Case Digest (G.R. No. 109714)
Facts:
Better Buildings, Inc., William Warne and Leda Beaverford v. The National Labor Relations Commission, Halim Ysmael and Eliseo Feliciano, G.R. No. 109714, December 15, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Better Building, Inc. (BBI) and its officers dismissed private respondents Halim Ysmael (Sales Manager since March 16, 1985) and Eliseo Feliciano (Chief Supervisor since January 1966) by a memorandum dated May 3, 1988, shown by BBI’s Assistant General Manager, Leda A. Beverford, which advised guards that Ysmael and Feliciano were terminated effective end of office hours that day and were not allowed entry to the premises. Aggrieved, Ysmael and Feliciano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against BBI on May 6, 1988.
The Labor Arbiter (Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona) rendered a decision on March 3, 1989 declaring the dismissals illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages, payment of salary differentials, and awards of moral and exemplary damages; attorneys’ fees and costs were also awarded. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but reduced the awards of moral and exemplary damages (the NLRC’s disposition modified those amounts while otherwise affirming the Labor Arbiter).
Petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief, alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming reinstatement and backwages. While the case was pending before this Court, the claim against Ysmael was dismissed on September 4, 1996 because of a compromise agreement, leaving only Feliciano as the remaining respond...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering reinstatement and backwages?
- Was respondent Eliseo Feliciano validly dismissed for a just cause under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code (willful breach of trust)?
- Were the procedural due process requirements (notice and opportunity to be heard) observed, and what is the app...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)