Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Title: Meralco V Gala GR No.: 191288 & 191304

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    The Supreme Court ruled that Gala was not illegally dismissed from his probationary employment at Meralco. While Gala claimed no direct involvement in the pilferage of electrical supplies, the Court found that the totality of circumstances indicated his knowledge of and complicity in the incident, either through direct participation or inaction. As a probationary employee, Gala was required to observe transparency, selflessness, and integrity, and his failure to report the pilferage violated the terms of his employment agreement. Therefore, substantial evidence supported Meralco's decision not to retain Gala as a regular employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Title: Meralco V Gala GR No.: 191288 & 191304

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    45 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Gala was not illegally dismissed from his probationary employment at Meralco. While Gala claimed no direct involvement in the pilferage of electrical supplies, the Court found that the totality of circumstances indicated his knowledge of and complicity in the incident, either through direct participation or inaction. As a probationary employee, Gala was required to observe transparency, selflessness, and integrity, and his failure to report the pilferage violated the terms of his employment agreement. Therefore, substantial evidence supported Meralco's decision not to retain Gala as a regular employee.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Meralco v Gala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Gala was not illegally dismissed from his probationary employment at Meralco. While Gala claimed no direct involvement in the pilferage of electrical supplies, the Court found that the totality of circumstances indicated his knowledge of and complicity in the incident, either through direct participation or inaction. As a probationary employee, Gala was required to observe transparency, selflessness, and integrity, and his failure to report the pilferage violated the terms of his employment agreement. Therefore, substantial evidence supported Meralco's decision not to retain Gala as a regular employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    45 views2 pages

    Title: Meralco V Gala GR No.: 191288 & 191304

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    The Supreme Court ruled that Gala was not illegally dismissed from his probationary employment at Meralco. While Gala claimed no direct involvement in the pilferage of electrical supplies, the Court found that the totality of circumstances indicated his knowledge of and complicity in the incident, either through direct participation or inaction. As a probationary employee, Gala was required to observe transparency, selflessness, and integrity, and his failure to report the pilferage violated the terms of his employment agreement. Therefore, substantial evidence supported Meralco's decision not to retain Gala as a regular employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Title: Meralco v Gala GR No.

    : 191288 & 191304

    Ponente: Brion, J Date: February 29, 2012

    DOCTRINE: On the whole, the totality of the circumstances obtaining in the case convinces us
    that Gala could not but have knowledge of the pilferage of company electrical supplies on May
    25, 2006; he was complicit in its commission, if not by direct participation, certainly, by his
    inaction while it was being perpetrated and by not reporting the incident to company authorities.
    Thus, we find substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Gala does not deserve to remain
    in Meralco's employ as a regular employee. He violated his probationary employment agreement,
    especially the requirement for him "to observe at all times the highest degree of transparency,
    selflessness and integrity in the performance of their duties and responsibilities[.]"He failed to
    qualify as a regular employee. |||

    FACTS:

    On March 2, 2006, respondent Jan Carlo Gala commenced employment with the
    petitioner Meralco Electric Company (Meralco) as a probationary lineman. He was assigned
    at Meralco's Valenzuela Sector. He initially served as member of the crew of Meralco's Truck
    No. 1823 supervised by Foreman Narciso Matis. After one month, he joined the crew of Truck
    No. 1837 under the supervision of Foreman Raymundo Zuñiga, Sr.
    On July 27, 2006, barely four months on the job, Gala was dismissed for alleged
    complicity in pilferages of Meralco's electrical supplies, particularly, for the incident which took
    place on May 25, 2006. On that day, Gala and other Meralco workers were instructed to replace
    a worn-out electrical pole at the Pacheco Subdivision in Valenzuela City. Gala and the other
    linemen were directed to join Truck No. 1891, under the supervision of Foreman Nemecio
    Hipolito.
    Despite Gala's explanation, Meralco proceeded with the investigation and eventually
    terminated his employment on July 27, 2006. Gala responded by filing an illegal dismissal
    complaint against Meralco.|||
    In a decision dated September 7, 2007, 6 Labor Arbiter Teresita D. Castillon-Lora
    dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. She held that Gala's participation in the pilferage of
    Meralco's property rendered him unqualified to become a regular employee.
    In its decision of August 25, 2009, the CA denied Meralco's petition for lack of merit and
    partially granted Gala's petition. It concurred with the NLRC that Gala had been illegally
    dismissed, a ruling that was supported by the evidence. It opined that nothing in the records
    show Gala's knowledge of or complicity in the pilferage. It found insufficient the joint affidavit
    of the members of Meralco's task force testifying that Gala and two other linemen knew Llanes.

    MKMA
    ISSUE/S

    Whether or not Gala was illegally dismissed?

    RULING

    Gala insists that he cannot be sanctioned for the theft of company property on May 25, 2006. He
    maintains that he had no direct participation in the incident and that he was not aware that an
    illegal activity was going on as he was at some distance from the trucks when the alleged theft
    was being committed. He adds that he did not call the attention of the foremen because he was a
    mere lineman and he was focused on what he was doing at the time. He argues that in any event,
    his mere presence in the area was not enough to make him a conspirator in the commission of
    the pilferage.
    Gala misses the point. He forgets that as a probationary employee, his overall job performance
    and his behavior were being monitored and measured in accordance with the standards (i.e., the
    terms and conditions) laid down in his probationary employment agreement. Under paragraph 8
    of the agreement, he was subject to strict compliance with, and non-violation of the Company
    Code on Employee Discipline, Safety Code, rules and regulations and existing policies. Par. 10
    required him to observe at all times the highest degree of transparency, selflessness and integrity
    in the performance of his duties and responsibilities, free from any form of conflict or
    contradicting with his own personal interest.

    MISC DETAILS

    MKMA

    You might also like