Scribd
Upload
125 views1 page

Salafranca vs. Philamlife, 300 SCRA 469 Facts

1) Enrique Salafranca worked as an administrative officer for Philamlife Village Homeowners Association from 1981 to 1992. 2) In 1987, Philamlife amended its bylaws to state that the administrative officer position would be held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. 3) In 1992, Philamlife terminated Salafranca's employment. Salafranca claimed illegal dismissal. 4) The court ruled in favor of Salafranca, finding that as a regular employee of 11 years, he could only be dismissed for valid causes under the Labor Code and through observance of due process. The amendment of the bylaws could not impair Salafranca's employment rights.

Uploaded by

Aldin Lucena Aparecio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views1 page

Salafranca vs. Philamlife, 300 SCRA 469 Facts

1) Enrique Salafranca worked as an administrative officer for Philamlife Village Homeowners Association from 1981 to 1992. 2) In 1987, Philamlife amended its bylaws to state that the administrative officer position would be held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. 3) In 1992, Philamlife terminated Salafranca's employment. Salafranca claimed illegal dismissal. 4) The court ruled in favor of Salafranca, finding that as a regular employee of 11 years, he could only be dismissed for valid causes under the Labor Code and through observance of due process. The amendment of the bylaws could not impair Salafranca's employment rights.

Uploaded by

Aldin Lucena Aparecio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Salafranca vs.

Philamlife, 300 SCRA 469

FACTS:
Petitioner Enrique Salafranca started working with the private respondent Philamlife Village
Homeowners Association on May 1, 1981 as administrative officer for a period of six months.
As administrative officer, the petitioner was generally responsible for the management of the village’s
day to day activities.
After the petitioner's term of employment expired on December 31, 1983, he still continued to
work in the same capacity, albeit, without the benefit of a renewed contract.
Sometime in 1987, private respondent decided to amend its bylaws. Included therein was a
provision regarding officers, specifically, the position of administrative officer under which said officer
shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.
He continued working until his termination in December 1992. Claiming that his services had
been unlawfully and unceremoniously dispensed with, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with money claims and for damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is illegally dismissed.

RULING:
There is illegal dismissal.
            On the outset, there is no dispute that petitioner had already attained the status of a regular
employee, as evidenced by his eleven years of service with the private respondent. Accordingly,
petitioner enjoys the right to security of tenure and his services may be terminated only for causes
provided by law.
            Viewed in this light, while private respondent has the right to terminate the services of petitioner,
this is subject to both substantive and procedural grounds. The substantive causes for dismissal are
those provided in Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code, while the procedural grounds refer to the
observance of the requirement of due process. In all these instances, it is the private respondent, being
the employer, who must prove the validity of the dismissal.
            The right to amend the bylaws lies solely in the discretion of the employer, this being in the
exercise of management prerogative or business judgment. However this right, extensive as it may be,
cannot impair the obligation of existing contracts or rights.

            It would enable an employer to remove any employee from his employment by the simple
expediency of amending its bylaws and providing that his/her position shall cease to exist upon the
occurrence of a specified event.

You might also like