Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 491 views

    Claudia's Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin

    Uploaded by

    BrenPeñaranda
    1) Respondent Tanguin was employed as a billing supervisor by petitioner Claudia's Kitchen. She was placed on preventive suspension for allegedly selling silver jewelry to coworkers during office hours. 2) Tanguin admitted to selling jewelry but denied doing so during office hours. She was later barred from entering the premises and claimed coworkers were forced to write letters against her. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since Tanguin was not actually dismissed, she was not entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as that remedy is only for illegally dismissed employees. Before assessing the legality of a dismissal, an employee must first prove they were dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Claudia's Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin

    Uploaded by

    BrenPeñaranda
    491 views2 pages
    1) Respondent Tanguin was employed as a billing supervisor by petitioner Claudia's Kitchen. She was placed on preventive suspension for allegedly selling silver jewelry to coworkers during office hours. 2) Tanguin admitted to selling jewelry but denied doing so during office hours. She was later barred from entering the premises and claimed coworkers were forced to write letters against her. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since Tanguin was not actually dismissed, she was not entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as that remedy is only for illegally dismissed employees. Before assessing the legality of a dismissal, an employee must first prove they were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    full text

    Original Title

    Claudia’s Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondent Tanguin was employed as a billing supervisor by petitioner Claudia's Kitchen. She was placed on preventive suspension for allegedly selling silver jewelry to coworkers during office hours. 2) Tanguin admitted to selling jewelry but denied doing so during office hours. She was later barred from entering the premises and claimed coworkers were forced to write letters against her. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since Tanguin was not actually dismissed, she was not entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as that remedy is only for illegally dismissed employees. Before assessing the legality of a dismissal, an employee must first prove they were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    491 views2 pages

    Claudia's Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin

    Uploaded by

    BrenPeñaranda
    1) Respondent Tanguin was employed as a billing supervisor by petitioner Claudia's Kitchen. She was placed on preventive suspension for allegedly selling silver jewelry to coworkers during office hours. 2) Tanguin admitted to selling jewelry but denied doing so during office hours. She was later barred from entering the premises and claimed coworkers were forced to write letters against her. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since Tanguin was not actually dismissed, she was not entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as that remedy is only for illegally dismissed employees. Before assessing the legality of a dismissal, an employee must first prove they were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Claudia’s Kitchen, Inc. v.

    Tanguin
    G.R. No. 221096

    Facts:

    Respondent was employed by petitioner. She performed her functions as a billing supervisor in
    Manila Jockey Club’s Turf Club Building in San Lazaro Leisure and Business park in Cavite.

    Tanguin averred that on October 26 2010, she was place on preventive suspension by Marivic
    Lucasan, Human Resources Manager, for allegedly forcing her co-employees to buy silver jewelry from
    her during office hours and inside the company premises. On the Same date, she was directed by
    Lucasan to submit a written explanation.

    Tanguin admitted that she was selling silver jewelry, but she denied that she did so during office
    hours. On October 30, 2010, she was barred by a security guard from entering the company premises.
    She was informed by her co-employees that they were forced to write letters against her, or else they
    would be terminated from their work.

    For their part, the Petitioners countered that Sometime in October 2010, they received reports
    from some employees that Tanguin was allegedly forcing some of them to buy silver jewelry from her
    during office hours and inside the company premises, which the latter admitted.

    During her suspension, Petitioners discovered her habitual tardiness and gross negligence in the
    computation of the total number of hours worked by her co-employees.

    Subsequently, they sent letters to her directing her to explain the charges and to report for
    work. The respondent failed to act on these notices.

    LA Ruling:

    The LA ruled that Tanguin’s preventive suspension was justified because, as supervisor, she was
    in possession of the company’s cash fund and collections. It stressed that she was not illegally dismissed.

    NLRC Ruling:

    The NLRC partly granted Tanguin’s appeal. It opined that there was no scintilla of proof that she
    was dismissed from service. It pointed out that it was she who chose not to report for work despite
    receipt of notices requiring her to report to the head office.

    CA Ruling:

    CA modified the NLRC ruling. It wrote that reinstatement was not proper because such remedy
    was applicable only to illegally dismissed employees. It added that the Claudia’s Kitchen did not dismiss
    her from employment as evidenced by several notices sent to her requiring her to report back to work
    and to explain the charges against her.

    Issue:

    Whether or not separation pay in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded to an employee who
    was not dismissed from employment.
    Claudia’s Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin
    G.R. No. 221096

    SC Ruling:

    The SC granted the petition.

    The SC held that in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove
    that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. But before the employer must bear the burden
    of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that
    indeed they were dismissed.

    If there is no dismissal, then there can e no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.

    You might also like