Scribd
Upload
193 views2 pages

Sugue Vs Triumph

Virginia Sugue and Renato Valderrama filed a complaint against their employer, Triumph International, for non-payment of money claims relating to various employee benefits from 1999-2000. They attended a preliminary conference for the case during work hours using a company vehicle but did not inform management. Triumph charged their absence to vacation leave. Both employees later filed complaints of constructive dismissal which Triumph disputed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that charging the absence to leave was valid, the leave requests were properly denied, and neither employee was constructively dismissed as Valderrama abandoned his work and Sugue was not actually demoted.

Uploaded by

opep77
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
193 views2 pages

Sugue Vs Triumph

Virginia Sugue and Renato Valderrama filed a complaint against their employer, Triumph International, for non-payment of money claims relating to various employee benefits from 1999-2000. They attended a preliminary conference for the case during work hours using a company vehicle but did not inform management. Triumph charged their absence to vacation leave. Both employees later filed complaints of constructive dismissal which Triumph disputed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that charging the absence to leave was valid, the leave requests were properly denied, and neither employee was constructively dismissed as Valderrama abandoned his work and Sugue was not actually demoted.

Uploaded by

opep77
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Virginia Sugue and the Heirs of Renato Valderrama vs Triumph International

FACTS
Sugue Assistant Manager for Marketing, promoted to Marketing Services Manager
Valderrama Direct Sales Manager

Sugue and Valderrama filed a complaint with the NLRC against Triumph for non-payment of
money claims arising from allegedly unpaid vacation and sick leave credits, birthday
leave and 14th month pay for the period 1999-2000.

A preliminary conference (PC) for the said case was scheduled on June 19. Sugue and
Valderrama attended the PC during office hours, used the company car to and from the
hearing, and they did not inform/ask permission from the Managing Director/General
Manager.

Triumph charged the one-half day utilized by Sugue and Valderrama in attending the PC.

Valderrama complaints:
- PC attendance was charged to his VL credit
- Request for executive check up (June 19) was disapproved
- Request for sick leave, due to persistent cough and vertigo, was disapproved (July 3-5)

Valderrama wrote the company stating that he considered himself constructively dismissed
due unreasonable pressure and harrassments. Company asked Valderrama to explain his
continuted absences. The latter did not respond and Triumph terminated Valderrama for
ABANDONMENT OF WORK.

Sugue complaints:
PC attendance was charged to her VL credit
She considered herself constructively dismissed because her requests for vacation
leaves were subject to a condition that she first submit the company's 2001
Marketing Plan.
Memo instructing her to report to Mr. Efren Temblique, Sugue's former assistant,
made her believe that she was outright demoted

Triumph required Sugue to explain her continued absences without official leave. The
latter did not respond, hence, she was dismissed.

Valderrama and Sugue filed a complaint with the NLRC for constructive dismissal on July
31, 2000. The following day, Valderrama commenced his employment with Fila Phils, Inc., a
competitor of Triumph.

LA ruled in favor of Valderrama and Sugue, awarding separation pay, full backwages, P3
million in moral and exemplary damages and 20% as attorney's fees.

NLRC reversed the decision.

CA agreed with the LA but deleted attorney's fees and reduced moral/exemplary damage
awards to P750K.

Supreme Court Ruling

I. Charging of absence to VL credits


Charging of PC attendance against their VL credits was because they did not perform
work for one-half day. It was management prerogative. Citing JB Heilbronn vs NLRC, those
who voluntarily absent themselves to attend a hearing... should lose their pay during
their absence from work, or in this case, charged against VL credits.

II. Disapproval of leave requests


Valderrama did not comply with company policy to present a medical certificate
verified by company physician for absences of two days or more.
Executive check ups for both were denied because the Regional Product Manager was
scheduled to visit the country. Their presence was undoubtedly needed during the
meet, being Managers of Sales and Marketing, respectively.

III. Constructive dismissal


Neither Valderrama nor Sugue were constructively dismissed.
Requisites for Constructive Dismissal:
When continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely
When there is demotion in rank or a diminution of pay
When a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to an employee.
Valderrama committed ABANDONMENT OF WORK. His continued absence and his immediate
employment in a rival company shows that he had intent to severe ER-EE relationship
with Triumph.

Requisites for Abandonment of Work (Art 282, Analogous Cases):


Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
A clear intention to sever the ER-EE relationship
> more determinative factor

Sugue was not demoted. Mr. Temblique was Valderrama's assistant manager for direct
sales, not Sugue's, and was assigned as OIC on a personnel reorganization due to
the abandonment of work by Valderrama, hence the latter was not lower in rank
than Sugue.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy