Title
Maglutac vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 78345
Decision Date
Sep 21, 1990
Jose Maglutac, illegally dismissed by Commart, alleged vendetta over family whistleblowing. Court ruled dismissal unjust, awarded damages, held corporate officer liable despite insolvency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165622)

Employment Details and Dismissal

Jose M. Maglutac was employed by Commart (Phil.) Inc. in February 1980 and eventually became the Manager of Energy Equipment Sales. He received a notice of termination on October 3, 1984, which cited that his continued employment was not in the corporation's best interest. The termination notice asserted grounds for dismissal related to a lack of trust, and subsequently, Maglutac filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that his termination was linked to familial disputes involving the president of the company and fraudulent activities regarding company funds.

Labor Arbiter's Findings

The Labor Arbiter ruled on January 11, 1986, that Maglutac was illegally dismissed, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages, moral and exemplary damages. The Arbiter's decision emphasized that Maglutac's dismissal lacked just cause and due process, indicating that the true motives behind the termination were malicious and related to a vendetta against his family.

NLRC's Modification of Decision

In response to an appeal from Commart and Jesus T. Maglutac, the NLRC affirmed that Maglutac was illegally dismissed but deleted the awarded moral and exemplary damages, asserting that the individual respondent could not be held personally liable as he was considered a nominal party. The NLRC criticized the basis for the damage awards as lacking factual and legal support.

Motions for Reconsideration

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration regarding the NLRC's ruling. Jose M. Maglutac contested the deletion of the damage awards and the absolution of Jesus T. Maglutac from personal liability, while Commart argued against the finding of illegal dismissal, claiming it was due to actions detrimental to the company's interests.

Arguments Raised in Petitions

In G.R. No. 78345, Maglutac asserted that the NLRC abused its discretion by denying damages and excusing Jesus T. Maglutac from liability. Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 78637, Commart contested the reinstatement order and argued that the Labor Arbiter’s decision violated due process since it relied on Maglutac's position paper, which was not shared with them.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Damages

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of the dismissal to address the issue of damages. It noted that illegal dismissal warrants moral and exemplary damages under the Civil Code when accompanied by bad faith or malice, affirming the Labor Arbiter's characterization of the dismissal as having been motivated by personal vendetta. Given these factors, the Court ruled there was adequate basis for damages but reduced the amounts to P40,000 for moral damages and P10,000 for exemplary damages, rectifying what was seen as an excessive award.

Liability of Jesus T. Maglutac

The Court found that Jesus T. Maglutac should also be held jointly liable with Commart due to his active role in the dismissal and his position as the highest-ranking officer of the company. This aligned with previous rulings establishing that corporate officers can be held liable for employees' termination when it is found to be improper or unlawful.

Procedural Considerations

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.