Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 430 views

    4 - Pacific Mills V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Cheyz Er
    Zenaida Alonzo was terminated from her job as a ring frame operator at Pacific Mills, Inc. after getting into a physical fight with a company inspector. She was given a termination memo citing various reasons including poor work, absences, and insubordination. Alonzo filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages due to the harsh penalty and lack of investigation. The NLRC upheld this but limited back wages to 3 years. The Supreme Court granted Pacific Mills' petition, nullifying the lower rulings. It found Alonzo's termination was justified due to rule violations and her continued employment would be against the company's interests, even though due process was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4 - Pacific Mills V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Cheyz Er
    430 views1 page
    Zenaida Alonzo was terminated from her job as a ring frame operator at Pacific Mills, Inc. after getting into a physical fight with a company inspector. She was given a termination memo citing various reasons including poor work, absences, and insubordination. Alonzo filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages due to the harsh penalty and lack of investigation. The NLRC upheld this but limited back wages to 3 years. The Supreme Court granted Pacific Mills' petition, nullifying the lower rulings. It found Alonzo's termination was justified due to rule violations and her continued employment would be against the company's interests, even though due process was

    Original Description:

    khkjh

    Original Title

    4- Pacific Mills v Alonzo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Zenaida Alonzo was terminated from her job as a ring frame operator at Pacific Mills, Inc. after getting into a physical fight with a company inspector. She was given a termination memo citing various reasons including poor work, absences, and insubordination. Alonzo filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages due to the harsh penalty and lack of investigation. The NLRC upheld this but limited back wages to 3 years. The Supreme Court granted Pacific Mills' petition, nullifying the lower rulings. It found Alonzo's termination was justified due to rule violations and her continued employment would be against the company's interests, even though due process was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    430 views1 page

    4 - Pacific Mills V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Cheyz Er
    Zenaida Alonzo was terminated from her job as a ring frame operator at Pacific Mills, Inc. after getting into a physical fight with a company inspector. She was given a termination memo citing various reasons including poor work, absences, and insubordination. Alonzo filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages due to the harsh penalty and lack of investigation. The NLRC upheld this but limited back wages to 3 years. The Supreme Court granted Pacific Mills' petition, nullifying the lower rulings. It found Alonzo's termination was justified due to rule violations and her continued employment would be against the company's interests, even though due process was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PACIFIC MILLS, INC.

    , petitioner,
    vs.
    ZENAIDA ALONZO, respondent.
    G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991
    Facts: Zenaida Alonzo was employed as a ring frame operator in Pacific Mills, Inc.
    She was terminated due to the incident happened on September 22, 1982 when she
    challenged Ernesto Tamondong, the company inspector in a fight and assaulted
    him.
    On September 30, 1982, Alonzo was given memo terminating her on the various
    grounds: poor work, habitual absences and tardiness, wasting time, insubordination
    and gross disrespect. There was no complaint or hearing prior to the dismissal. The
    management considered it unnecessary since there is a provision in the company
    rules and relations that fighting or attempting to inflict harm to another employee
    will render the aggressor to outright dismissal. The company was only to present
    evidence when Alonzo instituted complaint for illegal dismissal (and non-payment of
    proportionate 13th month pay.)
    The Labor Arbiter found that Alonzo had indeed verbally abused and struck
    Tamondong. However, the arbiter held that Alonzo was entitled relief because the
    penalty imposed was harsh and severe and the company failed to investigate the
    complaint before the dismissal. The arbiter ordered Pacific Mills her reinstatement
    without the loss of seniority rights and to pay her backwages.
    On appeal, NLRC sustained the judgment but limited the award of backwages only
    to 3 years.
    Pacific Mills instituted special civil action of certiorari praying for nullification of the
    judgment of NLRC having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
    Issue: whether the dismissal of an employee for just and reasonable cause but
    without prior due process should be maintained?
    Held: the court held that while it is true that Alonzo was not afforded due process
    prior to her removal, her continuance in the service is inimical to her employers
    interest. Petitioner proved that the termination of Zenaida was justified because of
    the violations she committed against the companys rules and regulations. And
    citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, the law in protecting the rights of the
    laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. And the
    reinstatement of the employee would be unjust and oppressive on the part of the
    employer.
    Ruling: the petition is granted and the challenged decision of the respondent
    Commission dated March 23, 1987 and that of the Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed,
    are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. However, the petitioner is ordered to pay private
    respondent a proportionate part of the 13th month pay due her, amounting to
    P351.00 as well as to indemnify her in the sum of P1,000.00

    You might also like