CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND MARIA ANITA RUIZ, RESPONDENTS
FACTS:
Private respondent Ma. Anita Ruiz was the internal auditor of petitioner Citytrust
Banking Corporation. On November 1, 1974, she was designated manager of the
Quiapo branch of the bank, but she refused the appointment on the ground that it was a
demotion. As a consequence, she was suspended and, upon clearance given by the
Department of Labor, she was terminated on November 8, 1974.

Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. She was ordered reinstated as
branch manager, the NLRC urging her to accept the position, otherwise her refusal
would be considered a ground for her loss of employment.
Petitioner reinstated private respondent as manager of the Auditing Department. Private
respondent accepted the appointment but questioned her reinstatement to that position
on the ground that it was not substantially equivalent to the position of resident
inspector (the position created in place of internal auditor).
Labor Arbiter Apolinario N. Lumabao issued an order holding that the position of
manager of the Auditing Department was not substantially equivalent to that of resident
inspector. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s order.
ISSUE: W/N Ruiz is entitled to backwages and reinstatement
HELD:
YES. Backwages are for earnings which a worker has lost due to his illegal
dismissal.Private respondent was illegally dismissed from November 8, 1974 to August
13, 1978. The second component of the relief granted under then Art. 280 of the Labor
Code was reinstatement either to their former position or if, this was not possible, to a
substantially equivalent position. Reinstatement contemplates a restoration to a position
from which one has been removed or separated so that the employee concerned may
resume the functions of the position he already held.
The order to reinstate an employee to a former position or to a substantially equivalent
position is a positive mandate of the law with which strict compliance is required. This is
an affirmation that those deprived of a recognized and protected interest should be
made whole so that the employer will not profit from his misdeeds.
PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. ELOISA
FADRIQUELA

FACTS:
The petitioner Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in
the production and assembly of semiconductors such as power devices, RF modules,
CATV modules, RF and metal transistors and glass diods. It caters to domestic and
foreign corporations that manufacture computers, telecommunications equipment and
cars.

The employees were subjected to periodic performance appraisal based on output,

quality, attendance and work attitude.One was required to obtain a performance rating
of at least 3.0 for the period covered by the performance appraisal to maintain good
standing as an employee.
On May 8, 1992, respondent Eloisa Fadriquela executed a Contract of Employment with
the petitioner in which she was hired as a production operator with a daily salary of
P118. Her initial contract was for a period of three months. But it was renewed four
more times ending in June 4, 1993. However, during her last contract she incurred
multiple absences and her employment was terminated due to habitual absenteeism, in
accordance with company rules and regulations.
The respondent filed a complaint in the NLRC for illegal dismissal against the petitioner.
According to the respondent she had rendered more than six months of service to the
petitioner,thus she was already a regular employee and could not be terminated without
any justifiable cause. Moreover, her absences were covered by the proper
authorizations.
The petitioner contended that the respondent had not been dismissed, but that her
merely expired and was no longer renewed because of her low performance rating.
Hence, there was no need for a notice or investigation.
Issue: W/N respondent is a regular employee thus entitled to reinstatement and full
payment of backwages
HELD:
YES. Art 280 provides “...any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee
with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists.” The fact that the petitioner had rendered more than one year
of service at the time of his (sic) dismissal only shows that she is performing an activity
which is usually necessary and desirable in private respondent’s business or trade. The
work of petitioner is hardly “specific” or “seasonal.” The petitioner is, therefore, a regular
employee of private respondent, the provisions of their contract of employment
notwithstanding.
Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philippines was emplaced in our statute books to
prevent the circumvention by unscrupulous employers of the employee’s right to be
secure in his tenure by indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written and oral
agreements inconsistent with the concept of regular employment defined therein. The
language of the law manifests the intent to protect the tenurial interest of the worker
who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee because of lopsided
agreements with the economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an
employee on a casual or temporary status for as long as it is convenient to it.
Art. 279. 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 withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement.
DANDY V. QUIJANO vs. GEOBEL A. BARTOLABAC (Labor Arbiter, NLRC-NCR
South), and ALBERTO R. QUIMPO (Commissioner, NLRC-First Division)
Facts:
On 19 March 2002, complainant Dandy Quijano filed before this Court a verified
complaint against respondents Atty. Geobel A. Bartolabac,Labor Arbiter of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo of the
same Commission for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
According to complainant, respondents violated his constitutional right to due process in
failing to execute the final and executory judgment of this Court in Quijano v. Mercury
Drug Corporation.
Complainant was dismissed from service by the Mercury Drug Corporation. He filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Eventually, the case was elevated to
the SC. It ruled in favor of the complainant and ordering, among others, his
reintatement.
Complainant relates that he filed with respondent Labor Arbiter Bartolabac a motion for
execution on 9 December 1998 but despite the final resolution of his case, Bartolabac
issued an order that in effect changed the tenor of the final judgment. While the decision
of this Court had mandated complainant’s reinstatement, Bartolabac instead awarded
backwages and separation pay.
Upon learning this, the Court issued a resolution ordering Bartolabac to comply with it’s
decision. Thus, Bartobalac amended his previous order and assigning the complainant
to the position of self-service attendant of the corporation instead of his original position
of warehouseman. Subsequently, respondent Commissioner Quimpo overturned the
above order of Bartolabac and directed the payment of separation pay rather than
reinstatement to a substantially similar position as ordered by this Court.
Issue: W/N Quijano should be reinstated to his former position as warehouseman or to
a subtantially equivalent position.
Held:
YES. The Court is unyielding in its adjudication that complainant must be reinstated to
his former position as warehouseman or to a substantially equivalent position.Citing
their Resolution dated 5 July 1999:
Indeed, Mercury Drug Corporation’s contention, as erroneously upheld by the labor
arbiter, that there is no substantially equivalent position for petitioner’s reinstatement
has been categorically discounted by this Court. We took judicial notice of the fact that
private respondent Mercury Drug Corporation operates nationwide and has numerous
branches all over the Philippines. Petitioner, as warehouseman, occupied a clerical/rank
and file position in said company and we find it highly inconceivable that no other
substantially equivalent position exists to effect his reinstatement.
The Court is not wont to compel the corporation to instantly restore the position of
warehouseman if it has been already abolished. Indeed, the Court granted that
complainant could be reinstated to a substantially equivalent or similar position as a
viable alternative for the corporation to carry out.
Our Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property
without due process of law.It should be borne in mind that employment is considered a
property right and cannot be taken away from the employee without going through legal
proceedings.