SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176484. November 25, 2008.]

CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. , petitioner, vs . NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, RONALDO LANZANAS AND MERCEDITHA
* LANZANAS , respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO-MORALES , J : p

The Calamba Medical Center (petitioner), a privately-owned hospital, engaged the

services of medical doctors-spouses Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Lanzanas) and Merceditha
Lanzanas (Dr. Merceditha) in March 1992 and August 1995, respectively, as part of its
team of resident physicians. Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour
shifts, respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4,800.00 each. 1 It appears that
resident physicians were also given a percentage share out of fees charged for out-
patient treatments, operating room assistance and discharge billings, in addition to
their fixed monthly retainer. 2 ScTCIE

The work schedules of the members of the team of resident physicians were
xed by petitioner's medical director Dr. Raul Desipeda (Dr. Desipeda). And they were
issued identi cation cards 3 by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social Security
System (SSS). 4 Income taxes were withheld from them. 5
On March 7, 1998, Dr. Meluz Trinidad (Dr. Trinidad), also a resident physician at
the hospital, inadvertently overheard a telephone conversation of respondent Dr.
Lanzanas with a fellow employee, Diosdado Miscala, through an extension telephone
line. Apparently, Dr. Lanzanas and Miscala were discussing the low "census" or
admission of patients to the hospital. 6
Dr. Desipeda whose attention was called to the above-said telephone
conversation issued to Dr. Lanzanas a Memorandum of March 7, 1998 reading: ECSHID

As a Licensed Resident Physician employed in Calamba Medical

Center since several years ago , the hospital management has committed
upon you utmost confidence in the performance of duties pursuant thereto. This
is the reason why you were awarded the privilege to practice in the hospital and
were entrusted hospital functions to serve the interest of both the hospital and
our patients using your capability for independent judgment.
Very recently though and unfortunately, you have committed acts
inimical to the interest of the hospital, the details of which are contained in the
hereto attached affidavit of witness. EAHDac

You are therefore given 24 hours to explain why no disciplinary

action should be taken against you .
Pending investigation of your case, you are hereby placed under
30-days [sic] preventive suspension effective upon receipt hereof . 7
(Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) HEISca

Inexplicably, petitioner did not give respondent Dr. Merceditha, who was not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 involved in the said incident, any work schedule after sending her husband Dr. Lanzanas
the memorandum, 8 nor inform her the reason therefor, albeit she was later informed by
the Human Resource Department (HRD) o cer that that was part of petitioner's cost-
cutting measures. 9
Responding to the memorandum, Dr. Lanzanas, by letter of March 9, 1998, 1 0
admitted that he spoke with Miscala over the phone but that their conversation was
taken out of context by Dr. Trinidad. HcTSDa

On March 14, 1998, 1 1 the rank-and- le employees union of petitioner went on

strike due to unresolved grievances over terms and conditions of employment. 1 2
On March 20, 1998, Dr. Lanzanas led a complaint for illegal suspension 1 3
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-Regional Arbitration Board
(RAB) IV. Dr. Merceditha subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. 1 4
In the meantime, then Sec. Cresenciano Trajano of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) certi ed the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration
and issued on April 21, 1998 return-to-work Order to the striking union o cers and
employees of petitioner pending resolution of the labor dispute. 1 5
In a memorandum 1 6 of April 22, 1998, Dr. Desipeda echoed the April 22, 1998
order of the Secretary of Labor directing all union o cers and members to return-to-
work "on or April 23, 1998, except those employees that were already terminated or are
serving disciplinary actions". Dr. Desipeda thus ordered the o cers and members of
the union to "report for work as soon as possible" to the hospital's personnel o cer
and administrator for "work scheduling, assignments and/or re-assignments". aIETCA

Petitioner later sent Dr. Lanzanas a notice of termination which he received on

April 25, 1998, indicating as grounds therefor his failure to report back to work despite
the DOLE order and his supposed role in the striking union, thus:
On April 23, 1998, you still did not report for work despite memorandum
issued by the CMC Medical Director implementing the Labor Secretary's ORDER.
The same is true on April 24, 1998 and April 25, 1998, — you still did not report
for work [sic].
You are likewise aware that you were observed (re: signatories [sic] to the
Saligang Batas of BMCMC-UWP) to be unlawfully participating as member in
the rank-and- le union's concerted activities despite knowledge that your
position in the hospital is managerial in nature (Nurses, Orderlies, and staff of
the Emergency Room carry out your orders using your independent judgment)
which participation is expressly prohibited by the New Labor Code and which
prohibition was sustained by the Med-Arbiter's ORDER dated February 24, 1998.
(Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring partly in the original and
partly supplied) HCDAcE

For these reasons as grounds for termination, you are hereby

terminated for cause from employment effective today, April 25, 1998 ,
without prejudice to further action for revocation of your license before the
Philippine [sic] Regulations [sic] Commission. 1 7 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Dr. Lanzanas thus amended his original complaint to include illegal dismissal. 1 8
His and Dr. Merceditha's complaints were consolidated and docketed as NLRC CASE
NO. RAB-IV-3-9879-98-L. TCaEAD

By Decision 1 9 of March 23, 1999, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam dismissed the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 spouses' complaints for want of jurisdiction upon a nding that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the parties, the fourth requisite or the "control test" in
the determination of an employment bond being absent.
On appeal, the NLRC, by Decision 2 0 of May 3, 2002, reversed the Labor Arbiter's
findings, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is set aside. The respondents are
ordered to pay the complainants their full backwages; separation pay of one
month salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement; moral damages
of P500,000.00 each; exemplary damages of P250,000.00 each plus ten percent
(10%) of the total award as attorney's fees. cTESIa

SO ORDERED. 2 1
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied, it brought the case to
the Court of Appeals on certiorari.
The appellate court, by June 30, 2004 Decision, 2 2 initially granted petitioner's
petition and set aside the NLRC ruling. However, upon a subsequent motion for
reconsideration led by respondents, it reinstated the NLRC decision in an Amended
Decision 2 3 dated September 26, 2006 but tempered the award to each of the spouses
of moral and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively and
omitted the award of attorney's fees. THcaDA

In nding the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the

parties, the appellate court held:
. . . . While it may be true that the respondents are given the discretion to
decide on how to treat the petitioner's patients, the petitioner has not denied nor
explained why its Medical Director still has the direct supervision and
control over the respondents . The fact is the petitioner's Medical Director
still has to approve the schedule of duties of the respondents . The
respondents stressed that the petitioner's Medical Director also issues
instructions or orders to the respondents relating to the means and
methods of performing their duties , i.e. admission of patients, manner of
characterizing cases, treatment of cases, etc., and may even overrule, review
or revise the decisions of the resident physicians . This was not
controverted by the petitioner. The foregoing factors taken together are
su cient to constitute the fourth element, i.e. control test, hence, the existence
of the employer-employee relationship. In denying that it had control over the
respondents, the petitioner alleged that the respondents were free to put up their
own clinics or to accept other retainership agreement with the other hospitals.
But, the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation with substantial evidence.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 2 4
The appellate court thus declared that respondents were illegally dismissed.
. . . . The petitioner's ground for dismissing respondent Ronaldo
Lanzanas was based on his alleged participation in union activities, speci cally
in joining the strike and failing to observe the return-to-work order issued by the
Secretary of Labor. Yet, the petitioner did not adduce any piece of evidence to
show that respondent Ronaldo indeed participated in the strike. . . . .
In the case of respondent Merceditha Lanzanas, the petitioner's
explanation that "her marriage to complainant Ronaldo has given rise to the
presumption that her sympat[hies] are likewise with her husband" as a ground
for her dismissal is unacceptable. Such is not one of the grounds to justify the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 termination of her employment. 2 5 (Underscoring supplied)
The fallo of the appellate court's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration i s GRANTED , and
the Court's decision dated June 30, 2004, is SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, a new
judgment is entered, as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision

dated May 3, 2002 and order dated September 24, 2002 of the NLRC in
NLRC NCR CA No. 019823-99 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
the moral and exemplary damages are reduced to P100,000.00 each and
P50,000.00 each, respectively. aSTAIH

SO ORDERED. 26 (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring

supplied)
Preliminarily, the present petition calls for a determination of whether there
exists an employer-employee relationship 2 7 between petitioner and the spouses-
respondents. cSaADC

Denying the existence of such relationship, petitioner argues that the appellate
court, as well as the NLRC, overlooked its twice-a-week reporting arrangement with
respondents who are free to practice their profession elsewhere the rest of the week.
And it invites attention to the uncontroverted allegation that respondents, aside from
their monthly retainers, were entitled to one-half of all suturing, admitting, consultation,
medico-legal and operating room assistance fees. 2 8 These circumstances, it stresses,
are clear badges of the absence of any employment relationship between them.
This Court is unimpressed.
Under the "control test", an employment relationship exists between a physician
and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by
which the physician is to accomplish his task. 2 9
Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure
and is not subject to de nite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated
according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, the element of control
is absent. 3 0
As priorly stated, private respondents maintained speci c work-schedules, as
determined by petitioner through its medical director, which consisted of 24-hour shifts
totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain
of administrative sanctions. CDaTAI

That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the
undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or
ward for that matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors,
charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its
medical director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to
apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of
duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield the power. 3 1
With respect to respondents' sharing in some hospital fees, this scheme does
not sever the employment tie between them and petitioner as this merely mirrors
additional form or another form of compensation or incentive similar to what
commission-based employees receive as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the Labor
Code, thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earning,
however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether
xed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same , which is payable by an employer to
an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done
or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and
reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or
other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. . . .
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
Respondents were in fact made subject to petitioner-hospital's Code of Ethics, 3 2
the provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence
of duties, personnel conduct and behavior, and offenses against persons, property and
the hospital's interest. cADSCT

More importantly, petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the

employment status of respondents, namely, the identi cation cards it issued them, the
payslips 3 3 and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which re ect their status as employees, and
the classi cation as "salary" of their remuneration. Moreover, it enrolled respondents in
the SSS and Medicare (PhilHealth) program. It bears noting at this juncture that
mandatory coverage under the SSS Law 3 4 is premised on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, 3 5 except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-
employed. It would be preposterous for an employer to report certain persons as
employees and pay their SSS premiums as well as their wages if they are not its
employees. 3 6
And if respondents were not petitioner's employees, how does it account for its
issuance of the earlier-quoted March 7, 1998 memorandum explicitly stating that
respondent is "employed" in it and of the subsequent termination letter indicating
respondent Lanzanas' employment status. EaIcAS

Finally, under Section 15, Rule X of Book III of the Implementing Rules of the
Labor Code, an employer-employee relationship exists between the resident physicians
and the training hospitals, unless there is a training agreement between them, and the
training program is duly accredited or approved by the appropriate government agency.
In respondents' case, they were not undergoing any specialization training. They were
considered non-training general practitioners, 3 7 assigned at the emergency rooms and
ward sections.
Turning now to the issue of dismissal, the Court upholds the appellate court's
conclusion that private respondents were illegally dismissed. aSIATD

Dr. Lanzanas was neither a managerial nor supervisory employee but part of the
rank-and-file. This is the import of the Secretary of Labor's Resolution of May 22, 1998
in OS A-05-15-98 which reads:
xxx xxx xxx
In the motion to dismiss it led before the Med-Arbiter, the employer
(CMC) alleged that 24 members of petitioner are supervisors, namely . . .
Rolando Lanzonas [sic] . . . .
A close scrutiny of the job descriptions of the alleged supervisors
narrated by the employer only proves that except for the contention that these
employees allegedly supervise, they do not however recommend any
managerial action. At most, their job is merely routinary in nature and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 consequently, they cannot be considered supervisory employees .
They are not therefore barred from membership in the union of
rank[-]and[-]file , which the petitioner [the union] is seeking to represent in the
instant case. 3 8 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) DaTISc

xxx xxx xxx

Admittedly, Dr. Lanzanas was a union member in the hospital, which is

considered indispensable to the national interest. In labor disputes adversely affecting
the continued operation of a hospital, Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 263. Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts.—
xxx xxx xxx

(g) . . .
. . . . In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued
operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions , it shall be
the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain
an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose
movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary
to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its
patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or
lockout. In such cases, the Secretary of Labor and Employment is mandated to
immediately assume, within twenty-four hours from knowledge of the
occurrence of such strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify to the
Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending
parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions
and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary
action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment
by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other
a rmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of
them .
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
An assumption or certi cation order of the DOLE Secretary automatically results
in a return-to-work of all striking workers, whether a corresponding return-to-work
order had been issued. 3 9 The DOLE Secretary in fact issued a return-to-work Order,
failing to comply with which is punishable by dismissal or loss of employment status.
40

Participation in a strike and intransigence to a return-to-work order must,

however, be duly proved in order to justify immediate dismissal in a "national interest"
case. As the appellate court as well as the NLRC observed, however, there is nothing in
the records that would bear out Dr. Lanzanas' actual participation in the strike. And the
medical director's Memorandum 4 1 of April 22, 1998 contains nothing more than a
general directive to all union o cers and members to return-to-work. Mere
membership in a labor union does not ipso facto mean participation in a strike. IECcaA

Dr. Lanzanas' claim that, after his 30-day preventive suspension ended on or
before April 9, 1998, he was never given any work schedule 4 2 was not refuted by
petitioner. Petitioner in fact never released any ndings of its supposed investigation
into Dr. Lanzanas' alleged "inimical acts".

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioner thus failed to observe the two requirements,before dismissal can be
effected — notice and hearing — which constitute essential elements of the statutory
process; the rst to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which
his dismissal is sought, and the second to inform the employee of the employer's
decision to dismiss him. 4 3 Non-observance of these requirements runs afoul of the
procedural mandate. 4 4
The termination notice sent to and received by Dr. Lanzanas on April 25, 1998
was the rst and only time that he was apprised of the reason for his dismissal. He was
not afforded, however, even the slightest opportunity to explain his side. His was a
"termination upon receipt" situation. While he was priorly made to explain on his
telephone conversation with Miscala, 4 5 he was not with respect to his supposed
participation in the strike and failure to heed the return-to-work order. HCEcAa

As for the case of Dr. Merceditha, her dismissal was worse, it having been
effected without any just or authorized cause and without observance of due process.
In fact, petitioner never proffered any valid cause for her dismissal except its view that
"her marriage to [Dr. Lanzanas] has given rise to the presumption that her sympath[y]
[is] with her husband; [and that when [Dr. Lanzanas] declared that he was going to
boycott the scheduling of their workload by the medical doctor, he was presumed to be
speaking for himself [and] for his wife Merceditha." 4 6
Petitioner's contention that Dr. Merceditha was a member of the union or was a
participant in the strike remained just that. Its termination of her employment on the
basis of her conjugal relationship is not analogous to any of the causes enumerated in
Article 282 4 7 of the Labor Code. Mere suspicion or belief, no matter how strong,
cannot substitute for factual ndings carefully established through orderly procedure.
48

The Court even notes that after the proceedings at the NLRC, petitioner never
even mentioned Dr. Merceditha's case. There is thus no gainsaying that her dismissal
was both substantively and procedurally infirm. TacSAE

Adding insult to injury was the circulation by petitioner of a "watchlist" or "watch

out list" 4 9 including therein the names of respondents. Consider the following portions
of Dr. Merceditha's Memorandum of Appeal:
3. Moreover, to top it all, respondents have circulated a so called "Watch
List" to other hospitals, one of which [was] procured from Foothills Hospital in
Sto. Tomas, Batangas [that] contains her name. The object of the said list is
precisely to harass Complainant and malign her good name and reputation.
This is not only unprofessional, but runs smack of oppression as CMC is trying
permanently deprived [sic] Complainant of her livelihood by ensuring that she is
barred from practicing in other hospitals.aEDCSI

4. Other co-professionals and brothers in the profession are fully aware

of these "watch out" lists and as such, her reputation was not only besmirched,
but was damaged, and she suffered social humiliation as it is of public
knowledge that she was dismissed from work. Complainant came from a
reputable and respected family, her father being a retired full Colonel in the
Army, Col. Romeo A. Vente, and her brothers and sisters are all professionals,
her brothers, Arnold and Romeo Jr., being engineers. The Complainant has a
family protection [sic] to protect. She likewise has a professional reputation to
protect, being a licensed physician. Both her personal and professional
reputation were damaged as a result of the unlawful acts of the respondents. 5 0
While petitioner does not deny the existence of such list, it pointed to the lack of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 any board action on its part to initiate such listing and to circulate the same, viz.:
20. . . . . The alleged watchlist or "watch out list", as termed by
complainants, were merely lists obtained by one Dr. Ernesto Naval of PAMANA
Hospital. Said list was given by a stockholder of respondent who was
at the same time a stockholder of PAMAN[A] Hospital . The giving of the
list was not a Board action. 5 1 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
ETDHaC

The circulation of such list containing names of alleged union members intended
to prevent employment of workers for union activities similarly constitutes unfair labor
practice, thereby giving a right of action for damages by the employees prejudiced. 5 2
A word on the appellate court's deletion of the award of attorney's fees. There
being no basis advanced in deleting it, as exemplary damages were correctly awarded,
5 3 the award of attorney's fees should be reinstated. cHAaEC

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75871 is

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award by the National Labor Relations
Commission of 10% of the total judgment award as attorney's fees is reinstated. In all
other aspects, the decision of the appellate court is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Mercedita in some pleadings and annexed documents. STcAIa

1. Rollo, p. 10.

2. Id. at 11.
3. NLRC records, pp. 79-80; Annexes "E" and "F" of Complainants' (herein private respondents)
Joint Reply and Rejoinder.
4. Id. at 74-75; Annexes "A" and "B".
5. Id. at 76-78; Annexes "C" and "D". ADCIca

6. Id. at 12.; NLRC records, pp. 99-100, Affidavit of Dr. Meluz Trinidad.
7. NLRC records, p. 171.

8. Rollo, p. 12.
9. NLRC records, p. 16.
10. Id. at 174.
11. The actual date of the union strike as reflected in the order of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. Id. at 50-51. IcHDCS

12. Rollo, p. 11.

13. NLRC records, p. 1.

14. Id. at 7.
15. NLRC records, pp. 50-51.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 16. CA rollo, p. 198.
17. NLRC records, p. 175. AHCETa

18. Id. at 12.

19. Id. at 117-130.

20. Id. at 280-305.
21. Id. at 304.
22. Rollo, pp. 94-99. Penned by Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with the concurrence of Justices
Mariano C. Del Castillo and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
23. Id. at 32-43. Penned by Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with the concurrence of Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Mariano C. del Castillo. 2005jur

24. Id. at 40.

25. Id. at 40-41.

26. Id. at 42.

27. Applying the four-fold test which has the following elements: a) selection and engagement
of the employee; b) payment of wages or salaries; c) exercise of the power of dismissal;
and d) exercise of the power to control the employee's conduct.
28. Rollo, p. 26.

29. Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006, 511 SCRA 204, 221
citing Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc., 628 S.E.2d 851 (2006).cACDaH

30. Encyclopedia Britannica v. NLRC, G.R. No. 87098, November 4, 1996, 264 SCRA 1, 10.
31. Equitable Banking Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102467, June 13, 1997, 273 SCRA 352, 371.
32. NLRC records, pp. 179-184; Annex "H".
33. Id. at 89; Annex "J".
34. Vide Section 9 of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8282.

35. Social Security System v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 132, 141 (2000).
36. Nagasura v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 117936-37, May 20, 1998, 290 SCRA 245, 251; Equitable
Banking Corporation v. NLRC, supra note 31. aSATHE

37. Rollo, p. 58.

38. NLRC records, pp. 90-93.
39. Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Sec. of Labor and Employment, G.R.
Nos. 122743 and 127215, December 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 145-146.
40. Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 595, 602.
41. CA rollo at 198.

42. Rollo, p. 79. EIcSDC

43. PNB v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 514, 530-531.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 44. Condo Suite Club Travel v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125671, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 679, 690
citing Vinta Maritime v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 656, 671-672 (1998).

45. Supra note 10.

46. NLRC records, p. 43; Respondent's (Petitioner herein) Position Paper.
47. Article 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employee for any of
the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;cDCSTA

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative;
and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
48. Austria v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123646, July 14, 1999, 310 SCRA 293, 303.
49. NLRC records, pp. 197-199.
50. Id. at 20-21.

51. Id. at 59. TAECaD

52. Article 28 of the Civil Code states "Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a
right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage."
53. Article 2208 of the Civil Code states "In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) . . .; ETDSAc

xxx xxx xxx"

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com