Phil-Singapore Transport Services Inc vs NLRC : 95449 : August 18, ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/95449.htm We are not persuaded by the foregoing arguments of petitioner. It is noteworthy to state that an employer is free to manage and regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all phases of employment, which includes hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.[5] While the law recognizes[6] and safeguards[7] this right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives, such right should not be abused and used as a tool of oppression against labor. The companys prerogatives must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor. A priori, they are not absolute prerogatives but are subject to legal limits, collective bargaining agreements and the general principles of fair play and justice.[8] The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative that is inherent in the employers right to freely manage and regulate his business. Corollarily, an employer can not rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employers rules and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office, has so plainly and completely been bared.[9] He may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his employers interest.[10] The right of the company to dismiss an employee is a measure of self-protection.[11] Such right, however, is subject to regulation by the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.[12] Thus, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of the law and pursuant to the basic tenets of equity, justice and fairplay. It must not be done arbitrarily and without just cause.[13] Due process must be observed because the dismissal affects not only the employees position but also his means of livelihood. Truly, unemployment brings untold misery and hardship not only to the workingmen but also to those who are dependent on the wage earners. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore he should be protected against arbitrary deprivation of his job.[14] No less than the Constitution recognizes and guarantees the labors right to security of tenure.[15] Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, specifically, Article 279 of the said Code, the security of tenure has been construed to mean as that the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by the Code.[16] The two facets of this legal provision are: (a) the legality of the act of dismissal; and (b) the legality in the manner of dismissal. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process.[17] If an employee is dismissed without just cause, he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages up to the time of his actual reinstatement, if the contract of employment is not for a definite period; or to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the employment contract, if the contract is for the definite period. If the dismissal is for a just cause but it was made without due process, the employee is entitled to the payment of an indemnity.[18] Guided by the foregoing rules and principles, this Court holds that the dismissal of private respondent from service is done without just cause, in apparent violation of Article 279 in relation to Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, and without due process, in obvious contravention of Article 277 (b) of the said Code. Petitioners imputation of incompetence on the part of the private respondent due to his lack of foresight to anticipate the number of mooring ropes to be used is unworthy of being given credence. As explained by private respondent, the Sea Carrier I was sufficiently furnished with mooring ropes prior to the voyage. It so happened that the ropes would later on suffer(ed) extreme wear and tear during its voyage from Singapore to Bombay especially along jetties and quays, and in navigational channels. Faced by such problem, he immediately reported the situation to, and at the same time, requested for new mooring ropes from, Mr. Bala of Essar 3 of 6 1/24/2016 11:08 PM