Case Digest: Suario v. BPI, G.R. No. L-50459 August 25, 1989

   Labor Law | NLRC

• Leonardo D. Suario, an employee of Bank of the Philippine Islands, alleged illegal dismissal due to denial of a 6-month leave for bar review.
• Despite previous assurances from management, petitioner's leave was approved for only 30 days. He proceeded with the review and received a letter to return to work. Petitioner refused, considering the considerable expenses in Manila.
• Petitioner sought P9,995.00 actual damages, P300,000.00 moral damages, P200,000.00 exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, in addition to separation pay.
• NLRC: Denied his claim for damages arising from an alleged illegal dismissal. 

WoN NLRC erred in not granting damages despite finding the dismissal was illegal. NO

It is now well settled that money claims of workers provided by law over which the labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction are comprehensive enough to include claims for moral damages of a dismissed employee against his employer. 

The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award to the dismissed employee not only the reliefs specifically provided by labor laws, but also moral and the forms of damages governed by the Civil Code. Moral damages would be recoverable, for example, where the dismissal of the employee was not only effected without authorized cause and/or due process - for which relief is granted by the Labor Code — but was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy — for which the obtainable relief is determined by ‘the Civil Code (not the Labor Code).

The question of the legality of the act of dismissal is intimately related to the issue of the legality of the manner by which that act of dismissal was performed. But while the Labor Code treats of the nature of, and the remedy available as regards the first — the employee’s separation from employment — it does not at all deal with the second — the manner of that separation — which is governed exclusively by the Civil Code. In addressing the first issue, the Labor Arbiter applies the Labor Code; in addressing the second, the Civil Code. And this appears to be the plain and patent intendment of the law. For apart from the reliefs expressly set out in the Labor Code flowing from illegal dismissal from employment, no other damages may be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee other than those specified by the Civil Code. Hence, the fact that the issue of whether or not moral or other damages were suffered by an employee and in the affirmative, the amount that should properly be awarded to him in the circumstances — is determined under the provisions of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code, . . . ."

‘In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded.’ (R & B Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. IAC, 129 SCRA 736, 743.)" (p. 580). We do not find any bad faith or fraud on the part of the bank officials who denied the petitioner’s request for a six months’ leave of absence without pay. If the petitioner was made to believe that his request would be granted, we can not fault the branch manager or his subsequent replacement for giving their assurances. They were merely personal assurances which could be reconsidered on the basis of later developments or upon consultation with higher authorities and which are not binding. Certainly, the bank officials who gave their verbal assurances had only the petitioner’s paramount welfare in their minds. There is no evidence to show that they meant to deceive the petitioner. They themselves thought that such a request would be granted. Unfortunately, company policy had to be followed. The fact that the petitioner’s request for six months’ leave of absence was denied does not ipso facto entitle him to damages.