5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
alleged that Loyola's failure to comply with the standards set forth in the company's
Code of Conduct was sufficient justification to terminate his contract. They also averred
that he was afforded due process through the two notices which he refused to receive.
[3] After the investigation and hearing, Loyola was notified of the termination of his
contract which stated that he did not pass the training/probation period as mentioned
in the contract of employment. They argued that he was not entitled to monetary
claims as there was no bad faith or malice on their part when they terminated his
contract, and that he cannot claim attorney's fees because the severance of his
contract was due to his own fault.[4]
Labor Arbiter Ruling
On June 16, 2017, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Loyola's complaint due to his failure to
sign the verification in his position paper.[5]
Loyola filed a Memorandum on Appeal asserting that the complaint affidavit was duly
executed and signed under oath. He also averred that the outright termination of his
employment contract was a gross violation of Articles 297 and 298 of the Labor Code
and the twin requirements of due process.[6]
NLRC Ruling
On June 16, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Decision
granting Loyola's appeal, in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated 16 June 2017 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is
entered finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed. Consequently,
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay complainant –
1. The amount corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract in
its US dollar amount in USD 7,680.00 (USD 1,280 x 6 mos.) or its
Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment;
2. Moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00;
3. Exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00;
4. Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary
award.
All other claims are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The NLRC found that Loyola substantially complied with the procedural requirements
when he duly authorized his counsel, through a Special Power of Attorney, to sign in his
behalf the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in his position paper.
As for the legality of Loyola's dismissal, the NLRC found no evidence to support the
allegation that he was grossly and habitually neglectful of his duties to be considered
incompetent or inefficient, or to be assessed with unsatisfactory work performance. The
NLRC noted that Loyola was not given ample time to answer the charge against him as
he was directed to attend a disciplinary hearing on the same day that he purportedly
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66403
2/9