Ferrazzini v Gsell | 1916 |

Facts:

-          Carlos Gsell is engaged in the manufacture of umbrellas, matches and hats;

-          Anselmo Ferrazzini was employed by Gsell as foreman in the umbrella factory;

o    At some point, he was discharged by Gsell so he filed this case to recover damages for an alleged wrongful discharge;

-          Gsell, for his part admitted he discharged Ferrazzini without “written advice of six months in advance” as provided in the contract;

o    But, he says the discharge was lawful on account of absence, unfaithfulness, and disobedience of orders;

o    He also sought a counterclaim for further alleged breach by Ferrazzini after his discharge (that he cannot enter into employment of any enterprise in the Philippines, during his employment and within 5 years after termination except when given written permission; if he does, he will pay Gsell P10k;  Gsell was employed in cement industry);

-           Trial court favoured Ferrazzini and declined to consider the counterclaim, so Gsell appealed.

Issues:

-                     Was  the discharge lawful? Yes.

-                     Is the stipulation preventing Ferrazzinito “enter into the employment of any enterprise in the Philippine Islands, whatever, save and except after obtaining special written permission therefor” valid? No, against publicpolicy.

Ratio:

-     The discharge was lawful.

-                     Court looked into whether Gsell had just cause to discharge Ferrazzini; Gsell has to prove justification for his act because it was in contravention of the six-month clause in the contract; if it was without just cause, it was in violation of the contract and Ferrazzini  is entitled to recover;

Court based the justifications on the testimonies of the parties;

1.       For Ferrazzini’s absences during working hours for the purpose of drinking:

-          Ferrazini – he said he was allowed by Gsell in the morning ten or fifteen minutes during the hot season to absent himself to have a drink of beer or whiskey ,and the same in the afternoon and that the manager (whose name is Bender) merely told him not to do it in such anostentatious manner;

-             Gsell – he directed the manager to discontinue the habit of during; Bender – he expressly told Ferrazini not to go out without permission;

2.       For his unfaithfulness:

-            Ferrazzini – headmitted saying to persons ats upper in the mess hall that Gsell measured the cloth for the umbrellas, that it is his idea that Gsell has no confidence in his employees; but he testified that he did not remember saying that Specht, the foreman, was not receiving sufficient salary;

-        Specht and another co-worker, however, testified