G.R. No. L-11316; May 23, 1959
ADELAIDA P. IZON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CREDIT UNION KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Adelaida P. Izon, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila alleging that since June 1, 1951, she was employed by the defendant-appellee, Credit Union Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR, as a clerk with a monthly salary of P160. She claimed that on November 15, 1954, her services were terminated without valid and legal cause. Despite repeated demands, the defendant refused to reinstate her. She prayed for reinstatement, payment of back salaries from November 15, 1954, until reinstatement, P5,000 as actual and consequential damages, and P10,000 as moral damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it stated no cause of action and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, invoking Republic Act No. 1052 (approved June 12, 1954). This law allowed an employer in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment to terminate an employee without a definite period of employment by serving one month’s advance notice or paying one month’s compensation in lieu of notice. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on Republic Act No. 1052 and denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, prompting this appeal on a question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, based on the provisions of Republic Act No. 1052, which permits termination of employment without cause for employees not hired for a definite period, provided the statutory notice or pay in lieu thereof is given.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint. Citing its precedent in Monteverde vs. Casino Español de Manila (103 Phil., 377), the Court held that under Republic Act No. 1052, an employer in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment may lawfully terminate the services of an employee whose employment is not for a definite period, even in the absence of a cause for separation, provided the employee is given one month’s advance notice or one month’s compensation in lieu of such notice. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s complaint sought reinstatement and payment of back salaries from the date of termination, not merely the one month’s compensation in lieu of notice, which implied an acknowledgment that the statutory condition for termination (notice or payment) could have been met. Therefore, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for illegal dismissal under the governing law. Costs were imposed on the appellant.