G.R. No. 127444 - People vs. Velasco

Pulido was hired on January 10, 1991, as a proofreader and earned a monthly basic salary of P15,493.66, plus longevity pay and other benefits provided under law and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
In February 2003, as union president, she sent two letters to President Gloria Arroyo concerning alleged mismanagement by PIJ executives.
In May 2003, a letter from Secretary Silvestre Afable, Jr. (head of the Presidential Management Staff) was served to the union endorsing their complaint.
Respondents initiated a series of disciplinary measures against her:

On May 30, 2003, she received a memorandum concerning her attendance record.
On June 6, 2003, she received another memo – this time directly reprimanding her for various work-related lapses (including tardiness and alleged grammatical errors) and warning of stricter consequences for future violations.
On July 4, 2003, she was again reprimanded for not wearing her company ID, with her reply submitted on July 5, 2003.
On August 4, 2003, she received a memo regarding her habitual tardiness noted over a specified period.
On August 5, 2003, she was asked to explain why she should not be accused of fraud – a memo which she replied to on August 7, 2003.

On August 7, 2003, between 3:00 to 4:00 P.M., Pulido was handed her termination papers by a member of the HRD staff, Ernesto Estonga San Agustin.
Pulido contended that in her 13 years with the company she never had any prior disciplinary issue and that her dismissal was in retaliation for her union activities.

Alfante started work on May 16, 2000, as a computer technician at the Management Information System under manager Neri Torrecampo and was regularized on July 15, 2001, receiving a monthly salary of P9,070.00 plus other benefits.
Later in 2001, when Rico Pagkalinawan replaced Torrecampo, Alfante and three other co-employees raised objections, which allegedly offended the new manager.
On October 22, 2002, Alfante received a memo concerning his alleged excessive tardiness.
On June 10, 2003, he was directed by Executive Vice-President Arnold Banares to explain his performance following an evaluation by his superior.
One week after his explanation was submitted, he was given notice of his dismissal on the ground of poor performance, made effective on July 28, 2003, which Alfante contested as unjust and claimed he was dismissed without just cause.

The Labor Arbiter, Corazon C. Borbolla, rendered a decision on March 29, 2006, finding Pulido was illegally dismissed; she was ordered reinstated with backwages, and issues of unfair labor practices and alleged monetary claims were addressed as to her case.
Pulido subsequently manifested to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that the decision had been fully satisfied per an agreement (including reinstatement, maternity leave, monetary backwages, and execution of a quitclaim).
Michael Alfante’s claim was partially appealed by him and his labor organization, the Journal Employees Union (JEU), before the NLRC, but on January 31, 2007, his appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Subsequent filings for reconsideration by JEU and Alfante were denied by the NLRC on April 24, 2007.
The case then advanced to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on February 5, 2010, modified earlier NLRC resolutions by granting, subject to conclusive evidence of the deceased being a parent, the funeral or bereavement aid claim; the rest of the factual and legal findings were affirmed.
JEU and Alfante appealed to the Court in G.R. No. 192478 and later moved for reconsideration, which were both ultimately denied by the Court in subsequent rulings.
Separately, petitioner Philippine Journalists, Inc. raised a petition for review in G.R. No. 192601 regarding its denial of claims for funeral and bereavement aid as provided under Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA.

Whether or not petitioner’s denial of the claim for funeral and bereavement aid, as stipulated under Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA, constitutes a diminution of benefits in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.

The discussion of earlier claims relating to dismissal, non-payment of rest days, and alleged breach of Minimum Wage Order No. 9 has been rendered moot by the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 192478.