G.R. No. L-15721 December 27, 1963
AMADOR G. CAPIRAL, petitioner-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Amador G. Capiral was appointed as a regular and permanent “news photographer” by Manila Electric Company (Meralco) in August 1957. On March 31, 1958, his services were terminated, with Meralco providing one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Meralco claimed the dismissal was due to the abolition of his position for reasons of economy. Capiral filed a petition for mandamus and damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging illegal dismissal and seeking reinstatement with back wages. He contended that as a permanent employee, he could only be dismissed for just cause and that his position was not truly abolished, as evidenced by the hiring of a replacement. Meralco moved to dismiss, arguing mandamus was improper and that the termination was lawful under Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended.
The trial court ruled in favor of Capiral. It found no evidence that the dismissal was due to union activity but held that his permanent appointment implied security of tenure, meaning he could only be dismissed for just cause. The court ordered his reinstatement with back salaries. Meralco appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not applying the termination provisions of Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 .

ISSUE

Whether the termination of a permanent employee, without just cause but with payment of the required separation pay, is lawful under Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that, absent a contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, employment without a definite period is terminable at the will of either party. Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 , codified this principle for commercial, industrial, and agricultural establishments. The law explicitly provides that the employer may terminate the employment by serving a written notice on the employee at least one month in advance, or by paying one month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The cause for termination is immaterial under this law; the employer’s right to dismiss is absolute, provided the statutory notice or pay requirement is satisfied. The Court clarified that the concept of “permanent” employment does not equate to a guarantee of tenure until retirement. It merely distinguishes the employee from temporary or probationary status but does not remove the employment from the ambit of the law on termination without cause. Since Meralco complied with the law by giving Capiral one month’s salary, the dismissal was valid. The claim of a disguised abolition was rendered moot by this legal conclusion. The award of back salaries and order for reinstatement were set aside.