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.
(Emphasissupplied)

SEC. 18. Transfer of the Apprenticeship Program. The Apprenticeship Program of the Bureau of Local
Employment of the Department of Labor and Employment shall be transferred to the Authority [TESDA]
which shall implement and administer said program in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.
(Emphasissupplied)
[17]
CArollo,p.57.
[18]
Id.at63.
[19]
SeeArticle60oftheLaborCode.
[20]
DOLEDepartmentOrderNo.6804:GuidelinesintheImplementationoftheKasanayanatHanapbuhayProgram
(AnApprenticeshipandEmploymentProgram)pertinentlyprovides:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 11/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894
B.DefinitionofTerms
1. Apprenticeship training within employment involving a contract between an apprentice and an
enterpriseonanapprenticeableoccupation.
2. Apprentice a person undergoing training for an approved apprenticeable occupation during an
establishedperiodandcoveredbyanapprenticeshipagreement.
3. Apprenticeship Agreement a contract wherein a prospective enterprise binds himself to train the
apprentice who, in turn, accepts the terms of training for a recognized apprenticeable occupation
emphasizingtherights,dutiesandresponsibilitiesofeachparty.
4.ApprenticeableOccupationanoccupationofficiallyapprovedforapprenticeshipbyTESDA.
xxxx

G.RegistrationofApprenticeshipProgram
TheenterpriseshallregisteritsapprenticeshipprogramwithanyoftheTESDAProvincialOffices.Itshallsubmitthe
following:
1.LetterofApplication
2. Certificationthatthenumberofapprenticestobehiredisnotmorethan20percentofthetotalregular
workforceand
3.SkillsTrainingOutline.
No enterprise shall be allowed to hire apprentices unless its apprenticeship program is registered and
approvedbyTESDA.

H.ApprenticeshipAgreement
NoapprenticeshiptrainingwillcommenceuntilanApprenticeshipAgreementhasbeenforgedbetweenanenterprise
andanapprentice.(Emphasissupplied)
[21]
Article280oftheLaborCodereads:

ART.280.Regularandcasualemployment.Theprovisionsofwrittenagreementtothecontrarynotwithstandingand
regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employeehasbeenengagedtoperformactivitieswhichareusuallynecessaryordesirableintheusualbusiness
or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the
completionorterminationofwhichhasbeendeterminedatthetimeoftheengagementoftheemployeeorwherethe
workorservicetobeperformedisseasonalinnatureandtheemploymentisforthedurationoftheseason.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continuewhilesuchactivityexists.(Emphasissupplied)
[22]
ART.279.SecurityofTenure.Incasesofregularemployment,theemployershallnotterminatetheservicesofanemployeeexcept
for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivilegesandtohisfullbackwages,inclusiveofallowances,andtohis
otherbenefitsortheirmonetaryequivalentcomputedfromthetimehiscompensationwaswithheldfromhimuptothetimeof
hisactualreinstatement.
[23]
ART.282.Terminationbyemployer.Anemployermayterminateanemploymentforanyofthefollowingcauses:
(a)Seriousmisconductorwillfuldisobediencebytheemployeeofthelawfulordersofhisemployerorrepresentative
inconnectionwithhiswork
(b)Grossandhabitualneglectbytheemployeeofhisduties
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative
(d)Commissionofacrimeoroffensebytheemployeeagainstthepersonofhisemployeroranyimmediatemember
ofhisfamilyorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativeand
(e)Othercausesanalogoustotheforegoing.
[24]
ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any
employeeduetotheinstallationoflaborsavingdevices,redundancy,retrenchmenttopreventlossesortheclosingorcessation
ofoperationoftheestablishmentorundertakingunlesstheclosingisforthepurposeofcircumventingtheprovisionsofthis
Titlexxx.
[25]
ART.277.Miscellaneousprovisions.xxx
(b)Subjecttotheconstitutionalrightofworkerstosecurityoftenureandtheirrighttobeprotectedagainstdismissalexceptforajust
andauthorizedcauseandwithoutprejudicetotherequirementofnoticeunderArticle283ofthisCode,theemployershall

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 12/13
10/19/2017 G.R. No. 152894
furnishtheworkerwhoseemploymentissoughttobeterminatedawrittennoticecontainingastatementofthecauses
forterminationandshallaffordthelatterampleopportunitytobeheardandtodefendhimselfwiththeassistanceof
hisrepresentativeifhesodesiresinaccordancewithcompanyrulesandregulationspromulgatedpursuanttoguidelinesset
bytheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.Anydecisiontakenbytheemployershallbewithoutprejudicetotherightof
theworkertocontestthevalidityorlegalityofhisdismissalbyfilingacomplaintwiththeregionalbranchoftheNational
LaborRelationsCommission.Theburdenofprovingthattheterminationwasforavalidorauthorizedcauseshallrest
ontheemployer.(Emphasissupplied)
[26]
SkippersUnitedPacific,Inc.v.Maguad,G.R.No.166363,15August2006,498SCRA639.
[27]
CArollo,pp.4142.
[28]
ManlyExpress,Inc.v.Payong,Jr.,G.R.No.167462,25October2005,474SCRA323ManilaElectricCompany(MERALCO)v.
NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.153180,2September2005,469SCRA353.
[29]
PhilippineNationalBankv.Cabansag,G.R.No.157010,21June2005,460SCRA514.
[30]
Theterminationnoticereads:

DATE:NOV.22,1997

GLORIAC.PALAD
105LOT1BLK.6,PRK.7
B.TANYAG,TAGUIG,METROMANILA

DearMs.PALAD,

Afterathoroughevaluationofyourwork,attitudeandperformance,themanagementfoundoutthatyouhavebeen
performingbelowthestandardestablishedbythecompany.Assuch,weregrettoinformyouthatyouremployment
shallbeterminatedeffectiveatthecloseofbusinesshoursofNOV.28,1997.

PleaseproceedtotheHRDofficeforyourclearance.

NINAB.LLAGAS
Recruitment/BenefitsSupervisor

Notedby:

BERNARDOO.JUNIOJR.
HumanResourcesDevelopmentManager

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/152894.htm 13/13