Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > April 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

103 Phil 377:



[G.R. No. L-11365. April 18, 1958.]

JOSE MONTEVERDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

Pidal, Paterno & Bautista for Appellant.

Ramirez & Ortigas for Appellee.


1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; TERMINATION OF RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT CAUSE; NOTICE ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OR PAYMENT OF ONE MONTH SALARY. — Under Republic Act No. 1052 even if there were no cause for separation as long as notice is given one month in advance to an employee, the relationship of employer and employee may be terminated and the law is, likewise, deemed complied with if in lieu of giving notice an employee is paid an amount equivalent to one month salary.



This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiff against defendant.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a waiter-pinboy and had been working as such from October, 1951 to February 15, 1955 with a monthly salary of P127.00. On the latter date, plaintiff was dismissed on the strength of a written statement made by one Alejandro Olido, his co-worker, to the effect that he saw two teaspoons, one knife and a towel in the house of plaintiff which were obviously taken by him from the defendant. Feeling that he was a victim of injustice, he filed a claim with the Bureau of Labor praying that he be paid his back wages and a separation pay. After proper investigation, said Office rendered decision dismissing the complaint for it was found that plaintiff was dismissed for cause. However, on a rehearing at the instance of plaintiff on the ground that Olido rectified his previous statement saying that what he saw in the house of plaintiff were articles similar to those belonging to defendant, the Bureau of Labor ruled that plaintiff be paid a sum equivalent to one month salary in lieu of one month notice in advance. Complying with this ruling, defendant deposited with said Bureau the sum of P110.00. Plaintiff did not appeal from this decision. However, on December 27, 1955, or four months thereafter, he commenced the present action praying for his reinstatement with back wages.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to re-submit in this case all the pleadings, evidence and record of the proceedings had in the office of the Bureau of Labor with this reservation: that defendant shall have the right to present the testimony of Jose Luis Carceller to explain and clarify certain points, while plaintiff the right to present a rebuttal witness. After these witnesses had testified and the parties had submitted their memoranda, the court rendered decision dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff took the case directly to this Court on the plea that he would raise only questions of law.

Appellant claims that the trial court ignored the evidence submitted with regard to the promise of reinstatement made by witness Jose Luis Carceller who was then the manager of defendant if he proves to be innocent of the charge imputed to him, and this claim is predicated upon the fact that the main witness of defendant regarding this charge has rectified his statement and cleared him of any responsibility.

There is no merit in this claim. In the first place, the trial court did not make any finding on this matter, for it merely decided the case in the light of Republic Act No. 1052. The court considered this Act applicable and having found that defendant has already complied with its terms, found no merit in the complaint. In the second place, appellant has misinterpreted the promise made by Carceller to reinstate him if he proves his innocence of the charge because in making his claim, he only quotes from a portion of Carceller’s testimony and ignores the rest. In other words, what Carceller stated was not an outright reinstatement if appellant would prove his innocence but simply a promise that he would recommend his reinstatement to the secretary of the board of directors of defendant who is the one empowered to act on the matter.

Thus, this is what Carceller testified: "I most certainly would take him back again if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent and I would also take step to punish the witness who misled me if that were the case." And when he was asked to explain the import of such statement, Carceller made this clarification: "What I meant was I am going to recommend it to the Secretary and Board of Directors to take him back if it was so proven." And when he was asked whether he recommended him for reinstatement, Carceller said that he did not because "I had my doubts as to his honesty." (t. s. n. pp. 3-5, August 14, 1956). Indeed, there is something to this statement when we consider the rectification of witness Olido to the effect that articles he saw in the house of appellant were only similar to those belonging to the defendant. This rectification is not satisfactory. It does not clear appellant completely from any taint of guilt.

But we agree with the trial court that, even if there were no cause for separation, defendant can still separate appellant from the service under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1052. Section 1 of this Act provides that "In case of employment, without a definite period, in a commercial, industrial or agricultural establishment or enterprise, neither the employer nor the employee shall terminate the employment without serving notice on the other at least one month in advance." In other words, as long as that notice is given, the relation may be terminated. In the present case defendant has complied with this requirement when, in lieu of that notice, it paid an amount equivalent to one month salary to appellant. This is the basis of the decision of the trial court and in this we find no error.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

April-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 April 16, 1958 - IN RE: CELSO T. OLIVA

    103 Phil 312


    103 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10419 April 16, 1958 - JULIO PAREJA v. PAZ PAREJA

    103 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-10783 April 16, 1958 - ESTRELLA O. ROCHA v. JUAN B. CORDIS

    103 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

    103 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-11192 April 16, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRlGUEZ

    103 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 341

  • G.R. Nos. L-6106-07 April 18, 1958 - MADRIGAL v. HANSON, ORTH AND TEVENSON

    103 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-9300 April 18, 1958 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.

    103 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. L-10200 April 18, 1958 - IN RE: DY TIAN SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-10414 April 18, 1958 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. TEODULO M. CRUZ

    103 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-10886 April 18, 1958 - LEONCIA E. STO. DOMINGO v. URBANA STO. DOMINGO

    103 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

    103 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-11656 April 18, 1958 - MARIA DAVID v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-10724 April 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES RABA

    103 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-11323 April 21, 1958 - BENJAMIN GEONANGA v. C. N. HODGES

    103 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

    103 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-8564 April 23, 1958 - FRANCISCO PELAEZ v. LUZON LUMBER COMPANY

    103 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 - SANTOS EVANGELISTA v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 401


    103 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11755 April 23, 1958 - FLORENCIO SENO v. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-9957 April 20, 1958 - BAYANI SUBIDO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    103 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-10548 April 25, 1958 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO, ET AL. v. FELISA A. AFABLE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-10564 April 25, 1958 - MANDIAN (MANOBA) v. DIONISIO LEONG

    103 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-10631 April 25, 1958 - JOSE GARRIDO v. JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS

    103 Phil 435


    103 Phil 444


    103 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10981 April 25, 1958 - ANACLETO LUISON v. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA

    103 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-9791 April 28, 1958 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    103 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

    103 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-10183 April 28, 1958 - RAQUEL ADORABLE v. IRINEA INACALA

    103 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10214 April 28, 1958 - IN RE: DSNIEL NG TENG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-10552 April 28, 1958 - ALFREDO ERAUDA, ET AL. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10799 April 28, 1958 - URSULA JOSE DE VILLABONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-10845 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO LUCERO

    103 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-10875 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO

    103 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10935 April 28, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-11262 April 28, 1958 - CARMEN R. CASTILLO v. JUAN C. PAJO

    103 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-11381 April 28, 1958 - ATKINS KROLL & CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-11584 April 28, 1958 - MANUEL ARANETA, ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-12120 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO AGITO

    103 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-12202 April 28, 1958 - FILOMENO DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-9064-67 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SORIANO L. ALCARAZ

    103 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-10215 April 30, 1958 - ANDRES E. VARELA v. CRISTINA MARAJAS

    103 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-10556 April 30, 1958 - RICARDO GURREA v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

    103 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-10582 April 30, 1958 - CONSTANCIO MANANSALA v. ANTONIO HERAS

    103 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-10718 April 30, 1958 - M. M. DE LOS REYES v. CORONET

    103 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-10792 April 30, 1958 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    103 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO BUENO

    103 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-11050 April 30, 1958 - CESAR VARGAS v. VICENTE S. TUASON

    103 Phil 588


    103 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-11068 April 30, 1958 - J. MARIANO DE SANTOS v. CATALINO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-11135 April 30, 1958 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    103 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-11326 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO MANANGCO

    103 Phil 604

  • G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520 April 30, 1958 - INES PORCIUNCULA v. NICOLAS E. ADAMOS

    103 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11617 April 30, 1958 - JOSE M. GARCIA v. MANUEL M. MUÑOZ

    103 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-11782 April 30, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO R. VILLAROSA

    103 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-11868 April 30, 1958 - SERGIO G. MARTINEZ v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF LABASON

    103 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. L-12646 April 30, 1958 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE v. RUFINO P. HALILI

    103 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958 - CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    103 Phil 643