G.R. No. 82511 March 1992 (Globe-Mackay Cable And Radio Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission and Imelda Salazar Flashcards Preview

Stat Con Cases > G.R. No. 82511 March 1992 (Globe-Mackay Cable And Radio Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission and Imelda Salazar > Flashcards

Flashcards in G.R. No. 82511 March 1992 (Globe-Mackay Cable And Radio Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission and Imelda Salazar Deck (18):
1

Who employed the private respondent as general system analyst?

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMCR)

2

Who is the petitioner?

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMCR)

3

Who was hired as manager for technical operations' support?

Delfin Saldivar

4

What prompted GMCR to investigate Saldivar?

The company's equipment and spare parts were missing.

5

Who prepared the investigation report?

Mr. Agustin Maramara, company's internal auditor.

6

What are the findings of the report by Mr. Agustin Maramara?

The report indicated that Saldivar had entered into partnership with Richard Yambao, owner and manager of Elecon Engineering Services (Elecon).

It also indicated that Saldivar had taken the petitioner's missing Fedders airconditioning unit for his personal use without authorization. Yambao and Saldivar connived to defraud GMCR of its property.

7

Was the airconditioning unit recovered?

Yes after the petitioner filed an action for replevin against Saldivar.

8

How was Imelda Salazar got involved?

Salazar violated the company's regulation by involving herself in the transactions in conflict with the company's interest.

She signed as a witness of the Yambao-Saldivar partnership.

She also have full knowledge of the missing airconditioner but failed to inform her employer.

9

What did the petitioner do upon knowing Salazar was involved in the?

The company placed Salazar under preventive suspension for one month. This gives her 30 days to explain her side.

10

What did Salazar do in response to the preventive suspension?

She filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal suspension.

The complaint was also ammended to include illegal dismissal, vacation and sick leave benefits, 13th month pay and damages.

The complainant was considered dismissed (in view of her inability to refute and disprove these findings).

11

What was the decision of the Labor Arbiter after the due hearing?

The Labor Arbiter ordered the following:
(1) reinstate Salazar to her former or equivalent position
(2) pay Salazar's full backwages and other benefits she would have received (if not for the illegal dismissal)
(3) pay Salazar for the moral damages (P50,000.00)

12

What did the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) do in their resolution?

They affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with respect to the reinstatement but limited the backwages to a period of two years and deleted the award for moral damages.

13

What was the issue of this case?

Whether or not NLRC commited grave abuse of discretion in holding that the suspension and subsequent dismissal of Salazar were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement with two (2) years backwages.

14

Who is the private respondent?

Imelda Salazar

15

What was the decision of the Court?

NLRC resolution was affirmed.

16

What is the doctrine learned on this case?

If the language of the statute is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a single, definite and sensible meaning, that meaning which the legislature intended to convey.

17

What is the meaning of verba legis?

In english it means "plain meaning rule."

18

What was the law say about this case?

Article 279 of the Labor Code:

"An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement."