De Roy vs CA

Facts:

·         Respondent court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, applying the Habaluyas rule that the 15-day period for appealing or for filing for motion for reconsideration cannot be extended

·         Petitioner contended that Habaluyas rule, stating that the same should not be made to apply to the case because of the non publication of the Habaluyas case decision in the OG as of the time the CA decision was promulgated

Issue:

·         W/N Habaluyas rule is not binding and have no force and effect due to lack of its publication in the OG?W/N respondent court erred/ exercised grave abuse of discretion in applying Habaluyas rule in this case?

Held:

·         Habaluyas rule is binding and effective. There is no law requiring the publication of SC decisions in the OG before they can be binding, it is in fact the duty of the lawyer to keep abreast of SC decisions.

·         CA did not err/exercise grave abuse of discretion in applying the Habaluyas rule

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

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation , G.R. No. L-30642 (April 30, 1985)

FACTS:

Several miners, who, while working at the copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. The heirs of the deceased claimed their benefits pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. They also petitioned before the regular courts and sue Philex for additional damages, pointing out in the complaint 'gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing to take necessary security for the protection of the lives of its employees working underground'. Philex invoked that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which, Philex insists, holds jurisdiction over provisions for remedies.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the heirs of the deceased have a right of selection between availing themselves of the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages (actual, moral and exemplary) from the employers by virtue of that negligence or fault of the employers or whether they may avail themselves cumulatively of both actions. 

RULING: 

The court held that although the other petitioners had received the benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, such may not preclude them from bringing an action before the regular court because they became cognizant of the fact that Philex has been remiss in its contractual obligations with the deceased miners only after receiving compensation under the Act. Had petitioners been aware of said violation of government rules and regulations by Philex, and of its negligence, they would not have sought redress under the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which awarded a lesser amount for compensation. The choice of the first remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, which nullifies the choice as it was not an intelligent choice. The case should therefore be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. However, should the petitioners be successful in their bid before the lower court, the payments made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be deducted from the damages that may be decreed in their favor.