Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso For Petitioner. Manabat and Fajardo For Respondent Philippine Labor Union

    Uploaded by

    Moyna Ferina Rafanan
    1) This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1940 regarding a labor dispute between Manila Trading and Supply Co. and the Philippine Labor Union. 2) The Court of Industrial Relations had ordered the reinstatement of a laborer named Filomeno Ramollo that Manila Trading had suspended for allowing a customer to pass through the exit gate without paying and for refusing an order to change jobs. 3) The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari sought by Manila Trading and reversed the Court of Industrial Relations' order, finding that an employer cannot be legally compelled to continue employing someone who was admittedly guilty of wrongdoing towards the employer if it is against the employer's interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso For Petitioner. Manabat and Fajardo For Respondent Philippine Labor Union

    Uploaded by

    Moyna Ferina Rafanan
    17 views1 page
    1) This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1940 regarding a labor dispute between Manila Trading and Supply Co. and the Philippine Labor Union. 2) The Court of Industrial Relations had ordered the reinstatement of a laborer named Filomeno Ramollo that Manila Trading had suspended for allowing a customer to pass through the exit gate without paying and for refusing an order to change jobs. 3) The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari sought by Manila Trading and reversed the Court of Industrial Relations' order, finding that an employer cannot be legally compelled to continue employing someone who was admittedly guilty of wrongdoing towards the employer if it is against the employer's interests.

    Original Description:

    this is from lawphil net

    Original Title

    001

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1940 regarding a labor dispute between Manila Trading and Supply Co. and the Philippine Labor Union. 2) The Court of Industrial Relations had ordered the reinstatement of a laborer named Filomeno Ramollo that Manila Trading had suspended for allowing a customer to pass through the exit gate without paying and for refusing an order to change jobs. 3) The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari sought by Manila Trading and reversed the Court of Industrial Relations' order, finding that an employer cannot be legally compelled to continue employing someone who was admittedly guilty of wrongdoing towards the employer if it is against the employer's interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17 views1 page

    Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso For Petitioner. Manabat and Fajardo For Respondent Philippine Labor Union

    Uploaded by

    Moyna Ferina Rafanan
    1) This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1940 regarding a labor dispute between Manila Trading and Supply Co. and the Philippine Labor Union. 2) The Court of Industrial Relations had ordered the reinstatement of a laborer named Filomeno Ramollo that Manila Trading had suspended for allowing a customer to pass through the exit gate without paying and for refusing an order to change jobs. 3) The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari sought by Manila Trading and reversed the Court of Industrial Relations' order, finding that an employer cannot be legally compelled to continue employing someone who was admittedly guilty of wrongdoing towards the employer if it is against the employer's interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    5/8/2017 G.R. No.

    L-46853

    TodayisMonday,May08,2017

    Custom Search

    RepublicofthePhilippines
    SUPREMECOURT
    Manila

    ENBANC

    G.R.No.L46853January30,1940

    MANILATRADINGandSUPPLYCO.,petitioner,
    vs.
    THEHONORABLEFRANCISCOZULUETA,JOSEG.GENEROSO,and
    LEOPOLDOROVIRA,JudgesoftheCourtofIndustrialRelations,andPHILIPPINELABORUNION,
    respondents.

    Ross,Lawrence,SelphandCarrascosoforpetitioner.
    ManabatandFajardoforrespondentPhilippineLaborUnion.

    LAUREL,J.:

    Thisisapetitionforawritofcertiorarito review the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations promulgated On


    August8,1929,denyingthepetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationofitspreviousorderdirectingthereinstatement
    oflaborerFilomenoRamollo.

    On July 7, 1938, the Secretary of Labor apprised the Court of Industrial Relations of a labor dispute existing
    between the petitioner company and its employees who were members of the Philippine Labor Union which was
    forthwith docketed as case No. 49 and entitled, "Philippine Labor Union vs. Manila Trading and Supply Co." A
    preliminary hearing was held after which, on August 6, 1938 the respondent court entered an order requiring the
    company,interalianottodismissanyofitsemployeesandlaborersexceptforgoodcauseandwithitspermission.
    Subsequently,onJune30,1939,oneofthegatekeepersofthepetitioners,FilomenoRamollo,wassuspendedfora
    breachofduty.Thebreachconsistedinthatasgatekeeperofthepetitionerhepermitted,contrarytoinstructions,
    oneofthecustomerstopassthrutheexitgatewithoutpayingfortheworkdoneonthecar.Beforethis,itisalso
    alleged that he refused to work in the setting up department of the company when ordered by his superior. The
    PhilippineLaborUnionsubmittedapetitionincaseNo.49requestingthereinstatementofthesuspendedlaborer,to
    whichananswerwasfiledbythecompany.InitsorderofJuly28,1939,therespondentcourtfoundthatthelaborer
    wasguiltyofthebreachimputatedtohim,but,decidingthathissuspensionfromJune30toJuly28,1939wasa
    sufficient punishment, ordered his immediate reinstatement. The petitioner moved for reconsiderations, but the
    respondentCourtofIndustrialRelations,sittinginbanc,deniedthemotion.Hence,thispetitionforcertiorari.

    ThewholecontroversyiscenteredaroundtherightiftheCourtofIndustrialRelationstoorderthereadmissionofa
    laborer who, it is admitted, had been found derelict in the performance of his duties towards his employer. We
    concede that the right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees, is subject to regulation by the
    State basically as we should expend beyond economic orthodoxy, we hold that an employer cannot legally be
    compelledtocontinuewiththeemploymentofapersonwhoadmittedlywasguiltyofmisfeasanceormalfeasance
    whoadmittedlywasguiltyofmisfeasancetowardshisemployer,andwhosecontinuanceintheserviceofthelatter
    ispatentlyinimicaltohisinterest.Thelaw,inprotectingtherightsofthelaborer,authorizesneitheroppressionnor
    selfdestructionoftheemployer.Theremay,ofcourse,becaseswherethesuspensionordismissalofanemployee
    iswhimsicalorunjustifiedorotherwiseillegalscrutinizedcarefullyandtheproperauthoritieswillgotothecoreofthe
    controversyandnotclosetheireyestotherealsituation.Thisisnothoweverthecasehere.

    Thewritofcertiorariprayedforisherebygranted,andtheorderoftheCourtofIndustrialRelationsappealedfrom,
    reversewithoutpronouncementregardingcosts.

    Soordered.

    Avancea,C.J.,VillaReal,Imperial,DiazandConcepcion,JJ.,concur.

    TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1940/jan1940/gr_l-46853_1940.html 1/1

    You might also like