ACESITE CORPORATION, HOLIDAY INN, JOHANN ANGERBAUER and  May 2: Leo’s father Anacleto sends Acesite a telegram notifying

o sends Acesite a telegram notifying the latter that

PHIL KENNEDY vs. NLRC (Second Division) and LEO A. GONZALES Leo was still recovering from severe stomach disorder and would report back for
work two days after.
o A medical certificate is issued to prove that he had been treated for
LEO A. GONZALES, vs. such sickness.
ACESITE (PHILIPPINES) HOTEL CORPORATION,  May 4: He reports for work and presents himself to Johann Angerbauer, then
HOLIDAY INN MANILA, JOHANN ANGERBAUER and PHIL KENNEDY Resident Manager of the hotel.
o Johann claims that Leo’s explanation for his April 30 and May 1
January 26, 2005| Carpio-Morales, J. | fringe benefits absences despite orders to report back to work it that he had to go
Santiago, Senando Angelo home to Abra.
o Leo claims that Johann had provisionally approved his request for
SUMMARY: Leo A. Gonzales used to be the Head of Security of Holiday Inn absence without pay from May 5-9
Manila until his illegal dismissal. Relevant to the topic in class, the CA, in awarding  On the condition that Leo send his explanation via email.
backwages to Gonzales, deletes the award of fringe benefits. The Court holds that  May 4. 5:33 PM: Leo sends an explanation via email.
that is not in accord with law and jurisprudence. o In addition, he said he had to go to Abra that night.
DOCTRINE: ART. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE.·In cases of regular  May 4. 7:55 PM: Security staff receive an interoffice memo to Leo from Johann
employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for notifying him of another meeting the next day “regarding the turnover of the
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed outgoing Security Agency” and that he expects Leo’s presence during said
from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other meeting.
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other o Leo claims he belatedly got hold of a copy on May 8.
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was  May 5: With Leo being absent, Johann sent Leo’s Abra address a telegram, their
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. “final advice” for him to report back to work due to very urgent matters regarding
work that needed his personal attention.
FACTS: o Leo claims to have received it only on the afternoon of May 7.
 1993. Oct. 18: Leo Gonzales is hired as Chief of Security of Manila Pavillion  May 7: Johann, through an inter-office memo, a notice of termination, dismissing
Hotel. Leo’s services on the ground of violation of company rules, as well as willful
 1995. January 1: The hotel is renamed Holiday Inn Manila and Leo is retained in disobedience.
his post when Acesite takes over the operations.  May 8: On Leo’s return to work, he was “humiliatingly and ignominiously barred
 1998: Leo takes leave from work for the following dates: by the guard from entering the premises.”
o March 25-28: four-day sick leave  May 27: Leo files a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was dismissed for his
o March 30: emergency leave failure to appear in 2 consecutive hearings despite notice.
o April 16-29: 12-day vacation leave.  September 17: He re-files his complaint.
 April 23 or 27: However, before the expiry of the 12-day VL, he files an
application for 10 days from April 30-May 13. LA: Complaint dismissed for lack of merit. Leo was validly terminated.
o This time, however, his leave is not approved.
o Acesite claims to have telegrammed him notifying him of the NLRC: Leo was illegally terminated. Leo to be reinstated. Backwages to be paid,
disapproval and asking him to report back for work on April 30. inclusive of all his other fringe benefits or their monetary equivalent; damages and
 Leo claims he received it late; hence his April 30 absence. attorney’s fees due him.
 April 30: Leo does not report for work.
o He receives a telegram advising him that he is on unauthorized CA: NLRC affirmed with modification. Leo to be reinstated or separation pay may be
leave and asking him to provide a written explanation within the given in lieu of reinstatement; full backwages, damages and attorney’s fees to be paid
next 24 hours why he was not reporting for work. him.
o Moreover, he is required to report for work on May 1.  This time, however, fringe benefits were deleted.
RULING: CA decision modified. Complaint against Angerbauer and Phil Kennery o It should be noted that Acesite’s ground for terminating the services of
dismissed. Acesite to pay Leo: Gonzales as stated in the Notice of Termination is his alleged acts of
a) his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and his other benefits or their insubordination/disobedience—not loss of trust and confidence
monetary equivalent, to be computed from the time he was illegally  With regard to Gonzales’ perceived feigning of illness, the same is purely
dismissed until the finality of this Decision less 3 days in view of his speculatory.
suspension;  If there is anything that Gonzales can be faulted for, it is his being too
b) separation pay equivalent to his 1 month salary for every year of service presumptuous that his application for leave would be approved.
computed from the time Gonzales was first employed by Acesite until the o For Leo’s unauthorized absences, the Court finds that he violated
finality of this Decision; company rules.
c) P10,000 as attorney’s fees.
Whether the CA was correct in giving Acesite the choice to reinstate him or pay
Whether the CA was correct in deleting “fringe benefits or their monetary him separation pay instead.—NO.
equivalent.”—NO.  The principle of “strained relations” may be invoked against employees:
 This is not in accord with law and jurisprudence. o whose positions demand trust and confidence, or
 ART. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE.·In cases of regular employment, the o whose differences with their employer are of such nature or degree as
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for just cause or to preclude reinstatement.
when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work  It cannot be gainsaid that Leo’s position is one of trust and confidence, he being
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other in charge of the over-all security of said hotel.
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other o Thus, reinstatement is no longer possible.
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis and
Whether moral and exemplary damages are warranted—NO.
italics supplied)
 Leo has not sufficiently proven the grounds for granting him either damage.
*Digester’s note: Do take notice of conjunction “and”, connecting backwages and
other benefits.
Whether Johann & Phil, Leo’s superiors are solidarily liable with Acesite.—
*Also bear in mind a finding of illegal dismissal, as in this case, should be had before
NO.
backwages and fringe benefits are awarded.
 Bogo-Medellin Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. v. NLRC: Unless they have
(Other issues the court discussed.) exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not personally
Whether Leo was illegally dismissed—YES. liable for their official acts. X x x In cases of illegal dismissal, corporate
directors and officers are solidarily liable with the corporation, where
 There was no just cause to dismiss Leo from employment on the ground of
terminations of employment are done with malice or in bad faith.
willful disobedience.
 Bad faith or malice was not proven.
 His assailed conduct has not been shown to have been characterized by a
perverse attitude, hence the first requisite needed to validly terminate under this  Johann, acting on behalf of Acesite, was, like Leo, perhaps also too
ground is wanting. presumptuous in thinking that the telegrams ordering the latter to report for work
o His receipt of the telegram disapproving his application for emergency were all received on time, drawing him to hastily conclude that Leo intentionally
disobeyed the orders contained therein.
leave starting April 30, 1998 has not been shown. And it cannot be said
that he disobeyed the May 5, 1998 telegram since he received it only on
May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he immediately went back to Manila
upon receipt thereof negates a perverse attitude.
 As to his alleged concealment of his candidacy (for provincial board member) as
a ground for Acesite’s loss of trust and confidence in him, the same is not
impressed with merit. This is a mere afterthought to further justify his illegal
dismissal