United Tourist Promotions V. Kemplin Facts

UNITED TOURIST PROMOTIONS v.
KEMPLIN
FACTS:
 In 1995, Jersey, with the help of two American expatriates, Kemplin and
the late Mike Dunne, formed UTP.
 UTP employed Kemplin to be its President for a period of five years,
"renewable for the same period, subject to new terms and conditions".
 Kemplin continued to render his services to UTP even after his fixed term
contract of employment expired. Records show that on May 12, 2009,
Kemplin, signing as President of UTP, entered into advertisement
agreements with Pizza Hut and M. Lhuillier.
 On July 30, 2009, UTP's legal counsel sent Kemplin a letter stating that
his employment contract already expired since 2007 and never been
renewed. The letter also indicated that his service is no longer needed by
the company. He was also dismissed for his inhuman treatment to the
rank and file EEs. The cases filed against him are as follow:
o Grave oral threat (pending for preliminary investigation)
o Summary deportation
o Grace coercion and grave threats
 Kemplin filed before Regional Arbitration Branch No. 111 of the NLRC a
Complaint against UTP and its officers for: (a) illegal dismissal; (b) non-
payment of salaries, 13th month and separation pay, and retirement
benefits; (c) payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and
monthly commission of P200,000.00; and (d) recovery of the company
car, which was forcibly taken from him, personal laptop, office
paraphernalia and personal books.
 Kemplin’s defense:
o even after the expiration of his employment contract on March 1,
2007, he rendered his services as President and General Manager
of UTP.
o December 2008, he began examining the company's finances, with
the end in mind of collecting from delinquent accounts of UTP's
distributors. After having noted some accounting discrepancies, he
sent e-mail messages to the other officers but he did not receive
direct replies to his queries.
o Subsequently, on July 30, 2009, he received a notice from UTP's
counsel ordering him to cease and desist from entering the
premises of UTP offices.
 UTP’s arguments regarding Kemplin’s termination:
o the expiration of the fixed term employment contract they had
entered into, and
o it is an employer's prerogative to terminate an employee, who
commits criminal and illegal acts prejudicial to business.
o UTP alleged that Kemplin bad-mouthed, treated his co-workers as
third class citizens, and called them "brown monkeys".
o Kemplin's presence in the premises of UTP was merely tolerated
and he was given allowances due to humanitarian considerations.
 LA’s Ruling: found that Kemplin is a regular employee (since he was
allowed to continue his work after expiration of the contract) and he was
illegally dismissed. Furthermore, his reinstatement is immediately
executory. Basis: security of tenure under Art. 280
 NLRC’s Ruling: affirmed LA’s decision.
 CA’s Ruling: affirmed LA and NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether Kemplin should be reinstated – NO.

RULING:
 The instant petition is partially meritorious.
 The first two issues raised (namely the validity of Kemplin’s termination and
failure to afford due process) are factual in nature, hence, beyond the ambit of
a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
 Kemplin should have been promptly apprised of the issue of loss of trust and
confidence in him before and not after he was already dismissed, citing
Lawrence v. National Labor Relations Commission,
 Clearly then, UTP was not exempted from notifying Kemplin of the charges
against him. The fact that Kemplin was apprised of his supposed offenses,
through the Position Paper filed by UTP and Jersey before LA Jose, did not
cure the defects attending his dismissal from employment.
 While we agree with the LA, NLRC and CA's findings that Kemplin was illegally
dismissed, grounds exist compelling us to modify the order of reinstatement
and payment of 13th month benefit.
 UTP and Jersey lament that the CA failed to apply the doctrine of strained
relations to justify the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
 APO Chemical Manufacturing Corporation v. Bides is instructive anent the
instances when separation pay and not reinstatement shall be ordered. Thus:
The Court is well aware that reinstatement is the rule and, for the
exception of "strained relations" to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that,
if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated
as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee
concerned.
Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is
considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is
no longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the
employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the
other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of
maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. Moreover, the
doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the
employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay.
 Considering that Kemplin's dismissal occurred in 2009, there is much room to
doubt the viability, desirability and practicability of his reinstatement as UTP's
President. Besides, as a consequence of the unsavory accusations hurled by the
contending parties against each other, Kemplin's reinstatement is not likely to
create an efficient and productive work environment, hence, prejudicial to
business and all the persons concerned.
 We likewise find the award of 13th month benefit to Kemplin as improper.
 In Torres v. Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc., we stated that managerial employees
are exempt from receiving such benefit without prejudice to the granting of other
bonuses, in lieu of the 13th month pay, to managerial employees upon the
employer's discretion.
 Hence, Kemplin, who had rendered his services as UTP's President, a
managerial position, is clearly not entitled to be paid the 13th month benefit.
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision on
June 29, 2012 and the Resolution thereafter issued on January 16, 2013
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118971 finding
that Harland B. Kemplin was illegally dismissed are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. The award to Harland B. Kemplin of a 13th month benefit is
hereby DELETED. In lieu of his reinstatement, he is AWARDED SEPARATION
PAY to be computed at the rate of one (1) month pay for every year of service,
with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year to be
reckoned from the time of his employment on March 1, 2002 until the finality of
this Decision. United Tourist Promotions and Ariel D. Jersey are
further ORDERED TO PAY Harland B. Kemplin legal interest of six percent
(6%) per annum of the total monetary awards computed from the finality of this
Decision until full satisfaction thereof.

United Tourist Promotions V. Kemplin Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Tourist Promotions V. Kemplin Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Tourist Promotions V. Kemplin Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED TOURIST PROMOTIONS v.

ISSUE: Whether Kemplin should be reinstated – NO.

You might also like