Case Digest (G.R. No. 224302)
Facts:
Cocoland Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission and Jeremias Mago, G.R. No. 98458, July 17, 1996, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cocoland Development Corporation (petitioner) operated a plantation in Lamitan, Basilan; private respondent Jeremias Mago was hired as Field Supervisor to service the company's agricultural needs. In January 1989 management learned that Mago was providing technical services and advice to small farmers without prior clearance. On January 12, 1989 the company's vice president for operations, Alfredo C. de la Cruz, issued a memorandum charging Mago with imparting the company's coffee propagation "technology" to outsiders in violation of a policy against unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets, and advising him to cease such consultancy activities.
Mago replied on January 14, 1989 admitting he gave outside consultancy to supplement income but denying disclosure of any trade secret, asserting the propagation techniques had been public knowledge since 1986 and that others in the company (including a manager, Edgardo Sena) had likewise provided assistance. De la Cruz countered (January 26, 1989) that certain techniques were developed by FILIPRO and learned by Mago through company-sponsored training; de la Cruz then demanded a written explanation (February 12) and, finding the explanation inadequate, directed termination effective March 14, 1989 (February 14).
Mago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor and Employment, Arbitration Branch No. 14, Zamboanga City on March 17, 1989. Labor Arbiter Harun B. Ismael rendered a Decision dated October 25, 1989 declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay (P15,600), backwages (P31,200) and attorney’s fees (P2,340), while dismissing other claims. Both parties appealed to the public respondent, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC (first Resolution dated January 15, 1991) sustained the arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal, modified relief by ordering reinstatement with backwages or, if impractical, separation pay, and also awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; it dismiss...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is an employer’s unilateral designation of a certain process or “technology” as a trade secret binding and conclusive on the NLRC?
- Did private respondent’s alleged disclosure of petitioner’s claimed technology constitute just cause for his termination?
- Were the NLRC’s awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees proper under the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)