PHILIPPINE AIRLINES Vs NLRC

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs.
NLRC et al
G.R. No. 132805, Feb. 2, 1999
FACTS: Private respondent Dr. Herminio Fabros was a flight surgeon for Philippine Airlines
(petitioner, assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic with duty hours from 4:00 in the afternoon until
12:00 midnight.
On Feb.17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, Dr. Fabros left the clinic for a dinner break at his
residence, which was only a 5-minute drive from his workplace. A few minutes later, the clinic
received an emergency call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its employees, Manuel Acosta,
had suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty, Mr. Merlino Eusebio, called Dr. Fabros’s
residence to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening
and Mr. Eusebio immediately rushed him to the hospital. When Dr. Fabros reached the clinic at
around 7:51 in the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient to the hospital. The
patient died the following day.
Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director Dr. Godofredo B. Banzon ordered the
Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. In his explanation, Dr. Fabros asserted that he
was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon being
informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later;
that Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without waiting for him.
Finding private respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private

respondent with abandonment of post while on duty. He denied that he abandoned his post on
February 17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have his dinner at home. In fact, he
returned to the clinic at 7:51 in the evening upon being informed of the emergency.
After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private respondent, he was given a
suspension for three months effective December 16, 1994.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.
On July 16, 1996, Labor Arbiter Romulos Protasio rendered a decision declaring the suspension
of private respondent illegal. It also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount
equivalent to all the benefits he should have received during his period of suspension plus
P500,000.00 moral damages.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal after finding that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is
supported by the facts on record and the law on the matter. The NLRC likewise denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1. WON the nullifying of the 3-month suspension by the NLRC erroneous.
2. WON the awarding of moral damages is proper.
HELD: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of the assailed decision awarding
moral damages to private respondent is DELETED. All other aspects of the decision are
AFFIRMED
1. The legality of private respondent’s suspension: Dr. Fabros left the clinic that night only
to have his dinner at his house, which was only a 5-minute drive away from the clinic.
His whereabouts were known to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in
case of emergency. Upon being informed of Mr. Acosta’s condition, private respondent
immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These facts belie petitioner’s claim
of abandonment. Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private respondent is
obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may
not leave the company premises during such time, even to take his meals. We are not
impressed.
Art. 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read: Art. 83. Normal hours of work. — The normal
hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day. Health personnel
in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in
hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular
office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for
meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six
(6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth
day.
For purposes of this Article, “health personnel” shall include: resident physicians, nurses,
nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical
technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel.
(emphasis supplied) Art. 85. Meal periods. — Subject to such regulations as the Secretary
of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not
less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals.
Sec. 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further
states:
Meal and Rest Periods. — Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex,
not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when
a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer
provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the
employee;
(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous
physical exertion;
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day;
(c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be

performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which
the employer would otherwise suffer; and
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods. Rest
periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be
considered as compensable working time. Thus, the eight-hour work period does
not include the meal break.
Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the
company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long
as they return to their posts on time. Private respondent’s act, therefore, of going home to
take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.
2. The award of moral damages: Not every employee who is illegally dismissed or
suspended is entitled to damages. As a rule, moral damages are recoverable only where
the dismissal or suspension of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy In the case at bar, there is no showing that the management of
petitioner company was moved by some evil motive in suspending private respondent. It
suspended private respondent on an honest, albeit erroneous, belief that private
respondent’s act of leaving the company premises to take his meal at home constituted
abandonment of post which warrants the penalty of suspension.
Under the circumstances, we hold that private respondent is not entitled to moral damages.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs.

Finding private respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private

Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC.

Hence, this petition.

1. WON the nullifying of the 3-month suspension by the NLRC erroneous.

2. WON the awarding of moral damages is proper.

(c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be

You might also like