Monday, April 09, 2012

Baltazar vs. San Miguel Brewery Inc [G .R. No. L-23076 February 27, 1969]

Facts: The petitioner is the salesman-in-charge of San Miguel Brewery, Inc. in Dagupan warehouse with a monthly pay of P240.00, P5.00 per diem and a commission of P0.75 per case sold. On October 9, 1956, 8 days after Baltazar was appointed as the salesman-in-charge, the regular employees in Dagupan warehouse went on strike because of unjust treatment. Baltazar was recalled to appellants Manila Office on the 13th of October, 1956 upon the order of his superior and conduct an investigation. The investigation found that the employees’ grievances were well founded. The next day, the strikers returned to their work voluntarily. On October 15, the petitioner was informed that he was not to return to Dagupan anymore but he still reported to work at the main office from October 16 to November 2, 1956 waiting for assignment. From November 3 to December 19 on the same year, he absented himself from work without consent from his superiors and without advising them or anybody else of the reason for his prolonged absence. He was dismissed from work because of petitioner’s unauthorized absence and if the company would consider its health, welfare and retirement plan requiring sick leave, still the petitioner did inexcusable actions since sick leave, to be considered authorized and excusable, must be certified to by the company physician and the appellant-company informed that Baltazar was dismissed effective November 30, 1956. Baltazar initiated a complaint which the trial court ruled that Baltazar’s dismissal was justified but, however, ordering San Miguel Brewery Inc. to pay Baltazar one month separation pay, plus the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. 

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. 

HeldNo, the petitioner is not entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. Under the Marcaida vs. Philippine Education Company 53 O.G. No. 23, RA 1052 makes reference to termination of employment, instead of dismissal, to exclude employees separated from the service for causes attributable to their own fault. It is limited in its operation, to cases of employment without definite period. When the employment is for a fixed duration, the employer may terminate it even before the expiration of a stipulated period, should there be a substantial breach of obligations by the employee; in which event the latter is not entitles to advance notice or separation pay. it would patently, be absurd to grant a right thereto to an employee guilty of the same breach of obligation, when the employment is without a definite period, as if he were entitled to greater protection than employees engaged for a fixed duration. In connection with the question of whether or not petitioner is entitled to the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave, it appears that while under the last paragraph of Article 5 of appellant’s Rules and Regulations of Health, Welfare and Retirement Plan, unused sick leave may be accumulated up to a maximum of 6 months, the same is not commutable or payable in cash upon the employees’ option. 

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

2 comments: on "Baltazar vs. San Miguel Brewery Inc [G .R. No. L-23076 February 27, 1969]"

Aaron Grey said...

Hi, Nice post thanks for sharing. Would you please consider adding a link to my website on your page. Please email me back. Thanks!

Aaron Grey

Mahmood Saleem said...

Wow its really amazing

Post a Comment