Geronimo Quadra vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 147593 July 31, 2006
FACTS:
Geronimo Quadra was the Chief Legal Officer of PCSO when he organized and actively
participated in the activities of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association (CUGCO) and then
later the Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors (CUGCO) (ASSPS[CUGCO]). He
was administratively charged before the Civil Service Commission with violation of Civil Service Law and
Rules for neglect of duty and misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. He was
found guilty and dismissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service
Commission. At the same time, petitioner, together with ASSPS (CUGCO), filed with the CIR a complaint
for unfair labor practice against respondent PCSO and its officers. CIR found respondent PCSO guilty of
unfair labor practice for having committed discrimination against the union and for having dismissed
petitioner due to his union activities.
Respondent PCSO complied with the decision of the CIR. But while it reinstated petitioner to his
former position and paid his backwages, it also filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on
certiorari. During its pendency, petitioner filed with the CIR a "Petition for Damages." He prayed for moral
and exemplary damages, citing the following grounds: (1) the CIR has no jurisdiction to award moral and
exemplary damages; (2) the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, it appearing that two complaints
are brought for different parts of a single cause of action; and (3) the petition states no valid cause of
action. LA and NLRC's decision favored petitioner, but CA reversed it, holding that there was no basis for
the grant of moral and exemplary damages to petitioner as his dismissal was not tainted with bad faith. It
was the Civil Service Commission that recommended petitioner's dismissal after conducting an
investigation. It also held that the petition claiming moral and exemplary damages filed by petitioner after
respondent PCSO had complied with the CIR decision of reinstatement and backwages amounted to
splitting of cause of action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CIR has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages arising out of illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice.
RULING:
A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith
or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good
customs or public policy. Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton,
oppressive or malevolent manner. It appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately dismissed
from the service by reason of his active involvement in the activities of the union groups of both the rank
and file and the supervisory employees of PCSO, which unions he himself organized and headed.
Respondent PCSO first charged petitioner before the Civil Service Commission for alleged neglect of duty
and conduct prejudicial to the service because of his union activities. The Civil Service Commission
recommended the dismissal of petitioner. Respondent PCSO immediately served on petitioner a letter of
dismissal even before the latter could move for a reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service
Commission. Respondent PCSO may not impute to the Civil Service Commission the responsibility for
petitioner's illegal dismissal as it was respondent PCSO that first filed the administrative charge against
him. As found by the CIR, petitioner's dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. It was done to interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-
organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to
bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect;
and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.
As the conscience of the government, it is the Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor
rights.
