Schering Employees Labor Union vs. Schering Plough Corporation

SCHERING EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION VS.
SCHERING PLOUGH CORPORATION

451 SCRA 689
FEBRUARY 17, 2005
J. SANDOVAL-GUTTIEREZ
Petitioners: Schering Employees Labor Union and Lucia P. Sereneo

Respondents: Schering Plough Corporation, Epitacio Titong, Jr., Jose L. Estingor,
Danny T. Yu, Leo Loquinario and Roberto Tada
FACTS:
 (January 1977) petitioner Lucia P. Sereneo was employed as a professional
medical representative by respondent company. Eventually, she became a field
sales training manager with a monthly salary of P22,200.00.
 She received several awards from respondent in recognition of her remarkable
marketing excellence.
 When she was elected president of SELU and started the re-negotiation with
respondent company on the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), respondents
suddenly became dissatisfied with her sales performance.
◦ company sent her a notice asking her to submit an explanation why she failed
to implement marketing projects.
◦ she was required to comment on the complaint charging her with
misappropriation of company funds, falsification and tampering of company
records, and submission of false reports.
 Thus, petitioner SELU filed a notice of strike on the grounds of unfair labor
practice and union busting with the to file with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB), which was denied.
 Subsequently, respondents terminated petitioner's services for loss of trust and
confidence.
Petitioner: complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal filed
Respondent claims:
 being a professional medical representative, petitioner performed various
functions to ensure a profitable sale of its pharmaceutical products. (ie visiting
hospitals and physicians concerned; preparing and submitting periodic reports of
her call visits to various doctors, itinerary, and expenses. )
 she failed to perform these duties. Thus she is charged with willful violation of
company rules and regulations, and directed to submit a written explanation.
 But she refused to submit her explanation, prompting respondents to evaluate
her records.
 They found her guilty of dishonesty, willful breach of trust and willful
disobedience.
LA: respondents guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing petitioner Sereneo illegally
and ordering them (1) to reinstate her to her former position of medical representative
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and (2) to pay her, jointly and
severally, backwages and attorney’s fee equivalent to 10% of the monetary awards,
thus:
NLRC: reversed the Arbiter’s Decision and dismissing petitioner Sereneo’s complaint.
MR: denied.
CA: affirmed NLRC decision.

 no trace at all of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent
Commission.
 Re: the issue of willful disobedience to a lawful order, records also disclosed that
despite two (2) memos issued by the respondent to the complainant, the latter
never bothered to answer nor explain her side to the former.
 Such reaction, however, in the light of what we perceived as lack of substantial
evidence to warrant a finding of unfair labor practice only gives an impression
that complainant had indeed been remised in her duties.
 Re: the claim of denial of due process should not have escaped the Labor
Arbiter’s judicious eyes had he been more prudent. The records clearly show that
complainant was accorded the right to be heard as she was given ample time to
explain and answer the charges against her but opted not to on account of the
mistaken notion that to do so would only be an exercise in futility.
 Court rejects the contention of petition that the decision of respondent NLRC is
null and void because it was prepared by only two Commissioners. Sec. 4 (b),
Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission1. Whenever the required membership in a Division is not complete
and the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or
resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of
additional Commissioners from the other Divisions as may be necessary from the
same sector.’
MR: Denied.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Sereneo was illegally dismissed from employment.
HELD:
NO. After a close review of the records, we sustain the findings of the NLRC,
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that she falsified company call cards by altering
the dates of her actual visits to physicians. On August 27, 1997, she was found
guilty of misappropriation of company funds by falsifying food receipts. These
infractions show that she is dishonest. Clearly, she breached the trust reposed in
her by respondents.
1‘The presence of at least two (2) Commissioners of a Division shall constitute a quorum to decide any case/matter before it. The concurrence of two (2)
Commissioners of a Division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or resolution.
 Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, fraud or willful breach by the
employee of trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative is a ground for terminating an employment. Petitioners’ accusation
of union busting is bereft of any proof. We scanned the records very carefully and
failed to discern any evidence to sustain such charge.
 (Tiu vs. NLRC):. It is the union, therefore, who had the burden of proof to present
substantial evidence to support its allegations (of unfair labor practices
committed by management). It is not enough that the union believed that the
employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly
negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief."
DECISION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated

December 10, 1999 and Resolution dated March 14, 2000 of the Court of Appealsare
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

Schering Employees Labor Union vs. Schering Plough Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schering Employees Labor Union vs. Schering Plough Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schering Employees Labor Union vs. Schering Plough Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHERING EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION VS.

SCHERING PLOUGH CORPORATION

Petitioners: Schering Employees Labor Union and Lucia P. Sereneo

CA: affirmed NLRC decision.

ISSUE: WON petitioner Sereneo was illegally dismissed from employment.

DECISION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated

You might also like