Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Aguiluz, Franco Labstan 2f Presentation #1

    Uploaded by

    Franco Aguiluz
    1) Imelda Salazar was suspended from her job as a Systems Analyst at GMCR due to missing equipment that was found to have been used by her friend and colleague, Delfin Saldivar. 2) The Labor Arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Salazar's favor, finding her dismissal to be illegal and awarding her reinstatement and back wages. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that as a regular employee, Salazar was entitled to security of tenure under the Labor Code and Constitution and could not be terminated without just cause.

    Copyright:

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

    Aguiluz, Franco Labstan 2f Presentation #1

    Uploaded by

    Franco Aguiluz
    25 views15 pages
    1) Imelda Salazar was suspended from her job as a Systems Analyst at GMCR due to missing equipment that was found to have been used by her friend and colleague, Delfin Saldivar. 2) The Labor Arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Salazar's favor, finding her dismissal to be illegal and awarding her reinstatement and back wages. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that as a regular employee, Salazar was entitled to security of tenure under the Labor Code and Constitution and could not be terminated without just cause.

    Original Description:

    FILCRO powerpoint

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Imelda Salazar was suspended from her job as a Systems Analyst at GMCR due to missing equipment that was found to have been used by her friend and colleague, Delfin Saldivar. 2) The Labor Arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Salazar's favor, finding her dismissal to be illegal and awarding her reinstatement and back wages. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that as a regular employee, Salazar was entitled to security of tenure under the Labor Code and Constitution and could not be terminated without just cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    25 views15 pages

    Aguiluz, Franco Labstan 2f Presentation #1

    Uploaded by

    Franco Aguiluz
    1) Imelda Salazar was suspended from her job as a Systems Analyst at GMCR due to missing equipment that was found to have been used by her friend and colleague, Delfin Saldivar. 2) The Labor Arbiter and NLRC both ruled in Salazar's favor, finding her dismissal to be illegal and awarding her reinstatement and back wages. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that as a regular employee, Salazar was entitled to security of tenure under the Labor Code and Constitution and could not be terminated without just cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 15

    G.R. No.

    82511, March 3, 1992

    GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION(GMCR)


    VS.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
    (NLRC) and IMELDA SALAZAR (private respondent)
    FACTS OF THE CASE
    Parties Involved/Characters:
    • Imelda Salazar – General System Analyst of GMCR
    • Delfin Saldivar – Manager for Technical Operations’ support of GMCR
    • Agustin Maramara – Company’s Internal Auditor
    • Richard Yambao – Owner and Manager of Elecon Engineering
    which is a supplier of GMCR
    It is alleged that Ms. Salazar and Mr. Saldivar are very close friends, as they
    mentioned having a shared apartment.

    In 1984, reports showed that the company equipment and spare parts
    worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar went missing. A
    report prepared by Maramara, the Internal Auditor, indicated that:
    ● Mr. Saldivar entered into a partnership with Yambao
    ● Saldivar recommended Elecon Engineering Services
    ● The missing aircon was used by Saldivar for personal use, which was
    eventually recovered
    ● Respondent Salazar was involved because she is a signed witness of the
    Articles of Partnership between Saldivar and Yambao
    ● Ms. Salazar knew where the missing aircon unit was located, but failed to
    report it.
    Due to this, Salazar was suspended and was given time to explain
    herself (for 30 days/one month). After 3 days, she filed a complaint against
    GMCR for illegal dismissal.
    In 1985, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Imelda Salazar, awarded her
    reinstatement, backwages and other benefits plus moral damages.
    In 1987, the NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications,
    reducing the awarding of backwages to 2 years only; no moral damages
    Which leads to the petition by GMCR before the Supreme Court.
    ISSUE

    Was Ms. Salazar illegally dismissed according to the Labor Code and
    The Constitution?
    LAW
    Art. 279 - Labor Code - Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
    Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
    terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
    authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall
    be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
    and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
    their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
    withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis
    supplied)
    LAW
    Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code
    Sec. 2. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employments, the employer
    shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause as
    provided in the Labor Code or when authorized by existing laws.
    Sec. 3. Reinstatement. — An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
    shall by entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to
    backwages."7 (Emphasis supplied)
    LAW - ART. XIII 1987 CONSTITUTION
    Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
    overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
    equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of
    all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
    and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
    accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
    conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
    and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may
    be provided by law.
    Section 3.

    The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility


    between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary
    modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce
    their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
    The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
    employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
    production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
    investments, and to expansion and growth.
    CANON/ CASE HISTORY
    RULING
    Yes. She was illegally dismissed.

    The Court cited Art 279 of the Labor Code, which talks about the
    Security of tenure for regular employees which states that:

    “An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work


    shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
    other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
    and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent”.
    Supplementary to this are the Implementing Rules and
    Regulations of the Labor Code (IRR) stating that:
    Employers cannot terminate regular employees without just
    cause, and if said employees are illegally dismissed, he or she will be
    entitled to return to his/her position without a loss of seniority rights
    and an awarding of backwages.
    The priority is clearly leaned towards the employee. Similar to the
    1987 Constitution, the Court pointed out the opening paragraph on
    Labor in the 1973 Constitution on Article 2 which also enshrines “full
    protection” to labor. In the 1986 Constitution Commission, they have
    designed Social Justice and Human rights to reduce social, economic
    and political inequalities.
    The court also held held that the Labor Code is clear and
    unambiguous, and stated that if the law is clear, plain and free from
    ambiguity, it must be applied literally.
    OPINION
    The presenter wholeheartedly agrees with the decision of the Supreme
    Court and shares the applying the law in cases like this clearly and
    unambiguously, adopting the principle of Verba Legis. It is also worth
    noting that respondent Salazar was not in a fiduciary position, thus
    eliminating the implications of “strained relationships” on the possibility of
    her reinstatement.
    It also bodes well with the presenter that the Supreme Court did not
    adopt the stance and evidence of the petitioners as their claims against
    Respondent Salazar were based solely on the reports of Mr. Maramara, the
    Auditor, and the imagined implications of the special relationship between
    Salazar and Saldivar.

    You might also like