"x x x.
This year, the Supreme Court came up with very interesting decisions that should call the attention of businessmen, managers and employees. In the case of Dreamland Hotel Resort versus Stephen R Johnson, (GR 191455, 12 March 2014), the highest court of the land decided that an Australian national was illegally dismissed as hotel manager and ordered payment of full back wages. Separation pay was also directed to be paid instead of reinstatement because the strained relations between the parties prevented bringing the manager back to work. Here, the Court held that multiple and repeated refusal to pay one's personnel his salaries is equivalent to dismissal from employment. Even expats here have access to our courts for redress of grievances.
In another case, the International School, Manila versus the International School union (GR 167286, 05 February 2014), the High Court ruled that when a teacher is proven to be grossly inefficient and highly ineffective, she may be separated from the service. However, since the cause of the separation is neither misconduct or fraud or insubordination, she should be granted separation benefits on account of her many years of past faithful services. In the case of Raul Cosare versus Bradcom Asia, Inc. (GR 201298, 05 Feb 2014), the Supreme Court held that even when a personnel was made an incorporator of the company, if he is dismissed illegally, the management would still be guilty of illegal dismissal. And such is not an intra-corporate case but a labor dispute.
In the case of United Tourists promotions versus Harland Kemplin (GR 205453, 05 Feb 2014), the Court decided in favor of an American national who was hired as company president. The charges of loss of trust and confidence were dismissed because it was raised only belatedly, for the first time, when the case was already pending. In Intel Philippines Inc. versus NLRC (GR 200575, 05 Feb 2014), the Court decided in favor of the company. A young Filipino manager was ordered to pay back to the company the amount of P2.4 million which he received as earlier ordered by the NLRC. The Court held that it was unfair to require the company to pay him such amount (it was a total of P3.2M less tax) because he was not entitled to it in the first place. What is more telling is that he already executed a quitclaim releasing the company from all liabilities.
x x x."
