View full case

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE v. NLRC

FACTS:

Imelda Salazar, the private respondent, was employed by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMCR) as a general systems analyst. Delfin Saldivar, who was alleged to be very close to Salazar, was also employed by GMCR as manager for technical operations' support. In 1984, GMCR discovered that equipment and spare parts worth thousands of dollars, which were under Saldivar's custody, were missing. After an investigation, it was found that Saldivar had entered into a partnership with Richard Yambao, owner of Elecon Engineering Services, and had taken GMCR's airconditioning unit for personal use without authorization. Salazar, who signed as a witness to the partnership between Saldivar and Yambao, had knowledge of the missing airconditioning unit but failed to inform her employer. As a result, Salazar was placed under preventive suspension for one month. Instead of submitting an explanation, she filed a complaint against GMCR for illegal suspension. GMCR subsequently notified her in writing that she was considered dismissed. The Labor Arbiter ordered GMCR to reinstate Salazar and pay her backwages and other benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision but limited the backwages to a period of two years. GMCR filed a petition assailing the decision of the Labor Tribunal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.

  2. Whether there are exceptions to the remedy of reinstatement.

  3. Whether the employee's position is one of trust and confidence such that reinstatement would likely lead to strained relations between the employer and employee.

  4. Whether the employee engaged in transactions that created a conflict of interest situation.

  5. Whether or not the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners.

  6. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to question the validity of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) administrative orders.

RULING:

  1. The employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages. The Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement and his full backwages.

  2. There are exceptions to the remedy of reinstatement. The court has denied reinstatement in cases where it is no longer feasible, where it would be inimical to the employer's interest, or where there is an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism between the employer and the employee. In such cases, the court has ordered the payment of backwages and separation pay or solely separation pay instead of reinstatement.

  3. The position of the employee as a systems analyst was not proven to be one of trust and confidence that would lead to strained relations between the employer and employee. Therefore, this does not constitute an exception to the general rule of reinstatement for an unlawfully dismissed employee.

  4. The employee's involvement as a witness to the partnership papers of a company that had business dealings with the employer did not create a conflict of interests situation. The employee's duties did not involve procurement of supplies or company assets. Therefore, there was no valid basis for dismissal on the grounds of loss of confidence.

  5. No, the Court of Appeals did not properly dismiss the petition for certiorari. The dismissal was ruled as premature because it failed to consider the main issue of whether the agrarian reform program was unconstitutional or not.

  6. Yes, the petitioners have legal standing to question the validity of the DAR administrative orders. The Court ruled that the petitioners are persons whose rights had been violated by the questioned orders, thus granting them the requisite standing to bring the case to court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right of an employee not to be dismissed from his job except for a just or authorized cause is important under the 1987 Constitution, which gives primacy to the rights of labor.

  • The intent of the law in prescribing the twin remedies of reinstatement and payment of backwages is to restore the dismissed employee to her status before she lost her job and to compensate her for the income lost during the period of unemployment.

  • The wording of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous. If a statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Exceptions to the provision should only be made if there are grounds for non-application.

  • Reinstatement is the general rule for an unlawfully dismissed employee, unless there is a valid exception such as strained relations between the employer and employee due to a position of trust and confidence.

  • Dismissal based on loss of confidence must be supported by convincing evidence and not mere presumptions or suppositions.

  • Dismissal based on conflict of interest must be justified by showing that the employee's involvement directly affects the procurement of supplies or company assets.

  • Evidence obtained after an employee's resignation, without the opportunity for the employee to refute the findings, should be subjected to stringent examination before justifying dismissal.

  • Principle of Prematurity - Dismissal of a petition for certiorari may be deemed premature if it fails to address the primary issue or fails to consider the constitutionality of the questioned program.

  • Legal Standing - Parties who have been affected or whose rights have been violated by a particular action or order have the legal standing to bring the case to court.