G.R. No.164808 January 30, 2009
VIRGINA SUGUE AND HEIRS OF RENATO S VALDERRAMA, petitioners,
vs.
TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.) INC, respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------G.R. No.164784 January 30, 2009
TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.) INC, petitioners,
vs.
VIRGINA SUGUE and HEIRS OF RENATO S VALDERRAMA, respondent.
FACTS:




Triumph hired Sugue and Valderra as Assistant Manager for Marketing and was promoted as
Marketing Service Manager and Direct Sales manager, respectively. In June 1, 2000, Triumph’s top
management began a sharp decline in the sales. The decrease continued for the subsequent months.
Sugue and Valderrama filed a complaint with NLRC for their unpaid vacation leave, sick leave
credits, birthday leave and 14th month pay. They personally attended the preliminary conference
during the work hours. Thus, prompting the management through Mr. Escueta, General Manager,
issuing a memorandum regarding employees to notify him before leaving the office during office
hours.
Mr. Funtila, Personnel Manager, required Sugue and Valderrama to inform Mr. Escueta about their
whereabouts when they attended the preliminary conference. They were required to explain as to
why they used the company time and vehicle in attending the preliminary conference without
notifying Mr. Escueta. Thus, this lead to Triumph charging their attendance to the preliminary
conference to thei vacation leave credits.
Subsequently the following acts of discrimination and bad faith were alleged by Sugue and
Valderrama:
o Valderrama’s sick leave was disapproved; and
o His request for executive check-up was denied.
o Sugue’s application for leave of absence was subjected to the condition that she should
submit a report on the 2001 Marketing Plan;
o Her request for executive check-up was deferred until after the visit of company’s
marketing manager.
ISSUE:
WON Triumph unjustly denied the availment of Sugue and Valderrama of their leaves.
RULING:
No. Triumph did not unjustly denied the availment of Sugue and Valderrama of their leaves.
According to jurisprudence, grant of vacation and sick leaves are privileges to an employee. The employer
is given leeway to impose conditions on the entitlement before granting vacation and sick leave. It is not a
standard of law but a prerogative of management.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that there was no bad faith nor malice when Triumph charged Sugue
and Valderrama against their leave credits, the day they spent in attending the preliminary conference they
instituted against Triumph. It was justified since they did not perform work for one-half day. It is an ageold rule that “a fair day’s wage for fair day’s labor. If there is no work performed by the employee, there can
be no wage or pay. This does not prevent the employee from seeking reimbursement from his union which
declared strike or filed a case in the industrial court. Or in the case, charge his absence against his vacation
leave.
On the matter of sick leave availed by Valderrama, record revealed that he failed to comply with the
company’s requirement on application for sick leave for 2 or more days must be supported by a med cert,
verified by the company physician.
On the matter of Sugue’s vacation leave subjected to a condition of submitting a report on 2001 Marketing
Plan, it was not discriminatory nor targeted to harass her. It was shown that a memorandum was issued by
Triumph that leave applications may be approved, disapproved or postponed depending on the business
status, urgent need for their presence and CBA negotiation status. The condition is reasonable for employer
to require his employee to complete her assignments on time before taking a vacation leave. It is worth
noting that there was a decline in sales.