dela Llana’s condition did not improve despite three months of
extensive physical therapy. She then consulted other doctors in G.R. No. 195649 July 2, 2013 search for a cure. Dr. Flores, a neuro-surgeon, finally suggested that CASAN MACODE MACQUILING, PETITIONER, vs. COMMISSION ON she undergo a cervical spine surgery to release the compression of ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO, AND LINOG G. BALUA. her nerve. On October 19, 2000, Dr. Flores operated on her spine RESPONDENTS. and neck, between the C5 and the C6 vertebrae. The operation released the impingement of the nerve, but incapacitated Dra. dela DELA LLANA VS BIONG Llana from the practice of her profession since June 2000 despite the surgery. On March 30, 2000, Juan dela Llana was driving a car along North Avenue, Quezon City. His sister, Dra. dela Llana, was seated at the Dra. dela Llana, on October 16, 2000, demanded from Rebecca front passenger seat while a certain Calimlim was at the backseat. compensation for her injuries, but Rebecca refused to pay. Thus, on Juan stopped the when the signal light turned red. A few seconds May 8, 2001, Dra. dela Llana sued Rebecca for damages before the after the car halted, a dump truck owned by Rebecca Biong and Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC). She alleged that she lost driven by Joel Primero containing gravel and sand suddenly rammed the mobility of her arm as a result of the vehicular accident and the car’s rear end, violently pushing the car forward. Due to the claimed P150,000.00 for her medical expenses (as of the filing of the impact, the car’s rear end collapsed and its rear windshield was complaint) and an average monthly income of P30,000.00 since shattered. Glass splinters flew, puncturing Dra. dela Llana. Apart June 2000. She further prayed for actual, moral, and exemplary from these minor wounds, Dra. dela Llana did not appear to have damages as well as attorney’s fees. suffered from any other visible physical injuries. At the trial, Dra. dela Llana presented herself as an ordinary witness In the first week of May 2000, Dra. dela Llana began to feel mild to and Joel as a hostile witness. Dra. Dela Llana reiterated that she lost moderate pain on the left side of her neck and shoulder. The pain the mobility of her arm because of the vehicular accident. To prove became more intense as days passed by. Her injury became more her claim, she identified and authenticated a medical certificate severe. Her health deteriorated to the extent that she could no dated November 20, 2000 issued by Dr. Milla. The medical longer move her left arm. On June 9, 2000, she consulted with Dr. certificate stated that Dra. dela Llana suffered from a whiplash Rosalinda Milla, a rehabilitation medicine specialist, to examine her injury. It also chronicled her clinical history and physical condition. Dr. Milla told her that she suffered from a whiplash examinations. Meanwhile, Joel testified that his truck hit the car injury, an injury caused by the compression of the nerve running to because the truck’s brakes got stuck. her left arm and hand. Dr. Milla required her to undergo physical therapy to alleviate her condition. In defense, Rebecca testified that Dra. dela Llana was physically fit FIL-PRIDE vs. BALASTA and strong when they met several days after the vehicular accident. She also asserted that she observed the diligence of a good father of G.R. No. 192571 April 22, 2014 a family in the selection and supervision of Joel. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, vs.PEARLIE ANN F. ISSUE: WON the Supreme Court cannot take judicial notice that ALCARAZ, Respondent. vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. For resolution is respondent Pearlie Ann Alcaraz's (Alcaraz) Motion HELD: for Reconsideration dated August 23, 2013 of the Court's Decision dated July 23, 2013 (Decision). Indeed, a perusal of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties before the trial court shows that Dra. dela Llana did not present any At the outset, there appears to be no substantial argument in the testimonial or documentary evidence that directly shows the causal said motion sufficient for the Court to depart from the relation between the vehicular accident and Dra. dela Llana’s injury. pronouncements made in the initial ruling. But if only to address Her claim that Joel’s negligence caused her whiplash injury was not Akaraz's novel assertions, and to so placate any doubt or established because of the deficiency of the presented evidence misconception in the resolution of this case, the Court proceeds to during trial. We point out in this respect that courts cannot take shed light on the matters indicated below. judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. This Standards for regularization; conceptual underpinnings. proposition is not public knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their Alcaraz posits that, contrary to the Court’s Decision, one’s job judicial functions. We have no expertise in the field of medicine. description cannot by and of itself be treated as a standard for Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the law regularization as a standard denotes a measure of quantity or on the basis of the parties’ pieces of evidence and their quality. By way of example, Alcaraz cites the case of a probationary corresponding legal arguments. salesperson and asks how does such employee achieve regular status if he does not know how much he needs to sell to reach the In sum, Dra. dela Llana miserably failed to establish her case by same. preponderance of evidence. While we commiserate with her, our solemn duty to independently and impartially assess the merits of The argument is untenable. the case binds us to rule against Dra. dela Llana’s favor. Her claim, unsupported by preponderance of evidence, is merely a bare First off, the Court must correct Alcaraz’s mistaken notion: it is not assertion and has no leg to stand on. the probationary employee’s job description but the adequate performance of his duties and responsibilities which constitutes the inherent and implied standard for regularization. To echo the The same logic applies to a probationary managerial employee who fundamental point of the Decision, if the probationary employee is tasked to supervise a particular department, as Alcaraz in this had been fully apprised by his employer of these duties and case.1âwphi1 It is hardly possible for the employer, at the time of responsibilities, then basic knowledge and common sense dictate the employee’s engagement, to map into technical indicators, or that he must adequately perform the same, else he fails to pass the convey in precise detail the quality standards by which the latter probationary trial and may therefore be subject to termination. should effectively manage the department. Factors which gauge the ability of the managerial employee to either deal with his The determination of "adequate performance" is not, in all cases, subordinates (e.g., how to spur their performance, or command measurable by quantitative specification, such as that of a sales respect and obedience from them), or to organize office policies, quota in Alcaraz’s example. It is also hinged on the qualitative are hardly conveyable at the outset of the engagement since the assessment of the employee’s work; by its nature, this largely rests employee has yet to be immersed into the work itself. Given that a on the reasonable exercise of the employer’s management managerial role essentially connotes an exercise of discretion, the prerogative. While in some instances the standards used in quality of effective management can only be determined through measuring the quality of work may be conveyed – such as workers subsequent assessment. While at the time of engagement, reason who construct tangible products which follow particular metrics, dictates that the employer can only inform the probationary not all standards of quality measurement may be reducible to hard managerial employee of his duties and responsibilities as such and figures or are readily articulable in specific pre-engagement provide the allowable parameters for the same. Verily, as stated in descriptions. A good example would be the case of probationary the Decision, the adequate performance of such duties and employees whose tasks involve the application of discretion and responsibilities is, by and of itself, an implied standard of intellect, such as – to name a few – lawyers, artists, and journalists. regularization. In these kinds of occupation, the best that the employer can do at the time of engagement is to inform the probationary employee of In this relation, it bears mentioning that the performance standard his duties and responsibilities and to orient him on how to properly contemplated by law should not, in all cases, be contained in a proceed with the same. The employer cannot bear out in exacting specialized system of feedbacks or evaluation. The Court takes detail at the beginning of the engagement what he deems as judicial notice of the fact that not all employers, such as simple "quality work" especially since the probationary employee has yet businesses or small-scale enterprises, have a sophisticated form of to submit the required output. In the ultimate analysis, the human resource management, so much so that the adoption of communication of performance standards should be perceived technical indicators as utilized through "comment cards" or within the context of the nature of the probationary employee’s "appraisal" tools should not be treated as a prerequisite for every duties and responsibilities. case of probationary engagement. In fact, even if a system of such kind is employed and the procedures for its implementation are not followed, once an employer determines that the probationary employee fails to meet the standards required for his regularization, the former is not precluded from dismissing the latter. The rule is that when a valid cause for termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC9 (Agabon) and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot10 (Jaka). In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer’s compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.11 Hence, although Abbott did not comply with its own termination procedure, its non-compliance thereof would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminate Alcaraz’s employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and thereby ordered to pay nominal damages.