View full case

DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES v. LOLITA VELASCO

FACTS:

Lolita Velasco started working with Del Monte Philippines in October 1976. She was warned in writing multiple times due to her absences without permission and was subjected to forfeiture of vacation leaves. On September 1994, a notice of hearing was sent to her for violating the Absence Without Official Leave rule. She failed to appear on the scheduled hearing and her services were terminated in January 1995 due to excessive absences without permission. Velasco filed a case for illegal dismissal, asserting that her absences were due to her pregnancy-related condition. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed the decision and declared the dismissal as illegal. The CA affirmed the NLRC decision, stating that absences due to a justified cause cannot be a ground for dismissal and that Velasco's pregnancy was a valid justification for her absences. The CA also held that the petitioner committed a prohibited act by discharging Velasco on account of her pregnancy. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the employment of respondent had been validly terminated on the ground of excessive absences without permission.

  2. Whether the petitioner discharged the respondent on account of pregnancy, a prohibited act under Article 137(2) of the Labor Code.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding full back wages in favor of respondent notwithstanding petitioner’s alleged good faith.

RULING:

  1. On the Validity of Termination Due to Excessive Absences: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent’s absences were justified due to her pregnancy and related illnesses. Therefore, her termination on the ground of excessive absences without permission was invalid.

  2. On Discharge Due to Pregnancy: The Court held that the dismissal was indeed due to respondent’s pregnancy and related illnesses, which constitutes a prohibited act under Article 137(2) of the Labor Code. Therefore, the petitioner's act of terminating her employment was illegal.

  3. On the Award of Full Back Wages: Consequently, the ruling that respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages was affirmed, as the termination was found to be illegal.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 137 of the Labor Code: Prohibits the discharge of a woman employee on account of her pregnancy.

  2. Justification of Absences: Absences due to justified reasons, such as pregnancy and related illnesses, cannot be grounds for termination.

  3. Company Rules on Absence: Subsequent justification of absences, if aligned with company policy, is acknowledged.

  4. Substantial Evidence: Pregnancy and related illnesses, if substantiated by substantial evidence, are valid justifications for absenteeism.

  5. Good Faith: An employer’s assertion of good faith does not override the illegality of dismissing an employee for reasons prohibited under the Labor Code.