Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2013-0017:   GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “.JAY” LOPEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 201979, 10 JULY 2013, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) SUBJECT/S: ABANDONMENT OF WORK; UNCONTESTED AWARD BINDING; LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS. (BRIEF TITLE: FERNANDEZ ET AL VS. NEWFIELD STAFF  SOLUTIONS)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:


“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.


We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated February 23, 2012 and Resolution dated May I 8, 20I2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118766. The Decision dated July 20, 2010 and Resolution dated January 25, 20I I ofthe NLRC in NLRC LAC No. I 1-003163-09 (NLRC NCR-12-17096- 08) are REINSTATED and UPHELD with claritication that respondent Arnold “Jay” Lopez, Jr. is not solidarily liable with respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.

 

 No costs.

 

 SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:


WHAT IS ABANDONMENT OF WORK?

 

 IT IS A FORM OF NEGLECT OF DUTY, ONE OF THE JUST CAUSES FOR AN EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE.

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXX


WHAT FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT FOR ABANDONMENT TO EXIST?


TWO FACTORS:

 

 (1) THE FAILURE TO REPORT FOR WORK OR ABSENCE WITHOUT VALID OR JUSTIFIABLE REASON; AND

 

(2) A CLEAR INTENTION TO SEVER THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, WITH THE SECOND ELEMENT AS THE MORE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR BEING MANIFESTED BY SOME OVERT ACTS.35

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

ARE PETITIONERS DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR WORK?

 

NO. WHEN THEY WERE TOLD THEY WERE FIRED, THEY TOOK STEPS TO PROTEST THEIR DISMISSAL. THEY SENT DEMAND LETTERS AND WHEN THESE WERE IGNORED THEY IMMEDIATELY FILED COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

 

EMPLOYEES WHO TAKE STEPS TO PROTEST THEIR DISMISSAL CANNOT LOGICALLY BE SAID TO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR WORK. A CHARGE OF ABANDONMENT IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE FILING OF A COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. THE FILING THEREOF IS PROOF ENOUGH OF ONE’S DESIRE TO RETURN TO WORK, THUS NEGATING ANY SUGGESTION OF ABANDONMENT.

 

“[I]T DEFIES REASON THAT [THEY] WOULD LEAVE THEIR JOB[S] AND THEN FIGHT ODDS TO WIN THEM BACK. HUMAN EXPERIENCE DICTATES THAT A WORKER WILL NOT JUST WALK AWAY FROM A GOOD PAYING JOB AND RISK [UNEMPLOYMENT] AND DAMAGES AS A RESULT THEREOF UNLESS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

NLRC AWARDED BACK WAGES FOR SIX MONTHS. IS THIS AWARD BINDING ON PETITIONERS?

 

YES BECAUSE PETITIONERS NO LONGER CONTESTED THE AWARD AND ARE THEREFORE PRESUMED TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADJUDICATION IN THE NLRC DECISION AND RESOLUTION. THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH THE DOCTRINE THAT A PARTY WHO HAS NOT APPEALED CANNOT OBTAIN FROM THE APPELLATE COURT ANY AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OTHER THAN THE ONES GRANTED IN THE APPEALED DECISION. SIMILARLY, THE AWARD OF SEPARATION PAY WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE NLRC IS BINDING ON PETITIONERS WHO EVEN ADMITTED THAT REINSTATEMENT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

IS LOPEZ JR. SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH NEWFIELD?

 

NO.

 

THE LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC HAVE NOT FOUND LOPEZ, JR. GUILTY OF MALICE OR BAD FAITH. THUS, THERE IS NO BASIS TO HOLD LOPEZ, JR. SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH NEWFIELD.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHEN IS THERE SOLIDARY LIABILITY?

 

THERE IS SOLIDARY LIABILITY WHEN THE OBLIGATION EXPRESSLY SO STATES, WHEN THE LAW SO PROVIDES, OR WHEN THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION SO REQUIRES.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS THE  RULE ON THE SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS IN A LABOR DISPUTE?

 

A CORPORATION, BEING A JURIDICAL ENTITY, MAY ACT ONLY THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. OBLIGATIONS INCURRED BY_FUEM, ACTING AS SUCH CORPORATE AGENTS, ARE NOT THEIRS BUT THE DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITIES OF THE CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

 

YES.

 

WHEN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT SUCH AS, GENERALLY, IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:

 

WHEN DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES OR, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, THE OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION –

 

(A) VOTE FOR OR ASSENT TO PATENTLY UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE CORPORATION;

 

(B) ACT IN BAD FAITH OR WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN

DIRECTING THE CORPORATE AITAIRS;

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY “BAD FAITH” ABOVE?

 

BAD FAITH DOES NOT CONNOTE BAD JUDGMENT OR NEGLIGENCE; IT IMPORTS DISHONEST PURPOSE OR SOME MORAL OBLIQUITY AND CONSCIOUS DOING OF WRONG; IT MEANS BREACH OF A KNOWN DUTY THROUGH SOME MOTIVE OR INTEREST OR ILL WILL; IT PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF FRAUD. TO SUSTAIN SUCH A FINDING, THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR ACTED MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH IN TERMINATING THE EMPLOYEE.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0017 -JULY 2013 – FERNANDEZ

 

CASE 2013-0016: CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, and LINOG G. BALUA (G.R. NO. 195649, 02 JULY 2013, SERENO, J.) SUBJECT/S: RENUNCIATION OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AS CONDITION IN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE  (BRIEF TITLE: MAQUILING VS. COMELEC)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 

“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED with finality.

 

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

DIGEST/DOCTRINE/SUBJECT:

 

 

ROMMEL ARNADO WAS BORN A FILIPINO CITIZEN. THEN HE BECAME A NATURALIZED AMERICAN CITIZEN. BEFORE BE RAN FOR MAYOR OF KAUSWAGAN LANAO DEL NORTE HE EXECUTED AN  AFFIDAVIT OF RENUNCIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. BUT HE STILL USED HIS U.S. PASSPORT. CAN HE STILL BE CONSIDERED AS DISQUALIFIED TO RUN FOR MAYOR.

 

 

YES.

 

 

IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE THAT THOSE WHO SEEK TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE MUST BE SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY A FILIPINO CITIZEN. TO ALLOW A FORMER FILIPINO WHO REACQUIRES PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP TO CONTINUE USING A FOREIGN PASSPORT – WHICH INDICATES THE RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN STATE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS ITS NATIONAL – EVEN AFTER THE FILIPINO HAS RENOUNCED HIS FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP, IS TO ALLOW A COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THIS POLICY.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

ARNADO ARGUES THAT SECTION 349 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ACT OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THAT HIS EXECUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF RENUNCIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP HAS THE EFFECT OF EXPATRIATION AND THUS WAS DIVESTED OF ALL THE RIGHTS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. IS HIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

 

 

NO. THE FACT THAT HE WAS STILL ABLE TO USE HIS U.S. PASSPORT AFTER EXECUTING THE AFFIDAVIT OF RENUNCIATION REPUDIATES HIS CLAIM.

 

 

FURTHERMORE, THE COURT CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, WHICH MUST BEPRESENTED AS PUBLIC DOCUMENTS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND MUST BE “EVIDENCED BY AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION THEREOF.” MERE REFERENCE TO A FOREIGN LAW IN A PLEADING DOES NOT SUFFICE FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING A CASE.

 

 

BESIDES, AMERICAN LAW DOES NOT GOVERN IN THIS JURISDICTION.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE LAW?

 

 

SECTION 40(D) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND SECTION 5(2) OF R.A. 9225.

 

UNDER R.A. 9225 IT IS PROVIDED THAT  THAT “ALL PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO BECOME CITIZENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY SHALL BE DEEMED NOT TO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THIS ACT.” THIS POLICY PERTAINS TO THE REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. SECTION 5(2) REQUIRES THOSE WHO HAVE RE-ACQUIRED PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP AND WHO SEEK ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE, TO RENOUNCE ANY AND ALL FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP.

 

 

SECTION 40(D) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DISQUALIFIES THOSE WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP FROM RUNNING FOR LOCAL ELECTIVE POSITIONS.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0016-JULY 2013 – MAQUILING

 

CASE 2013-0015: SPOUSES FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE VS. SPOUSES FAUSTINO CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE (G.R. NO. 185518, 17 PRIL 2013, SERENO,   J.) (RIEF TITLE: CHINGKOE SPOUES VS. CHINGKOE SPOUSES)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we deny the instant Petition for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. I 00008 (dated 3 July 2008) is AFFIRMED.

 

We make no pronouncement as to attorney’s fees for lack of evidence.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0015-APR 2013 – CHINGKOE

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 213 other followers