Duty Free Philippines vs.
Mojica Facts: The Discipline Committee of Duty Free rendered a decision finding Stock Clerk Mojica guilty of Neglect of Duty by causing considerable damage to or loss of its materials, assets and property. Thus, Mojica was considered forcibly resigned from the service. Thereupon, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full back wages before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter found that Mojica was illegally dismissed but the NLRC reversed in finding that the dismissal was valid and with just cause. On appeal, CA agreed with the arbiter that Mojica was not guilty of gross or habitual negligence that would warrant his dismissal. Issue: Whether Mojicas recourse to the Labor Arbiter was not proper. Held: Yes. Mojica is a civil service employee; therefore, jurisdiction is lodged not with the NLRC, but with the Civil Service Commission. Since Duty Free is under the exclusive authority of the Philippine Tourism Authority, it follows that its officials and employees are likewise subject to the CSC rules and regulations. The complaint was then dismissed Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. Facts: Pursuant to PT&Ts Relocation and Restructuring Program, some of petitioners employees were directed to relocate and report to their respective new branches. They rejected the offer as it would cause enormous difficulties and separation from their families. PT&T considered their refusal as insubordination and willful disobedience to a lawful order; hence, they were dismissed. They then filed for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, which was thereafter reversed by the NLRC. Issue: Whether petitioner illegally dismissed the private respondents Held: Yes. An employee cannot be promoted, even if merely as a result of a transfer, without his consent. A promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which a person has a right to refuse. Hence, the exercise by the private respondents of their right cannot be considered in law as insubordination, or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer. As such, there was no valid cause for the private respondents dismissal. Viernes v. NLRC and Benguet Electric Corporation Facts: Petitioners services as meter readers were contracted for a months duration but they were allowed to extend. They were then served with identical notices of termination. On the same date, they filed complaints for illegal dismissal and contended that they were not apprentices but
regular employees whose services were illegally and unjustly terminated. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for lack of merit while the NLRC ruled that the dismissal was illegal. Issue: 1. Whether petitioners should be reinstated to their former position 2. Whether or not the petitioners should be awarded indemnity pay. Held: 1. Yes. While it is true that the petitioners were initially employed on a fixed term basis, their extension without the benefit of a new contract transformed their status to that of regular employees as implied under the Labor Code. They are thus entitled to be reinstated to their former position as regular employees, not merely probationary. 2. Yes. An employer becomes liable to pay indemnity to an employee if in effecting such dismissal, the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process. In the case at bar, BENECO failed to serve a notice of dismissal upon the employees at least one month before the intended date of termination.
