Title
Tanala vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 116588
Decision Date
Jan 24, 1996
The Supreme Court rules in favor of dismissed service driver Tanala, ordering his reinstatement with back wages and granting him separation pay due to illegal dismissal.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116588)

Facts:

  • Primo T. Tanala filed a case against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Diana S. Ochoa, and Via Mare Catering Services.
  • The incident occurred on November 9, 1992, when Tanala, a service driver, had a confrontation with co-employee Rodolfo Laurente after work hours at a nearby restaurant in Makati.
  • A security guard reported the altercation, leading to both employees being placed under preventive suspension for thirty days starting December 4, 1992.
  • Tanala filed a complaint on December 28, 1992, alleging illegal suspension, non-payment of allowances, separation pay, and retirement benefits.
  • After his suspension, Tanala was not allowed to return to work, prompting him to file an amended complaint for illegal dismissal on February 26, 1993.
  • He argued that the altercation occurred outside work hours and premises, making the suspension and dismissal unjust.
  • The company claimed the suspension was precautionary and justified by Tanala's alleged possession of a knife, violating company rules.
  • The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tanala, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages, but denied other monetary claims.
  • The NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing Tanala's complaint for lack of merit.
  • Tanala's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 28, 1994, leading him to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's decision but modified it to grant Tanala separation pay equivalent to one month of his latest salary for every year of service, along with an indemn...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court found the NLRC's reliance on the security guard's report, indicating Tanala had taken a knife from his bag inside the company garage, justified.
  • Positive testimony, such as that of the security guard, is given more weight than negative testimony, which merely states a lack of observation.
  • The Court acknowledged that while company rules are generally valid, the incident's circumstances—occurring outside company...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.