10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 701

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

*
G.R. No. 82511. March 3, 1992.

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION,

petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and IMELDA SALAZAR, respondents.

Labor Laws; Preventive suspension.—On the matter of

preventive suspension, we find for petitioner GMCR. The
investigative findings of Mr. Maramara, which pointed to Delfin
Saldivar’s acts in conflict with his position as technical operations
manager, necessitated immediate and decisive action on any
employee closely associated with Saldivar. The suspension of
Salazar was further impelled by the discovery of the missing
Fedders airconditioning unit inside the apartment private
respondent shared with Saldivar. Under such circumstances,
preventive suspension was the proper remedial recourse available
to the company pending Salazar’s investigation. By itself,
preventive suspension does not signify that the company has
adjudged the employee guilty of the charges she was asked to
answer and explain. Such disciplinary measure is resorted to for
the protection of the company’s property pending investigation of
any alleged

_______________

* EN BANC.

702

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee.

Same; Dismissals; Employees illegally dismissed entitled to

reinstatement and full backwages.—To go back to the instant
case, there being no evidence to show an authorized, much less a
legal, cause for the dismissal of private respondent, she had every
right, not only to be entitled to reinstatement, but as well, to full
backwages. The intendment of the law in prescribing the twin
remedies of reinstatement and payment of backwages is, in the
former, to restore the dismissed employee to her status before she
lost her job, for the dictionary meaning of the word “reinstate” is
“to restore to a state, condition, position, etc. from which one had
been removed” and in the latter, to give her back the income lost
during the period of unemployment. Both remedies, looking to the
past, would perforce make her “whole.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

Same; Same; Statutory construction; “Plain-meaning” rule.—

In the case at bar, the law is on the side of private respondent. In
the first place, the wording of the Labor Code is clear and
unambiguous: “An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement . . . and to his full backwages . .
.” Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is
clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This
plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index
animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the
valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a
statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court
from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to
know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly,
and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are
found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the
words of a statute there should be no departure. Neither does the
provision admit of any qualification. If in the wisdom of the Court,
there may be a ground or grounds for non-application of the
above-cited provision, this should be by way of exception, such as
when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing
strained relations between the employer and the employee. In
such cases, it should be proved that the employee concerned
occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his
employer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of
antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely
affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.

703

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 703

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

Same; Same; Principle of “strained relations”.—Obviously, the

principle of “strained relations” cannot be applied
indiscriminately. Otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible
simply because some hostility is invariably engendered between
the parties as a result of litigation. That is human nature.
Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal
act of asserting one’s right; otherwise an employee who shall
assert his right could be easily separated from the service, by
merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that his
relationship with his employer had already become strained.
Here, it has not been proved that the position of private
respondent as systems analyst is one that may be characterized
as a position of trust and confidence such that if reinstated, it
may well lead to strained relations between employer and
employee. Hence, this does not constitute an exception to the
general rule mandating reinstatement for an employee who has
been unlawfully dismissed.

PETITION for review from the resolution of the National

Labor Relations Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Castillo, Laman, Tan & Pantaleon for petitioner.
     Gerardo S. Alansalon for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

For private respondent Imelda L. Salazar, it would seem

that her close association with Delfin Saldivar would mean
the loss of her job. In May 1982, private respondent was
employed by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation
(GMCR) as general systems analyst. Also employed by
petitioner as manager for technical operations’ support was
Delfin Saldivar with whom private respondent was
allegedly very close.
Sometime in 1984, petitioner GMCR, prompted by
reports that company equipment and spare parts worth
thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were
missing, caused the investigation of the latter’s activities.
The report dated September 25, 1984 prepared by the
company’s internal auditor, Mr. Agustin Maramara,
indicated that Saldivar had entered into a partnership
styled Concave Commercial and Industrial Company with
Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of Elecon
Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier of petitioner

704

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

often recommended by Saldivar. The report also disclosed

that Saldivar had taken petitioner’s missing Fedders
airconditioning unit for his own personal use without
authorization and also connived with Yambao to defraud
petitioner of its property. The airconditioner was recovered
only after petitioner
1
GMCR filed an action for replevin
against Saldivar.
It likewise appeared in the course of Maramara’s
investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company
regulations by involving herself in transactions conflicting
with the company’s interests. Evidence showed that she
signed as a witness to the articles of partnership between
Yambao and Saldivar. It also appeared that she had full
knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of the Fedders
airconditioner but failed to inform her employer.
Consequently, in a letter dated October 8, 1984,
petitioner company placed private respondent Salazar
under preventive suspension for one (1) month, effective
October 9, 1984, thus giving her thirty (30) days within
which to explain her side. But instead of submitting an
explanation, three (3) days later or on October 12, 1984,
private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for
illegal suspension, which she subsequently amended to
include illegal dismissal, vacation and sick leave benefits,
13th month pay and damages, after petitioner notified her
in writing that effective November 8, 1984, she was
considered dismissed “in view 2
of (her) inability to refute
and disprove these findings.”
After due hearing, the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated
July 16, 1985, ordered petitioner company to reinstate
private respondent to her former or equivalent position and
to pay her full backwages and other benefits she would
have received were it not for the illegal dismissal.
Petitioner was also ordered3 to pay private respondent
moral damages of P50,000.00.
On appeal, public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission in the questioned resolution dated December

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

29, 1987 affirmed the aforesaid decision with respect to the

reinstate-

_______________

1 Records, pp. 34-43.

2 Records, p. 22.
3 Ibid, p. 121.

705

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 705

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

ment of private respondent but limited the backwages to a

period of 4 two (2) years and deleted the award for moral
damages.
Hence, this petition assailing the Labor Tribunal for
having committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that
the suspension and subsequent dismissal of private
respondent were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement
with two (2) years’ backwages.
On the matter of preventive suspension, we find for
petitioner GMCR.
The investigative findings of Mr. Maramara, which
pointed to Delfin Saldivar’s acts in conflict with his position
as technical operations manager, necessitated immediate
and decisive action on any employee closely associated with
Saldivar. The suspension of Salazar was further impelled
by the discovery of the missing Fedders airconditioning
unit inside the apartment private respondent shared with
Saldivar. Under such circumstances, preventive suspension
was the proper remedial recourse available to the company
pending Salazar’s investigation. By itself, preventive
suspension does not signify that the company has adjudged
the employee guilty of the charges she was asked to answer
and explain. Such disciplinary measure is resorted to for
the protection of the company’s property pending
investigation of any alleged 5
malfeasance or misfeasance
committed by the employee.
Thus, it is not correct to conclude that petitioner GMCR
had violated Salazar’s right to due process when she was
promptly suspended. If at all, the fault lay with private
respondent when she ignored petitioner’s memorandum of
October 8, 1984 “giving her ample opportunity to present
(her) side to the Management.” Instead, she went directly
to the Labor Department and filed her complaint for illegal
suspension without giving her employer a chance to
evaluate her side of the controversy.
But while we agree with the propriety of Salazar’s
preventive suspension, we hold that her eventual
separation from employ-

_______________

4 Rollo, p. 149.
5 Soriano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75510, October 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 124.

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

ment was not for cause.

What is the remedy in law to rectify an unlawful
dismissal so as to “make whole” the victim who has not
merely lost her job which, under settled jurisprudence, is a
property right of which a person is not to be deprived
without due process, but also the compensation that should
have accrued to her during the period when she was
unemployed?
Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

“Security of Tenure.—In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except
for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. 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 6
withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.” (Italics supplied)

Corollary thereto are the following provisions of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code:

“Sec. 2. Security of Tenure.—In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except
for a just cause as provided in the Labor Code or when authorized
by existing laws.
Sec. 3. Reinstatement.—An employee who is unjustly dismissed
from work shall be entitled to 7reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and to backwages.” (Italics supplied)

Before proceeding any further, it needs must be recalled

that the present Constitution has gone further than the
1973 Charter in guaranteeing vital social and economic
rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor.
Given the pro-poor orientation of several articulate
Commissioners of the Constitutional Commission of 1986,
it was not surprising that a whole new Article emerged on
Social Justice and Human Rights

_______________

6 Pres. Decree No. 442, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715.

7 LABOR CODE (1991), Book VI, Rule 1, Secs. 2 and 3.

707

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 707

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

designed, among other things, to “protect and enhance the

right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably8 diffusing wealth and political power
for the common good.”
Proof of the priority accorded to labor is that it leads the
other areas of concern in the Article on Social Justice, viz.,
Labor ranks ahead of such topics as Agrarian and Natural
Resources Reform, Urban Land Reform and Housing,
Health, Women, Role 9
and Rights of People’s Organizations
and Human Rights.
The opening paragraphs on Labor state:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes 10
affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law.” (Italics mine)

Compare this with the sole provision on Labor in the 1973

Constitution under the Article on Declaration of Principles
and State Policies that provides:

“Sec. 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full

employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The State shall ensure
the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions
11
of work. The
State may provide for compulsory arbitration.”

To be sure, both Charters recognize “security of tenure” as

_______________

8 CONST., Art. XIII, Sec. 1, par. (1).

9 CONST., Art. XIII.
10 CONST., Art. XIII, Sec. 3, pars. (1) and (2).
11 CONST. (1973), Art. II, Sec. 9.

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

one of the rights of labor which the State is mandated to

protect. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the intent
of the framers of the present Constitution was to give
primacy to the rights of labor and afford the sector “full
protection,” at least greater protection than heretofore
accorded them, regardless of the geographical location of
the workers and whether they are organized or not.
It was then CONCOM Commissioner, now Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., who substantially contributed to the
present formulation of the protection to labor provision and
proposed that the same be incorporated in the Article on
Social Justice and not just in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies “in the light of the special
importance that we are giving now to social justice and the
necessity of emphasizing the12
scope and role of social justice
in national development.”
If we have taken pains to delve into the background of
the labor provisions in our Constitution and the Labor
Code, it is but to stress that the right of an employee not to
be dismissed from his job except for a just or authorized
cause provided by law has assumed greater importance
under the 1987 Constitution with the singular prominence
labor enjoys under the article on Social Justice. And this
transcendent policy has been translated into law in the
Labor Code. Under its terms, where a case of unlawful or
unauthorized dismissal has been proved by the aggrieved
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

employee, or on the other hand, the employer whose duty it

is to prove the lawfulness or justness of his act of dismissal
has failed to do so, then the remedies provided in Article
279 should find application. Consonant with this
liberalized stance vis-a-vis labor, the legislature even went
further by enacting Republic Act No. 6715 which took effect
on March 2, 1989 that amended said Article to remove any
possible ambiguity that jurisprudence may have generated
which watered down 13the constitutional intent to grant to
labor “full protection.”

_______________

12 CONCOM Record, Vol. 2, p. 681.

13 The following provision on security of tenure is embodied in Article
279, Labor Code, reproduced herein but with the amendments inserted by
Republic Act No. 6715 approved on March 2, 1989 in bold type:

709

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 709

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

To go back to the instant case, there being no evidence to

show an authorized, much less a legal, cause for the
dismissal of private respondent, she had every right, not
only to be 14entitled to reinstatement, but as well, to full
backwages.
The intendment of the law in prescribing the twin
remedies of reinstatement and payment of backwages is, in
the former, to restore the dismissed employee to her status
before she lost her job, for the dictionary meaning of the
word “reinstate” is “to restore to a state,15condition, position,
etc. from which one had been removed” and in the latter,
to give her back the income lost during the period of
unemployment. Both remedies, looking to the past, would
perforce make her “whole.”
Sadly, the avowed intent of the law has at times been
thwarted when reinstatement has not been forthcoming
and the hapless dismissed employee finds himself on the
outside looking in.
Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by
the Court for denying reinstatement under the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto; that reinstatement can
no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time (22
years of 16litigation) or because of the realities of the
situation;17 or that it would be “inimical to the employer’s
interest;” or that rein-

_______________

“In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of
an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. 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.”

14 The application of Article 279 is illustrated in the following cases:

Santos Salao v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90786, September 21, 1991; Morales v.
NLRC, G.R. 91501, August 2, 1990, 188 SCRA 295; Carandang v. Dulay,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

G.R. 90492, July 30, 1990, 188 SCRA 792; and Santos v. NLRC, No.
76721, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 166.
15 Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary.
16 Balaquezon EWTU v. Zamora, Nos. L-46766-7, April 1, 1980, 97
SCRA 5.
17 San Miguel Corporation v. Deputy Minister of Labor and
Employment, No. 58927, October 27, 1986, 145 SCRA 204.

710

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

18
statement may no longer be feasible; or, that 19
it will not
serve the best interests of the parties involved; or that the
company would 20
be prejudiced by the workers’ continued
employment; or that it will not serve any prudent purpose
as when supervening facts have transpired which 21
make
execution on that score unjust or inequitable or, to an
increasing extent, due to the resultant atmosphere of
“antipathy and antagonism” or “strained relations” or
“irretrievable
22
estrangement” between the employer and the
employee.
In lieu of reinstatement, the Court has variously23
ordered
the payment of24 backwages and separation pay or solely
separation pay.

_______________

18 Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation v. Pagalibuan, G.R. 62909,

April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 404.
19 Century Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, No. 77859, May 25, 1988, 161
SCRA 528.
20 Gubac v. NLRC, G.R. No. 81946, July 13, 1990, 187 SCRA 412.
21 Sealand Service, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90500, October 5, 1990, 190
SCRA 347.
22 Commercial Motors Corporation v. Commissioners, G.R. No. 74762,
December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 191; De Vera v. NLRC, G.R. No. 93212,
November 22, 1990, 191 SCRA 632; Orcino v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 92869, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 815; Maglutac v.
NLRC/Conmart v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78637, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA
767; Carandang v. Dulay, G.R. No. 90942, August 20, 1990, 188 SCRA
792; Esmalin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67880, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA
537; Fernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 84302, August 10, 1989, 176 SCRA
269; Quezon Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 79718-22, April 12,
1989, 172 SCRA 88; Bautista v. Inciong, No. 52824, March 16, 1988, 158
SCRA 665; Citytrust Finance Corp. v. NLRC, No. 75740, January 15,
1988, 157 SCRA 87; Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. v. Ople, No. 56398,
July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 219; and Divine Word High School v. NLRC, No.
72207, August 6, 1986, 143 SCRA 346.
23 Chua Qua v. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 117;
Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86000,
September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 811; ALU v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 83886-87,
September 20, 1990, 189 SCRA 743; and Pizza Inn v. NLRC, No. 74531,
June 28, 1988, 162 SCRA 773.
24 Maglutac v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78345, September 21, 1990, 189

711

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 711

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

In the case at bar, the law is on the side of private

respondent. In the first place, the wording of the Labor
Code is clear and unambiguous: “An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled 25
to
reinstatement . . . and to his full backwages . . .” Under
the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear,
plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
This plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the
maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of
intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words
employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express
its intent or
26
will and preclude the court from construing it
differently. The legislature is presumed to know the
meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to
have expressed its intent
27
by the use of such words as are
found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or
from the words of a statute there should be no departure.
Neither does the provision admit of any qualification. If in
the wisdom of the Court, there may be a ground or grounds
for non-application of the above-cited provision, this should
be by way of exception, such as when the reinstatement
may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations
between the employer and the employee.
In such cases, it should be proved that the employee
concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and
confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if
reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism
may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and
productivity of the employee concerned.
A few examples will suffice to illustrate the Court’s
applica-

SCRA 767; Conmart v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78637, 189 SCRA 767; De Vera
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 93212, November 22, 1990, 191 SCRA 632; Commercial
Motors Corp. v. Commissioners, G.R. No. 74762, December 10, 1990, 192
SCRA 191; Sealand Service, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90500, October 5,
1990, 190 SCRA 347.
25 LABOR CODE, Art. 279.
26 R. AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, p. 94 (1990).
27 Aparri v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 30057, January 31, 1984, 231
SCRA 241.

712

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

tion of the above principle: where the employee is a Vice-

President for Marketing and as such, 28
enjoys the full trust
and confidence of top management; or is the Officer-In- 29
Charge of the extension office of the bank where he works;
or is an organizer of a union who was in a position to
sabotage the union’s efforts to organize the 30workers in
commercial and industrial establishments; or is a
warehouseman of a non-profit organization whose primary
purpose is to facilitate and maximize voluntary gifts by 31
foreign individuals and organizations to the Philippines;
32
or is a manager of its Energy Equipment Sales.
Obviously, the principle of “strained relations” cannot be
applied indiscriminately. Otherwise, reinstatement can
never be possible simply because some hostility is
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

invariably engendered between 33the parties as a result of

litigation. That is human nature.
Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid
and legal act of asserting one’s right; otherwise an
employee who shall assert his right could be easily
separated from the service, by merely paying his
separation pay on the pretext that his relationship
34
with his
employer had already become strained.
Here, it has not been proved that the position of private
respondent as systems analyst is one that may be
characterized as a position of trust and confidence such
that if reinstated, it may well lead to strained relations
between employer and employee. Hence, this does not
constitute an exception to the

_______________

28 Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. v. Ople, No. 56393, July 23, 1987,
152 SCRA 219.
29 Citytrust Finance Corp. v. NLRC, No. 75740, January 15, 1988, 157
SCRA 87.
30 Bautista v. Inciong, No. 52824, March 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 665.
31 Esmalin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67880, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA
537.
32 Maglutac v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78345, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA
767.
33 Anscor Transport and Terminals v. NLRC, G.R. No. 85894,
September 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 147.
34 Sibal v. Notre Dame of Greater Manila, G.R. No. 75093, February 23,
1990, 182 SCRA 538.

713

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 713

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

general rule mandating reinstatement for an employee who

has been unlawfully dismissed.
On the other hand, has she betrayed any confidence
reposed in her by engaging in transactions that may have
created conflict of interest situations? Petitioner GMCR
points out that as a matter of company policy, it prohibits
its employees from involving themselves with any company
that has business dealings with GMCR. Consequently,
when private respondent Salazar signed as a witness to the
partnership papers of Concave (a supplier of Ultra which in
turn is also a supplier of GMCR), she was deemed to have
placed herself in an untenable position as far as petitioner
was concerned.
However, on close scrutiny, we agree with public
respondent that such a circumstance did not create a
conflict of interests situation. As a system analyst, Salazar
was very far removed from operations involving the
procurement of supplies. Salazar’s duties revolved around
the development of systems and analysis of designs on a
continuing basis. In other words, Salazar did not occupy a
position of trust relative to the approval and purchase of
supplies and company assets.
In the instant case, petitioner has predicated its
dismissal of Salazar on loss of confidence. As we have held
countless times, while loss of confidence or breach of trust
is a valid ground for termination, it must rest on some
35
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206
35
basis which must be convincingly established. An
employee may not be dismissed on mere presumptions and
suppositions. Petitioner’s allegation that since Salazar and
Saldivar lived together in the same apartment, it
“presumed reasonably that complainant’s sympathy would
be with Saldivar” and its averment that Saldivar’s
investigation although unverified,
36
was probably true, do
not pass this Court’s test. While we should not condone
the acts of disloyalty of an employee, neither should we
dismiss him on the basis of suspicion derived from
speculative inferences.
To rely on the Maramara report as a basis for Salazar’s
dismissal would be most inequitous because the bulk of the
find-

_______________

35 Reyes v. Zamora, No. L-46732, May 5, 1979, 90 SCRA 92; De Vera v.

NLRC and BPI, G.R. No. 93070, August 9, 1991.
36 Rollo, pp. 29 and 35.

714

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC

ings centered principally on her friend’s alleged thievery

and anomalous transactions as technical operations’
support manager. Said report merely insinuated that in
view of Salazar’s special relationship with Saldivar,
Salazar might have had direct knowledge of Saldivar’s
questionable activities. Direct evidence implicating private
respondent is wanting from the records.
It is also worth emphasizing that the Maramara report
came out after Saldivar had already resigned from GMCR
on May 31, 1984. Since Saldivar did not have the
opportunity to refute management’s findings, the report
remained obviously one-sided. Since the main evidence
obtained by petitioner dealt principally on the alleged
culpability of Saldivar, without his having had a chance to
voice his side in view of his prior resignation, stringent
examination should have been carried out to ascertain
whether or not there existed independent legal grounds to
hold Salazar answerable as well and, thereby, justify her
dismissal. Finding none, from the records, we find her to
have been unlawfully dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution of public
respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated
December 29, 1987 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner
GMCR is ordered to REINSTATE private respondent
Imelda Salazar and to pay her backwages equivalent to her
salary for a period of two (2) years only.
This decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

     Paras, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,

Davide, Jr. and Nocon, JJ., concur.
          Narvasa (C.J.), I agree with Justice Herrera that
there is just cause for dismissal.
          Herrera, J., I believe there is just cause for
dismissal per investigative findings (See Dec., p. 2).

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
10/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 206

     Gutierrez, Jr., J., No part as son handled case while

still with counsel’s law firm.
     Cruz, J., In the result.
          Feliciano, J., No part, in view of stock interest in
petitioner.
          Padilla, J., No part, in view of equity interest in
petitioner
715

VOL. 206, MARCH 3, 1992 715

Español vs. Civil Service Commission

corporation.

Resolution affirmed.

Note.—An employee who is unjustly dismissed from

work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the
time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his
reinstatement. (Morales vs. NLRC, 188 SCRA 295.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001753a673861e8ce88c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12