G.R. No. L-12429. February 27, 1961
ERMIDIA A. MARIANO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES and J. V. KAMERLING, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Ermidia Mariano was a long-time employee of Royal Interocean Lines. On October 5, 1953, she sent a letter to the company’s managing directors in Hongkong, coursed through the local manager J.V. Kamerling, complaining about Kamerling’s “inconsiderate and untactful attitude” towards employees and clients. In response, on October 19, 1953, the company advised Mariano that, due to the contents of her letter, it was impossible to retain her. She was offered three months’ salary if she submitted a resignation by October 23, 1953, otherwise she would be dismissed. On October 23, Mariano submitted a letter stating she was “compelled” to resign effective October 31. The company refused this letter and instead, on the same day, sent her a notice of dismissal, which she received on October 27.
Mariano filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), which ruled in her favor. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court in a related certiorari proceeding (G.R. No. L-11745), the CIR decision was reversed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was not an unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 , as Mariano’s complaint letter was not related to union activities or the right to self-organization. Simultaneously, Mariano had instituted the present civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover damages for her allegedly arbitrary dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellee, Ermidia Mariano, has a cause of action to recover damages from the defendants-appellants for her dismissal from employment.

RULING

No, the plaintiff has no cause of action for damages based on unfair labor practice, but she is entitled to separation pay as the dismissal was without cause. The Supreme Court, noting the prior ruling in G.R. No. L-11745, held that Mariano’s dismissal for filing charges against her manager did not constitute unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(5) of Republic Act No. 875 . The legal logic is clear: for a dismissal to be considered an unfair labor practice under that provision, the charges filed by the employee must be “under this Act”—that is, they must be related to the employee’s right to self-organization and collective bargaining. Since Mariano’s complaint letter was a personal grievance against her manager’s attitude and not connected to union activities, the employer’s act, while potentially harsh, did not violate the labor relations act.
However, the Court recognized that the employer retains the inherent right to discipline employees. The record showed that the alleged ground for dismissal—inefficiency—was contradicted by Mariano’s history of salary increases. Consequently, while the dismissal was not illegal under the labor relations act, it was effected without just cause. Therefore, the employer’s earlier offer of a separation package became relevant. The Court modified the trial court’s award and held that equity and justice demanded that Mariano receive the amount the company had previously offered in a compromise settlement: the sum of P3,108, equivalent to six months’ salary. The award for moral damages and attorney’s fees was disallowed.