htgawfulltextcases

[htgawfulltextcases]

Agabon v. NLRC,  442 SCRA 573 (2004)

Facts: Virgilio and Jenny Agabon both worked for private respondent Riviera Home Investments. Sometime later, both employees were dismissed (without notice and hearing) for abandoning their jobs. Petitioners lodged a complaint against their employer/private respondent for illegal dismissal. LA held that petitioners were indeed illegally dismissed for violation of due process, thus they should be paid with their corresponding back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. NLRC reversed the ruling and held that petitioners have in fact abandoned their work. CA reviewed the facts and found that petitioners were dismissed for an authorized cause, but it also held that private respondent’s act of dismissal was in violation of petitioner’s right to due process.

Issue: were the petitioners illegally dismissed?

Ruling: No. Petitioners were dismissed for an authorized cause.

While the Court takes into account the violation of private respondent’s statutory right to due process, an employee who is clearly guilty of conduct violative of Art. 282 of the LC should not be protected by the Social Justice Clause of the Constitution. Private respondent is only guilty for non-compliance of the statutory laws on due process but not for illegal dismissal. The ends of justice will still be served by way of requiring private respondent to pay for its non-compliance.

The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right, as in this case.

Social justice should be used only to correct injustice, for bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number. It must be served for the poor and the rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.

Petition DENIED.

[htgawfulltextcases]

PLDT v. NLRC, 164 SCRA 671 (1988)

Facts: Marilyn Abucay, an employee of PLDT was found guilty for dishonesty in the performance of her duty and was consequently dismissed from employment. NLRC affirmed the dismissal but it awarded financial assistance or separation pay to the private respondent for reasons of social justice, compassion, equity and for rendering more than a decade of service. Petitioner PLDT, thus, filed the instant case and argued that private respondent’s dismissal, as affirmed by the NLRC, was for a valid cause and therefore she should not be allowed any relief such as the financial assistance awarded by NLRC.

Issue: was the grant of separation pay/financial assistance in favor of private respondent justified?

Ruling: No. Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrong doing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. In this case, private respondent committed and was found guilty of dishonesty (immorality) which is more serious than mere incompetence or inefficiency. Social justice may be invoked only if there hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor.

Petition granted.

[htgawfulltextcases]

CMS Estate, Inc. v. Social Security System, 132 SCRA 108 (1984)

Facts: Petitioner CMS Estate was engaged in the real estate business with only 6 employees in 1952. Petitioner subsequently expanded his business and started a logging business in 1957 with 4 employees. In 1958, he already had more than 89 employees working for its second business. In 1958 or after 2 years, Petitioner CMS became a member of the SSS and made remittance for the compulsory coverage of its employees including those in the logging business. However, realizing that the logging business only commenced in 1957, it shouldn’t have made remittance for his employees in the same (logging) business. When CMS asked for a refund SSS denied it.

Hence, the present case for the refund. Petitioner also argued, among others, that SSS had a unlawful taxing power.

Issue: Can CMS ask for the refund? Was there taxing power?

Ruling: 

No. CMS can’t be granted with refund. RA 2658, amendatory SSS law eliminated the 2-year period and employers are now automatically covered upon the start of business.

No. Taxing power – purpose is to raise revenues. SSS is designed to provide social security to working men. Membership in the SSS is in compliance with the State’s exercise of police power.

Intention of the lawmakers in the enactment of the SSS law is to cover as many persons as possible so as to promote constitutional objective of social justice.

SSS Law is also a piece of social legislation.

Q: social legislation also promotes general welfare as well as social justice.

Petition DENIED.

[htgawfulltextcases]

Manila Electric Co. v. Sec. of Labor, 337 SCRA 90 (2000)

Facts: Manila Electric Co (petitioner) filed a Motion for Partial Consideration of the decision of SC regarding full retroaction of an arbitral award amounting to 800 million in favor of the of petitioner’s employees.  (Instantly destroy the financial stability of the petitioner)

Issue: how did the court balanced the two contrasting interests?

Ruling: The court took into account that petitioner belongs to an industry imbued with public interest and the enormous cost that petitioner will have to bear as a consequence of the full retroaction. However, social justice demands that the law bends over backward to accommodate the interest of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law.

Foundation:  Police Power and State Protection

power to promote the general welfare and public interest;  to enact such laws in relation to persons and property as may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare of each inhabitant; to preserve public order and to prevent offenses against the state and to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those rules of good manners and good neighborhood calculated to prevent conflict of rights.

[htgawfulltextcases]

Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)

Facts: The prohibition of animal-drawn vehicles to certain streets in Manila by the DPW (approved by the Secretary and pursuant to CA 548) constitutes: 1) unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade; and 2) infringement upon the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people.

Issue:  was there an infringement on the promotion of social justice?

Ruling: No, through subordinate legislation, National Assembly delegated the discretion to the DPW to implement rules and delegation. DPW in order to implement rules has to exercise its police power (state may interfere with personal liberty, property, business and occupation of the few in order to promote the general welfare)

Social justice may not be mistaken as sympathy towards any given group.

Petition denied.

Definition of Social Justice: 

Social justice is "neither communism (all property is publicly owned), nor despotism(dictatorship), nor atomism (individually), nor anarchy (absence of government)," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. It means adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society.

Definition of Police Power:

Police power - principle of salus populi est suprema lex (let welfare of the people be the supreme law); the greatest good to the greatest number."