INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. vs NLRC, G.R. No. 81087, June 19, 1991
FACTS: A contract for employment as a Third Engineer was signed by the private respondent, Ernesto, with
the petitioner. The private respondent requested relief for personal reasons when the ship was at Port Pylos,
Greece. In accordance with the employment contract's Clause 5, the Master of the ship approved the private
respondent's request but informed him that repatriation expenses were his responsibility, so as to arrange a
replacement for him (private respondent). But he was refused disembarkation in Greece by the Master of the
ship, so his request for relief ended. Thus, he had to step out of the ship in Egypt when the Master forced
him to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not complainant's termination is illegal.
RULING: Employees cannot withdraw a resignation once accepted, as it is solely their own act. Even though
the contract calls for the private respondent to serve thirty (30) days' notice of resignation, his resignation
had already been approved by the Master. Since the private respondent could no longer unilaterally withdraw
his resignation because he was not discharged immediately in Port Pylos, Greece, his resignation ceased to
be effective. It was up to the petitioners to accept his resignation once he expressly indicated that he intended
to keep working. It was the petitioners' sole prerogative to accept the resignation withdrawal, so not accepting
the resignation withdrawal did not constitute illegal dismissal.
Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corp. vs NLRC, G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000
FACTS: Philippine Aelous United Corporation employed the private respondent as a company nurse. Upon
receiving a memorandum from petitioner corporation's personnel manager, respondent Cortez was asked to
explain why she should be exempt from disciplinary action because she (1) threw a stapler at plant manager
William Chua; (2) lost Php 1,488 entrusted to her; and (3) asked a co-worker to punch her timecard one
morning while she was absent. A preventive suspension was then imposed on her. The next memorandum
asked her why she failed to process ATM applications for her coworkers. An explanation of the loss of Php
1,488 and punching in of her timecard was submitted in writing by her. In a third memorandum she was
informed of her termination for gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or willful
breach of trust.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed and should be entitled to damages.
RULING: It is imperative that employers construe grounds for terminating employees strictly. First,
respondent asserts that plant manager William Chua has been making sexual advances on her since her
first year of employment, and to be terminated from her position if she does not comply. Regarding the second
charge, the funds given to her were not lost, but given to the personnel-in-charge for proper transmission as
evidenced by a signed receipt. In response to the third charge, she explains that she had someone punch in
her card while she was doing an errand for an officer of the company. Concerning the fourth charge, she
claims she did not know anything about it. If the act constitutes serious misconduct, it must take place as part
of her job duties as to demonstrate she is unfit to continue working. There was no serious misconduct or
violation of her duties as a nurse in these acts. As a result of the strained relationship, in lieu of reinstatement,
she will receive separation pay of one month for every year she has served. Moreover, despite allowing her
employer's sexual impositions to fester for four years, the time it takes for an employee to come out depends
upon their needs, circumstances, and emotional threshold. Clearly, the act complained of has caused
respondent anxiety, sleepless nights, besmirched reputation, and social humiliation. As a result, petitioner's
treatment of her dismissal was oppressive, and she should be entitled to moral and exemplary damages as
a penalty for their abuse.
Cosep v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124966, June 16, 1998
FACTS:
CD7:
HELD: The Court indeed found that petitioner had serious financial difficulties before, during and after the termination
of the services of private respondent. The company showed a net loss of P4,431,321.00 in its audited financial
statements. Moreover, Wiltshire finally closed its doords and terminated all operations in the Philippines on January
1987, barely 2 years after the termination of private respondent. The Court considered that finally shutting down
business operations constitutes strong confirmatory evidence of petitioner's previous financial distress. It is also to be
noted that the letter informing private respondents of the termination of his services used the word “redundant”, that
letter also referred to the company having “incurred financial losses which in fact has compelled it to resort to
retrenchment to prevent further losses”. Thus, what the letter was in effect saying was that because of financial losses,
retrenchment was necessary, which in turn resulted in the redundancy of private respondent's position. That no other
person was holding the same position that private respondent held prior to the termination of his services, does not
show that his position had not become redundant. Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the
services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.
A position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions maybe the outcome of a
number of factors such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product
line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.