Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Case Digest For ADEL

    Uploaded by

    manoi paog
    1) Abraham Razon was employed as a Supervisor by Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc. but was dismissed in 1976 for alleged incompetence and misconduct. 2) Razon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled Razon was not guilty but did not order reinstatement, only separation pay. 3) The NLRC modified the decision to reduce separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that as Razon was found not guilty, he should be reinstated with back wages as provided by law, as the company did not prove his continued employment would be oppressive or self-destructive.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest For ADEL

    Uploaded by

    manoi paog
    74 views2 pages
    1) Abraham Razon was employed as a Supervisor by Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc. but was dismissed in 1976 for alleged incompetence and misconduct. 2) Razon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled Razon was not guilty but did not order reinstatement, only separation pay. 3) The NLRC modified the decision to reduce separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that as Razon was found not guilty, he should be reinstated with back wages as provided by law, as the company did not prove his continued employment would be oppressive or self-destructive.

    Original Description:

    quasi judicial power

    Original Title

    -Case-Digest-for-ADEL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Abraham Razon was employed as a Supervisor by Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc. but was dismissed in 1976 for alleged incompetence and misconduct. 2) Razon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled Razon was not guilty but did not order reinstatement, only separation pay. 3) The NLRC modified the decision to reduce separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that as Razon was found not guilty, he should be reinstated with back wages as provided by law, as the company did not prove his continued employment would be oppressive or self-destructive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    Case Digest For ADEL

    Uploaded by

    manoi paog
    1) Abraham Razon was employed as a Supervisor by Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc. but was dismissed in 1976 for alleged incompetence and misconduct. 2) Razon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled Razon was not guilty but did not order reinstatement, only separation pay. 3) The NLRC modified the decision to reduce separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that as Razon was found not guilty, he should be reinstated with back wages as provided by law, as the company did not prove his continued employment would be oppressive or self-destructive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ABRAHAM RAZON VS. HON. AMADO G.

    INCIONG as Deputy Minister


    of Labor; NLRC; and PHILIPS ELECTRICAL LAMPS, INC.,
    GR. NO. L-51809 December 19, 1980

    FACTS:
     Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc. employed Abraham Razon as Supervisor
    of its Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Department. Sometime on January 1976, the
    company filed with the Ministry of Labor an application to terminate his
    services because of alleged animosities and for alleged misrepresentation as
    to his qualifications, i.e. he posed as an experienced electronic expert but
    could not troubleshoot on his own even minor CRT problems; and for alleged
    weird disposition in that he challenged his subordinates to fistfights, shouted
    at them and even padlocked the CRT doors.
    Petitioner filed with the DOLE a complaint for illegal dismissal. The
    case proceeded to compulsory arbitration since conciliation proceedings
    were unavailing. Labor Arbiter ruled that Razon was not guilty of the charges
    against him but did not order his reinstatement instead ordered the payment
    of separation pay equivalent to its salary from the date of his dismissal to the
    date of the decision.
    The company appealed to NLRC contending that Razon was not
    entitled to reinstatement he was likewise not entitled to separation pay.
    NLRC modified the appealed decision. It ruled that Razon "is entitled to
    separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service."
    Dissatisfied because the amount awarded to him was reduced, Razon
    appealed to the Secretary of Labor but this was dismissed by the Deputy
    Minister of Labor. Hence, the present appeal to SC.

    ISSUE/S:
    Is it not an error in law, or a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
    lack of jurisdiction to merely award the employee who is not guilty of the
    charges imputed against him by his employer a separation pay and not to
    reinstate him with back wages as provided by law?

    RULING:
    The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
    oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. Where, therefore, it could be
    shown that the result would be neither oppressive nor self- destructive, it
    cannot be asserted dogmatically that an outright termination of employment
    is justified (PAL. v. PALEA, 57 SCRA 489, 493). In the case at bar, respondent
    company failed to demonstrate, and there was no finding by either the Labor
    Arbiter or the NLRC, that the continued employment of petitioner, even in his
    managerial position, would result in the company's oppression or self-
    destruction. As a matter of fact, there was no finding that as a proximate
    result of petitioner's employment, the company suffered business reverses.
    The SC agreed with the Solicitor General. SC noted that the only
    serious charge against petitioner which would have justified his dismissal is
    his alleged incompetence and yet private respondent appears to have
    discovered it only after almost two years from petitioner's employment.
    It is true that the petitioner did not appeal the ruling of the Labor
    Arbiter that he was not entitled to reinstatement but he did raise the
    question in his appeal to the Secretary of Labor. Under the circumstances
    the principle of res judicata may not be invoked considering that labor
    relations proceedings are I non-litigation and summary in nature, without
    regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law. The private
    respondent is ordered to reinstate the petitioner with backwages from the
    time of dismissal to the time of its reinstatement

    You might also like