Another good news to our working class. The Supreme Court awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, in addition to full back wages or the total amount of salaries that she failed to receive due to the unjust ONE YEAR suspension imposed on her, rather hastily sans due process by a giant airline firm. . This was the Court ruling in the case of Ms NSM versus the airline ( not disclosed to protect the reputation of the company), G R 198656, the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court's Second Division of which was promulgated by the High Court on 08 September 2014. It was penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, a former UP Law Professor. The Court explained the importance of the employee's right to security of tenure and to due-process prior to any disciplinary action, including suspension.
The Supreme Court held that the airline management violated NSM's constitutional right to security of tenure and denied her due process. It was also stressed that management failed to comply with its legal obligation to bear the burden of proof, since the Court found no sufficient evidence, much less substantial proof, pointing to the flight attendant's liability. This was about the alleged pilferage by flight attendants of such items like chocolates, bottles of juices, soda, toilet papers, and magazines. The Court found no direct and convincing proof linking NSM to the act of pilferage, considering that there were seven crew members reported by the customs officers in Honolulu, Hawaii. The company hurriedly conducted investigation and the investigator denied the employee's request for clarification of the charges against her.
The High Court stressed that security of tenure is not only protected by law. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, management must be very careful in respecting both the worker's substantive and procedural right. The right to one's work is a vested one, and a property right, and no worker shall be deprived of work without due-process of law. Justice Leonen also emphasized that illegal suspension from work is a prima facie deprivation of one's job security. The Court reminded management that they needed to furnish the employee a written notice of specific charges. Second, management must give the employee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Lastly, she should be given a written notice of decision, containing the basis for suspension. The Court found the company to have acted in bad faith in suspending her sans just cause and due process.
On this basis, moral damages was awarded based on precedents whenever the act of dismissal was oppressive to labor, and contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy that caused social humiliation, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, among others. Bad faith has been defined as a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose. Implicating NSM to the pilferage in a hasty and haphazard manner was seen as indicative of bad faith. Exemplary damages were also awarded based on precedents whenever the unjust acts were done in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorney's fees were also granted because NSM was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect her rights and seek redress for her grievances.
attyjosephusbjimenez@yahoo.com.