GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR Case Digest
G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992 Digest by Clar
Submitted 30 August 2016
PETITIONER: GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION
(GMCR) RESPONDENT: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(NLRC) and IMELDA SALAZAR
(private respondent)
PONENTIA: Justice Romero Nature of the case: Regarding the alleged Illegal Dismissal of SALAZAR Doctrine according to the Syllabus: VERBA LEGIS
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 – Maramara – Company’s Internal Auditor Richard Yambao Yambao – Owner and Manager of Elecon Engineering which is a supplier of GMCR • •
• •
Story: It is alleged that Salazar and Saldivar are very close. It is also mentioned that they share an apartment. 1984, reports shows that the company equipment and sare parts worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing. A report prepared by Maramara indicated that: -
Saldivar entered into a partnership with Yambao Saldivar recommended Elecon The missing aircon was used by Saldivar for personal use (recovered by replevin) Salazar (respondent) got involved because she is a signed witness of the Articles of Partnership of the two
1
GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR Case Digest
-
She knows where the missing aircon is, failed to to report it.
(1984) Because of those, Salazar was suspended and was given time to explain herself (for 30 days/one month). After 3 days she already filed a complaint against GMCR for illegal dismissal (illegal suspension at first then it escalated to that). (1985) Heared by Labor Arbiter – – in favor of Imelda Salazar, awarded her reinstatement, backwages and other benefits plus moral damages. (1987) NLRC – – affirmed Labor Arbiter decision but backwages of 2 years only; no moral damages Thus this petition by GMCR before SC
Issue Is she illegally dismissed based on the Labor Code and Constitutional guarantee?
Held She was illegally dismissed. The Court pointed out Art 279 of the Labor Code, Code , which talks about the Security of tenure for regular employees which states that: xxx An employee employe e 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 xxx xxx
Corollary to it is the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code (IRR) stating that employer cannot terminate regular employees without just cause or authorized by laws 1 and if such employeed get illegally dismissed, he or she will be entitled to be back in his/her position or be reinstated reinstated without loss of seniority rights plus 2 backwages
1 "
IRR of Labor Code, Sec. 2 IRR of Labor Code, Sec. 3 2
GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR Case Digest
The priority is clearly leaned towards the employee or to labor.The Court pointed out the opening paragraph on Labor and the 1973 Constitution on Article 2 which enshrines “full protection” to labor. In the 1986 ConCom, they have designed Social Justice an Human rights to reduce social, economic and political inequalities. Court held that the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous. Under statcon, if the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be applied literally [Verba Legis] (Additional, away from statcon, she is not in a fiduciary position so she can be reinstated because “strained relations” aren’t relevant in her position)
Disposition NLRC decision AFFIRMED Reinstated Imelda, backwaged of 2 years.
3
GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPOROTION v. NLRC/SALAZAR Case Digest
DOCTRINE: Verba Legis
Plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court from construing it differently.
The legislature is
presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Neither does the provision admit of any quali cation. If in the wisdom of the Court, there may be a ground or grounds for non- application of the above-cited provision, this should be by way of exception, such as when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between the employer and the employee. (Copy pasted from the GMCR v. NLRC case) IMPORTANT PROVISION Labor Code Art. 279 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 bene ts or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement
IRR on Labor Code "Sec. 2. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, 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 be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to backwages."' (Emphasis supplied)
4
