December 2024

Facts: Mabao was a a former teacher at BWS. She started working on June 7, 2007 as a grade school teacher. She was granted regular status in 2010.  Sometime in September 2016, Mabao approached the head of the administrative team and Deloso, the grade school principal of BWS, to discuss the matter of her pregnancy which was two months along the way. The father of Mabao’s baby was her boyfriend. In order to avoid any unpleasant remarks from the faculty and staff of BWS, Mabaoapproached them even before her bump became evident. The following day, Mabao was summoned to the conference room of BWS where Deloso verbalysuspended Mabao, telling her not to report to her classes starting the next day until she could present documents showing that she was already married to her boyfriend. Thereafter, she was summoned to the office of the head of the administrative team and was asked to receive a Disciplinary Form and a letter stating that she was indefinitely suspended without pay. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter The Labor Arbiter held that Mabao was constructively dismissed. Ruling of the NLRC The NLRC found that Mabao’s suspension is not tantamount to constructive dismissal. Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling that there was no constructive dismissal, but held that Mabao was illegally suspended. Issue Was Mabao illegally suspended? Did Mabao abandon her employment? Supreme Court’s Ruling Mabao was illegally suspended. In the eyes of the law, there is a standard of morality that binds all those who come before it, which is public and secular, not religious. It is important to make this distinction as the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to public and secular morality. The Court has previously ruled in similar cases that premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock cannot be considered disgraceful or immoral when viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct. Sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have no legal impediment to marry, lie respondent and her boyfriend, is not deemed immoral. No law proscribes such, and said conduct does not contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution. Mabao’s suspension on the ground of engaging in premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock is therefore illegal. Mabao abandoned her employment. To constitute abandonment, the employer must prove that: (1) the employee failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there is a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship by some overt act. BWS gave respondent three return to work notices. Despite receipt and knowledge of the return to work notices, respondent failed to return to work. Aside from failing to return to work despite due notice, Mabao clearly manifested her desire to end her employment in her letter where she unequivocally stated that she “could no longer go back to work for the school”. The letter is respondent’s overt act manifesting her clear intention to sever her employment with petitioners.

Facts Jonald O. Torreda (petitioner) was hired by Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines (respondent) on May 17, 2010 as an IT Senior Manager. He was tasked to supervise his team in the Information Technology (IT) Department and manage the IT-related projects. He reported to William M. Valtos, Jr. (Valtos), the Officer­ in-Charge of the IT Department and the Group President of the Financial Service of respondent. Sometime during his employment, he had a falling out with the senior management for its interference with the functions of the IT department. On January 5, 2012, petitioner went to the office of Valtos for a closed-door conference meeting supposedly regarding his IT projects. In said meeting, Valtos discussed another matter with petitioner and told him that if his performance were to be appraised at that time, Valtos would give him a failing grade because of the negative feedback from the senior management and the IT staff. The performance appraisal of petitioner, however, was not due until May 2012. Torreda was then gave petitioner a prepared resignation letter and asked him to sign; otherwise, the company would terminate him. The said letter indicated that the resignation of petitioner would be effective on February 4, 2012. Petitioner refused to sign the resignation letter but such refusal was not accepted. Thus, Valtos edited the resignation letter. Petitioner thought of leaving the room by making an excuse to go to the restroom, but Valtos and respondent’s legal counsel followed him.  Because of Valtos’ insistence, petitioner placed his initials in the resignation letter to show that the letter was not official. Valtos then accompanied petitioner to his room to gather his belongings and escorted him out of the building. Petitioner was not allowed to report for work anymore and his company e-mail address was deactivated.  Six (6) days after the incident, petitioner filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal (constructive), moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against respondent. For its part, respondent countered that petitioner was not illegally dismissed because he voluntarily resigned. Respondent stated that while Valtos admitted that he gave a resignation letter to petitioner on January 5, 2012, petitioner himself edited the letter to include courteous words and voluntarily signed the same. Valtos also admitted that the performance appraisal of petitioner was not due until May 2012.  Issue 1. Whether or not the resignation letter was voluntarily signed Respondent argues that since petitioner edited the resignation letter and added words of courtesy, it was improbable for him to involuntarily sign the letter. It further asserts that it was impossible to coerce petitioner to sign a prepared resignation letter because he had a managerial position and a high educational status.  These numerous facts and circumstances certainly contradict the voluntariness of petitioner’s resignation. Any reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position. Assuming arguendo that petitioner edited the said letter and inserted words of courtesy, these are insufficient to prove the voluntariness of his resignation in light of the various circumstances which demonstrated that he did not have a choice in his forced resignation.

FACTS Aileen R. Macabangon is a barangay kagawad of Muntay, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte. She mediated between Argelyn M. Labargan and Edna Jumapit in a barangay conciliation to settle their dispute. Labargan’smother, Virginia, told her that she should not mediate “because she is dumb, has not gone to school and is ignorant.”   Macabangon was walking past Labargan’s house one day, when she heard Labargan yelled from her house’s terrace that the she was “dull”, “uneducated”, “ignorant”, and biased against Labargan in the barangay conciliation proceedings.  “Si Aileen konsehan nga bugo, walaygrado! Ignorante!”   Many people heard these remarks as Labargan’sterrace was just beside the highway.   The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found Labargan guilty of grave oral defamation. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. ISSUE:    WON Labargan is guilty of Grave Oral Defamation under the Revised Penal Code RULING:     The Supreme Court ruled that Petitioner Labargan is not guilty of grave oral defamation.    In acquitting Labargan, the Supreme Court ruled that offensive remarks against public officers do not constitute defamation, if they relate to their discharge of official duties, unless actual malice is proven.   Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, there is oral defamation or slander when (1) there is an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; and (6) which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. As the law assumes that a defamatory allegation is malicious, or made with knowledge that it is false, the person who made the defamatory remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.   However, when it comes to defamation against public officers in relation to their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks. The Court recognizes that the right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust.   In the present case, the object of the complaint were statements against Macabangon, a barangay kagawad. The imputations were criticisms of her competence as a barangay kagawad, originating from her supposed partiality against Labargan in the barangay conciliation proceedings. These relate to Macabangon’s discharge of her official duties as a public officer.  The Court concluded by stressing that while Labargan’s statements against Macabangon may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves. “Being ‘sensitive’ has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public.”    The prosecution did not show that actual malice attended Labargan’s declarations. It was not established whether the defamatory statements were made with knowledge that these were false, or with reckless disregard as to its falsity.   Due to the prosecution’s failure to prove malice in uttering the defamatory statements, the Supreme Court finds that Labargan is not guilty of grave oral defamation.