G.R. No. L-25530. January 29, 1974.
ALFREDO VERGEL DE DIOS and EMILY B. VERGEL DE DIOS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BRISTOL LABORATORIES (PHILS.), INC., and P. P. LAGDAMEO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Alfredo Vergel de Dios was employed as a detailman by defendant Bristol Laboratories. On September 15, 1965, he was dismissed via a letter from defendant Lagdameo, the acting general manager. The letter enumerated grounds for termination, including failure to work full-time in his assigned territory, tampering with company receipts and reports to align with staggered workdays, and improperly charging per diems while at his home base. The letter stated Vergel de Dios had admitted to these violations when confronted with evidence.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages, alleging the dismissal was willful, malicious, unlawful, summary, and arbitrary, done with gross bad faith and abuse of the employer’s position. They claimed the charges in the dismissal letter were libelous, false, and circulated to other employees and third parties, causing damage to Vergel de Dios’s reputation and making it difficult for him to find new employment. They sought recovery for unrealized income, moral and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, which the trial court granted.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The complaint failed to allege sufficient material facts to constitute a cause of action for damages arising from abusive dismissal. A cause of action exists only if the complaint states a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause. The plaintiffs merely alleged conclusions of law—such as that the dismissal was “willful, malicious, unlawful, and in a summary and arbitrary manner”—without supporting factual particulars. Crucially, they did not allege that the grounds for dismissal stated in the attached letter were false. By attaching the letter and making it part of the complaint, its contents were deemed admitted. The letter provided detailed, factual bases for the termination based on company policy violations and admitted misconduct.
The legal logic is twofold. First, under the Termination Pay Law (Republic Act No. 1052, as amended), an employer has the right to dismiss an employee hired without a definite period, with or without just cause. Liability for termination pay arises only if due notice is not served, not from the dismissal itself. The complaint did not allege a failure to serve notice. Second, for a claim of abusive dismissal warranting moral damages under the Civil Code, specific factual allegations of bad faith, oppression, or malice in the manner of dismissal are required. The complaint’s general averments, contradicted by the factual recitals in the annexed dismissal letter, were insufficient. Since the pleaded facts did not show a wrongful act by the defendants, no cause of action was stated.