Case Digest (G.R. No. 214662)
Facts:
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. Frederick Yanez, G.R. No. 214662, March 02, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PAL employed respondent Frederick Yanez as Supervisor of the Passenger Handling Division. On May 6–7, 2008 flight attendant Nova Sarte reported that during a ground stop on May 6, 2008 Yanez placed his hand under her right armpit, pressed her arm repeatedly, and touched the side of her breast; she also alleged prior instances of inappropriate touching and an occasion when he entered the lavatory while she was inside. Yanez denied the allegations.
PAL served Yanez a Notice of Administrative Charge dated October 13, 2008, citing violation of Article 51 of the PAL Revised Code of Discipline (sexual harassment), and scheduled a clarificatory hearing on October 27, 2008 in Pasay. Yanez sought transfer of venue to Mactan, which PAL denied but offered airfare and lodging; he did not attend the Pasay hearing. A second clarificatory hearing was held in Mactan on December 4, 2008, where Yanez and counsel requested a transcript of the Pasay hearing, were denied, and walked out, refusing to testify. The investigating committee found Yanez liable and recommended three months suspension; PAL management adopted the recommendation and notified Yanez on June 4, 2009.
Yanez filed a complaint for illegal suspension with the labor arbiter (LA). On May 19, 2010 the LA declared the three-month suspension valid, finding Yanez was afforded due process and crediting Sarte’s testimony. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA in toto and denied reconsideration. Yanez then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on March 14, 2013 reversed the NLRC: the CA held PAL failed to comply with Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act of 1995), particularly Section 4’s requirements to promulgate rules and create a committee following the law’s prescribed composition, and it noted the record lacked a copy of the PAL Code of Discipline provisions relied upon; the CA set aside the NLRC resolutions and ordered payment of salary and benefits for the suspension period. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision validating Yanez’s suspension?
- Was Yanez deprived of procedural due process in the administrative proceedings leading to his suspension?
- Did PAL comply with the procedural requirements of RA No. 7877, Section 4, in investigating the sexual harassment complaint and was the three‑month suspension a ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)