Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Manila Electric Company V NLRC, Signo GR 78763

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    Manila Electric Company terminated Apolinario Signo after 20 years of employment for facilitating an improper electrical connection for a customer located outside the company's service area. Signo received payment from the customer for his assistance. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in Signo's favor, finding that despite violating company policy, his long service and prior commendations warranted reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining that the state's interest in protecting citizens outweighed enforcing Signo's dismissal based solely on corporate interests.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Electric Company V NLRC, Signo GR 78763

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    66 views2 pages
    Manila Electric Company terminated Apolinario Signo after 20 years of employment for facilitating an improper electrical connection for a customer located outside the company's service area. Signo received payment from the customer for his assistance. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in Signo's favor, finding that despite violating company policy, his long service and prior commendations warranted reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining that the state's interest in protecting citizens outweighed enforcing Signo's dismissal based solely on corporate interests.

    Original Title

    Manila Electric Company v NLRC, Signo GR 78763

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Manila Electric Company terminated Apolinario Signo after 20 years of employment for facilitating an improper electrical connection for a customer located outside the company's service area. Signo received payment from the customer for his assistance. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in Signo's favor, finding that despite violating company policy, his long service and prior commendations warranted reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining that the state's interest in protecting citizens outweighed enforcing Signo's dismissal based solely on corporate interests.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Electric Company V NLRC, Signo GR 78763

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    Manila Electric Company terminated Apolinario Signo after 20 years of employment for facilitating an improper electrical connection for a customer located outside the company's service area. Signo received payment from the customer for his assistance. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in Signo's favor, finding that despite violating company policy, his long service and prior commendations warranted reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining that the state's interest in protecting citizens outweighed enforcing Signo's dismissal based solely on corporate interests.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Electric Company v NLRC, Signo

    GR 78763, July 12, 1989

    Medialdea, J.:

    FACTS:

    Respondent Apolinario M. Signo was an employee for 20 years of the petitioner company
    Manila Electric Co. from January 1963 until his termination on May 8, 1983.

    In 1981, a customer, Fernando De Lara filed for the electric services of the company at his
    residence located at Penafrancia Subdivision, Marcos Highway, Antipolo Rizal. Signo facilitated the
    processing of the application and its documentation, for his services De Lara paid Signo the amount of
    P7,000.00; after which Signo filed the application with the Power Sales Division of the company.

    De Lara’s residence was not within any serviceable reach of Meralco since the location was
    beyond the 30-meter distance from the nearest Meralco facility. A number of employees including Signo
    himself made it appear in the application that the sari-sari at the corner of Marcos Highway was De
    Lara’s establishment which was not; because of this the electrical connections were installed, however,
    due to the fault of the Power Sales Division of the company, De Lara was not billed for more than a year.

    The company investigated this irregularity and found that it was Signo who was the cause of it
    and was therefore, terminated on May 18,1983. On August 10, 1983, Signo filed for illegal dismissal,
    unpaid wages, and separation pay.

    On April 29, 1985, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Signo. On appeal, the NLRC
    denied their petition for lack of merit.

    Hence the current petition.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not Apolinarion M. Signo should be dismissed from Manila Electric Co. for serious
    misconduct and loss of trust and confidence?

    RULING:

    1. No. While Manila Electric Co. contends that Signo violated Section 6 and 7 of the company’s Code on
    Employee Discipline in which the penalty is Dismissal, the right of an employer to freely discharge his
    employees is subject to regulation by the State’s police power; the preservation of the lives of the
    citizens is a basic duty of the State than the preservation of corporate profits.

    The Labor Arbiter found that the dismissal should not be executed because of Signo’s 20 years of
    service, and that the company has awarded him 2 commendation for honesty.
    DISPOSTION:

    In its decision dated July 12, 1989, the courts dismiss the petition for certiorari and the assailed
    decision of the NLRC dated March 12, 1987 is affirmed.

    You might also like