Pablico v. Cerro Case Digest

Manuel Pablico and Master’s Pub Resto Bar v.
Numeriano Cerro
Facts:
Numeriano Cerro, respondent, was a bartender at Master’s Pub and Resto Bar (MPRB). Cerro
suggested that Manuel Pablico, petitioner, purchase and take over the management of the said
resto bar. Pablico agreed. When Pablico took over in 2008, he promoted Cerro as Officer-in-
Charge with P200.00 as daily wage. He was also given the authority to hire additional employees.
Thereafter, Cerro hired seven more employees, namely: Caliguiran, Panganiban, Napitan, Lim,
Baguno, Pauig, and Caronan (Caliguiran, et. al). However in 2011, Cerro committed several
infractions that cause losses to MPRB. Cerro was suspended from work and the seven employees
he added claimed to have received text messages which were taken to mean that they have been
terminated from service due to their close affiliation with Cerro.
Thus, the respondents filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
against Pablico and MPRB on the grounds of illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and
benefits, damages and attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter (LA) Jaime M. Reyno dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. The case elevated to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision
of the LA, but deleted the award for separation pay. The case was then raised to the Supreme
Court.
Issues:
1. W/N Cerro’s suspension was valid.
2. W/N Caliguiran, et. al. were illegally dismissed.
3. W/N MPRB is exempt from the minimum wage law.
4. W/N CA was correct in removing liability to pay separation pay.
Ruling:
Yes, the suspension was valid. Cerro himself admitted that he has been appropriating the funds
of the MPRB without the knowledge and consent of its owner, for sure, this act justifies the
exercise of management prerogative to place him under preventive suspension particularly
considering his position. Being an Officer-in-Charge of MPRB, Cerro is responsible for the
company's overall operations and, as such in a position, cause damage to the property of the
employer.
No, caliguiran, et. al. failed to prove that they have been actually terminated. The Court gave
much credence to the findings of fact of the lower courts and the tribunal, giving honor to their
finding that the employees were unable to prove the fact of dismissal.
In illegal dismissal cases, the employees must first establish by competent evidence the fact of
their termination from employment. Mere allegation does not suffice as evidence must be
substantial and the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing. They failed to
discharge this burden. The only evidence they presented are text messages supposedly informing
them that they have been terminated. However, ass found by the lower courts, nowhere from the
language thereof can it be remotely inferred that they are being terminated.
Further, it was also not shown that Caliguiran et. al. tried to report for work, but were prevented
to do so. Jurisprudence is settled that the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained in the
absence of any showing of an overt or positive act proving that the employees have been
dismissed, as the employees' claim in that eventuality would be "self-serving, conjectural and of
no probative value."
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases is inapplicable in
this case as the Pablico denies having dismissed the respondents, and the latter failed to prove
the fact of termination.
No, MPRB is not exempt from the Minimum Wage Law. Pablico claims otherwise since he is
allegedly “engaged in the service business that employs less than ten employees regularly.”
However, it must be noted that for the exemption to apply, two requisites must concur.
First, it must be shown that the establishment is regularly employing not more than ten workers,
and second, that the establishment had applied for and was granted exemption by the appropriate
Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the
Commission.
Herein, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not apply for such exemption, thus, it is clear
that he cannot claim benefits under the law. The petitioner cannot shield himself from complying
with the law by the lone fact that he is just a layman and cannot be expected to know of the law's
requirements. Under our legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith.
Further, even with Pablico’s supposed agreement with the waitresses that the latter are not to be
considered employees of MPRB, he still cannot be exempt from the Minimum Wage Law. It must
be noted that employment status is determined by the four-fold test, and the attendant
circumstances of each case, as supported by any competent and relevant evidence. The status
of employment cannot be dictated by the stipulation of contract or any document, because the
same is contrary to public policy and heavily impressed with public interest. The law relating to
labor and employment is an area where the parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and
their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by means of contract or waiver.
Yes, but the Supreme Court had to make clarifications as to the reason why. The CA’s reason for
not granting separation pay, and granting reeinstatement instead, was that the employees were
not really terminated thereby, they are not entitled to said benefit. But the SC clarified that this
line of reasoning is not a hard and fast rule and is not absolute. There are some instances where,
even in the absence of termination, separation pay was still granted in lieu of reinstatement when
the latter is deemed improper, such as when the relationship of the supposedly terminated
employees and the manager’s relationship is already so compromised.

Pablico v. Cerro Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pablico v. Cerro Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pablico v. Cerro Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manuel Pablico and Master’s Pub Resto Bar v.

You might also like