11) court of appeals nlrc no-127660

7/18/2019 11) Court of Appeals NLRC NO-127660

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/11-court-of-appeals-nlrc-no-127660 1/15

JOSEPHINE P.

PINERA,

YOLATND/\

A.

CALANZA

and

LEONORA

P.

SONGTILIA

Petitioners,

-

versus

-

NATIONAL

RELA,TIONS

COMMISSION

ancl

UNIVERSITY OF

MAf{;ILA

rep.

by

EMILY

nE

LEON

as

President,

cloing

husiness

uncler the

narne

and style

BENGUET

PINES

T0utt.rsT

INN/

Respandents.

'4i:;'\

./r'9'6\\

fl d*

\',\

/7,jfd,.,;l6Tl

^\\$,[dlj^1A

lklJ7r,(l;',

.(.":i;=-jli11l-

Republic

of tlre

Philippirres

COURT

OF

APPEALS

Ma

n

ila

FOURThI

NTVTSION

CA-G.R,

SP

NO.

L276,60

Members:

TIJAM,

N.

G,,

Chairperson,

ACOSTT\,

F,

P,,

and

PERALT&

JR,,

E,

EI,,

,JJ,

LABOR

o'o11lfl

sRiEdttlt

DECISTON

FERALTAT

JR.'

E'

B''

J':

An

age-old feud

resurlted

in

a series

of

legal

bicfl<elring

involving

two

individuals/

i,e,:

the former

General

Manager

of

private

respondent university

of

Manila

on

the

one

lrand

and the

incumbent

University President

on

the

other. Irr

the

midst

of such

strife, three

employees,

petitioners

herein,

who

were hired

during the

previous

General Manager's

incurnbency/

and

who

seemed to lrave

shown

their

loyalty

to

the

previous

administration,

later

invol<ed

illegal

disrnissal

from

employment.



cA-c.R.

sP

NO.

127660

Decisiorr

page

2 of 15

Eiy

the

Petition

for

Certiorari,l

petitioners

assailecl the

Decision

of

the

National Labor

Relations

Commission

v,,rhich

reversed the

Labor

Arbiter's ruling

in

favor

of

petitioners.

F'rivate

respondent

University

of

Manila

is

an

educational institution

established

by the

Delos

Santos

family.2

Among

other activities,

it

is

also

engaged

in Llre

buslness

of operating

hotels

and

restaurants,

inclusive

of

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn,

or "BPTI"

far

brevity.3

Petitioners

Yolanda

A.

Calanzat

Josephine

P.

pifrera

and

Leonora

P.

Songalia

were

all

l'rired

by

Atty,

Ernesto

Delos

Santos, and his mother

Cordelia

Delos

Santos, to

work

in

BPTI. Calanza

was

hired

in

l-984,

Pifrera

in

1gg3

and

Siongalia in 1999

and

they

all

served

as receptionists

and

erll

around employees.4

Uporr

the

cleath

of Cordelia

Delos

Santos,

Emily

De

Leon

became the current

University

Presiclent.5

-["'hereafter,

legal

disputes eru

pted

between

Ernesto

Delos

Santos

and

Ernily De

Leon

but

what

assurned

resonance

was

an

incident in

Decernber,

2010,

when

petitioner

Calanza,

who was

Lherr

assigned

as

l'ront

desk

clerk

in

BPTI,

was verbally

informed

by the

personnell

that

25 booklets

of

unused official receipts

[Official

Receipts

No.

86251-875001

were

allegedly

rnissing.u

According

to

prival-e respondent, Calanza

had

custody

over

tlre

bookletsT

and was accountable

for

ttre loss.

Cn

January

l-9 201L,

BPTI releas;ed

a Memorandum

concerning

the

reshufl'le

of BPTI ernployees

"to

a'void

anomalies. "E

One

of

the

ernployees

affected

by the

reorgnization

was

Calanza

who was

informed

ol'her

'

Dated

December

3,2012, Rollo,

pp,3-27.

2

Private

Respondent's

Comment,

page

5,

Rollo,

page

336

t

NLRC

Resolution

dated July

09,2012,

page

5, Rollo,

page

39

a

Complaint,

Rollo,

page

50;Complainants'Positiorr

Paper,

page

2,

Rollo,

page

56

s

Petition for

Certiorari,

page

5,

Rollo,

page

7

5

NLRC

Resolution

dated

July

09,2012,

page

37,

Rollo,

page

37;

page

10,

Rollo

paqe

44

7

Private

Respondents'Comrnent, page

7,

Rollo,

page

338

B

Rollo,

page

80



cA-G,R.

SP NO.

127660

Decisiorr

page

3

oF

15

irnpendinct

transfer

to

Manila.

5he

supposedly

refusecl

ancl

expressed

reluctance

tn

receive

a lettere

fronr

the

manaqement which reiterated

her transfer

to

Manila:

Dear

Ms.

Yolanda

Calanza,

You

are

already

informecJ

of

the

reslruffling

of

personne,:l

at

Benguet

Pines

l-ourist

Inn,

wl"riclr

includes you.

you

rflentioned

to

tlre President

that

you

will

pacl<

your

things

and

be

in

Manila

today,

January

31,

Z01j.

l-lowever

you

did

not

arrive.

If

you

cannot

comply

witlh

the

instruction

of

the

President,

the Board

will

decide

on

what

to do

with

you,

F:or

your

strict

compliance,

I

arn

(signed)

Dr, Ma.

Corazon

Ramona Delos

Santos

Chairman

of

tlre Board

and

Vice-Presiderrt

for

Finance

[3orne

of

Calanza's

reticence,

she was

notified

on

March

3,

201-

l"

by

another letter

that tlre BoarcJ

oF

tlre

University

of

Manila

resolved

to

dismiss

her

from

employment,

effective

upon

receipt

oF

the

letter,

for

"insubot'dination

on

the

lawl'ul

order

of

the

Presidelrt

of the

unive:rsity

to come

to Manila

and

make

an

explanation

on

the missing

twenty-five

(25)

unused

official

receipts

bool<lets

with Serial

Nos.

86251-87500."10

Meanwlrile,

petitioner

Piiiera was also one

of

the

BPTI

empk:yees

slated

to

be

transferred

to

Manila,

Alleg;edly,

while

employed in BP-[I,

she

used

her

time

at Dely's

Inn

owned by Ernesto

Delos

Santos,"

Per

tlre letter

of

lune L5,

20Lt,Lz

she was

requested

by

the

management

to report

for work

at

the

University

of Manila

in

Sampaloc,

Ii4anila

within 48

hours

from receipt

thereof:

XXX

Dear

Ms.

Pifiera,

s

Petition for

Certiorari,

Annex "D",

Rollcl,

page

B1-

10

Petition

for

Certiorari,

Annex "E",

Rollo,

page

82

11

Comment,

page

9, Rollo,

page

340

'2

Petltion

for

Certiorari,

Annex

"F",

Rollo,

page

83



CA-G,R,

SP NO.

127660

Decision

page

4

of

15

You

are

hereby requested

to

report

for

work at

$rt:

Llniversity

of

Manila,

Sampaloc,

Manila,

instead

at

Eienguet

Pine

Tourist

Inn

within

forty

eight

(48)

hours

from

receipt

hereof.

Please

see tlre

undersigned

for

your

assignment,

Very

truly

yours,

(sig

ned

)

Dr.

Emily

D,

De Leon

President

Despite

Pifrera's

services,

and

because

ol'

her

objerction

to the

transfer,

her

salary

from

June

1

to

15,

201.1

was

with

held

.13

on June

22,

2011/ security

guards

of

BprI,

allerSedry

upon

instrucLions

of

Emily De

Leon,

went

to see

pifrer;r

ancl

asl<ed

for

the

l<eys

of their room

in

Bprl

Wherr

she

refrlr$ed,

the

guards

forclbly

hammered

the

door

knob

of

the

loclced

room,,

stormed

ifl,

carried

co-petitioner's

persr:nal

belongings

and

dumped them

outside

the

room,la

on

the

other

lrand,

petitioner

songalia

was

arso

one

of

the

ernployees

who

was

ordered

to

be transferreld

to

Manila.

Just

like

Pifiera, while

employecl

at

BprI,

sher

alscr

used

her

time

to

work

at Dely's

Inn.xs

she

was

issued

a

notice

from

the

managemerrt

for

her

explanation

withrin 24

hours;

from

receipt

thereof

why

no

disciplinary

action

shall

be

taken

against

her

for worl<ing

at

Dely's

Inn,rE

on June

15,

2011,

she was sent

the identical

letter

previously'

sent

to

Pifrera,

requesting

her

tcl

report

for

worl<

to

trl;rnila

instead

of

reporting for

worl<

in

BprI.

Because

she refused

to

transfer

to

Manila,

,

her

salaries

were

also

witlrheld

starting

June

15,

201i..17

13 Petition

for

Certiorari,

Rollo,

page

9

to

Petition

for

Certiorari,

Rollo,

page

9,

Complainants'

Position

paper,

Annex

"G",

Fiollo,

pp.

84-89

15

Private

Respondents'Comment,

page

B, Rollo,

page

339

16

Respondents'

Position

Paper,

Annex

E,

Rollo,

page

106

a

tl

Petition

for

certiorari,

Rollo,

page

10;

complainants'

position

paper,

Rollo

page

51)



cA-G.R,

SP

NO,

l_27660

Decision

page

5

ol'15

Aggrieved

by

what

they

perceived

as

inhumane

acts

of the

management/

the tlrree

petitioners

sought

redress.

Proceedings

ensued,

with

victory

on

their

side,

through

the

Labor

Arbiter's

Decision

on March 22, 7A1.2,1s for

private

respondents

to

pay

separation

pay

and

full

backwages:

WI{ERf;FORE,

all

premises

considered,

judgment

is

hereby

rendered

orcJering

respondent

University

of

Manila

to:

.1.

Pay complainants' separation

pay

in

the arnount

of

PhpSSS,S?0.0$;

a,

Pinera

-

P10,054.00

x

1-9

years

=

P191,026,00

l

b.

Calanza

-

P10,054,00

x

2B

years=

P281,512.00

c,

Songalia

-

P8,564.00x

1-3

years

=

P111,332,00

=

PXES$S*B?CI-Q0

2. Pay cornplainants'

full

backwages

in

the

amount

ot

php2.7g,

55?=QQ.

a. Pinera

-

P10,054.00

x

9

months

=

P90,486.00

i.3th month

pay:

P90,486.00/i2

=

7,540.00

rlL&oe6.5a

b.

Calanza

-

P10,054,00 x

I

rnonths

=

P90,486.00

l-3il'montlr

pay:

P90,486,00/1.2

=

7,540.00

p9$.0e6.5fi

c,

Songalia

-

P8,564,00 N

g

nronths

=

P77,076,00

13tt'

rnonth

pay

?7"7,076.00/12-

=

6,473,00

=

F83dgg.w

flllp?ZgdEe"Uff

0r a

grand

total

of

PhE$5L42?.0tL

SCI

ORDEREm,

(Emphasis

supplled)

ln

assessing

petitiorrers'

plea,

the

Labor

Arbiter

opirrecl

that Calanza was

illegally

clismissed

for

lack

of

just

cause

and

breach

of

procedural

due

process.le

As regards

the

order of transfer/

the

Labor Arbite,r

was

of Lhe

irnpression

that

the

University,

as

the employer,

failecl

to disclrarge

the

burden of

proving

that

the

trilnsfer

tt

L"b"r

Arbit"rt

D".bion

dated

March

22,

ZO 2,

Rollo,

page

131

'e

Labor

Arbiter's

Decision,

page

6;

Rollo,

page

136

t



cA-G.R.

SP NO. 127660

Decisiorr

page

6 of

L5

of

the, employees

was

not

unreasonab[e,

inconvenient

or

prejuc{icial.20

Moreover, the

University's

aversiorr

to

pay

petitioners'

salaries

from

June

1

to

15,

2011

I'or

tlreir

refursal

to report to Manila within

4B

lrours

was construecl

as

tantamount

to constructive

dismissal,2l

On appeal,

a

clifferent

perception

was reached

try

the

NLRC.

As

to

calanza,

tlrere

was

supposedly

a

just

cause

to

dismis;s

her

although

procedural

due

process

was

not

obser,,led.22

And

with

respect

to Pifiera

and

songalia,

it was

felt

that

they

failecl

to

prove

t-he

fact

of

clisrnissal:

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

the

appeal i:;

g"rartly

GRANTED

and the

Decision

dated

23

March

201"2 ir;

ordered

VACA"IED

and

SH]'ASIDE"

A

new

one

is

issued finding

that

conrplainant-appellee

Calanza

was

validly

dismissed

but

I'or failure

to

ol:serve

the

notice requirement of

the

law,

respondents-appellants

are

ordered

to

pay

complainant-appellee

Calanza nominal

clamages

in the

amount

of

p10,000.0q.

The

complaint

for

illegal

dismissal filed

by

complainants-appellees

pifiera

and

Songalia

are

dismissed

for

lack

of

rnerit,

SO

ORDERED,

(Emphasis

supplied)

Aggrieved

by

the turnaround

of

events

against

t:henr,

petitioners

are

now before tlre

Court

on

a Petition

for

Certiclrari

on

the

usual

aspersion

ol'wanton

exercise

of

discretion of

tlre reviewirrg

authority:

I.

".,IN

DECLARING

THAI-

PETITIOI\ER

CALANZA

WAS

VALIDLY

DISMISSED

ON THE

GROUND

OF

WILF'UL

DISOBEDiENCE

OR LOSS

OF

TRUST;

II.

...IN

FiNDING THAT BOTI"I

PETITIONER

PINERA

AND

SONGALIA

FAILED

TO

ESTABLISH

T[-IE

FACT

OF

TH[:]R

ILLEGAL

DISMISSAL.

20

Labor

Arbiter's Decision,

page

7;

Rollo,

page

137

2L

Id.

'2

NLRC

Resolution

dated

July 09

2012,

pp

1t-12,

Rollo

pp

45-46

*\n

\



CA-G.R,

SP

NO.

127660

Decisiorr

page

7

of 15

From the

procedural

plrase

oF

tlre

con[roversy,

We

tackle

the

tirneliness

of

petil-iorrers'remedial

meerrsure

bearinq

in

rnincl

private

respondent's

idea

in

the Comffi,0ut23

that

the

present

Petition

for Certiorari

was

tinre-barrecl

because

the Petition

slrould

have

been

f=iled

within

10

days

frorn

receipt

of

the

NLRC's

Resolution

concernirrg

the

denial

of

petitioners'Motion

I=or Reconsideration.

According

to

private

respondent,

while

Rule

65

governs

the

form

and

contents

of

the

Petition,

the

supplication shoulcl

be

governed

by the

2005

Revised

Rules

o1' Procedure

ot[ the

NLRC

wlrich

provides

for

a

period

of

ten days

witlrin

v'vhiclr

to

file an

appeal.

Private

respondent's

insinuation

u/as

a blatant

error

when calibrated

by Sf.

Martin

Funeral Homes

v,

/V/-RC24

during;

which

occasion

the Supreme

Court

expounded

Llrat

the

proper

vehicle

for

review

of a

latror

dispute

is a

special

civil action

for

certiorari

under

Rule 65.2s

Arrcl inasnrur:h

as

Rule

65

spol<e

of the

60-day

time-frame

within

whiclr to

file

the

Petition26

vis-ir-yrs

ttre

receipt by

petil-ioners

CIn

OcLo[:er

2,

ZAI2 of

a

copy

of

the

NLIQ.C's

disposition

adverse

to

petitioners'

Motion

for

Reconsideration,

tlre submission

of

their

Petition

for

Certiorari

on

Decenrber

3,

20LZ

lMondayl,

follow,ing the

last day

for

filing

thereof

on December

2,

[Surnclay],27

was

in

tl're

rricl< of [inte.

tloncerrring

papers

to

forl-ify

the Petition,

untike

pr-ivate

respondent's

belief,

not

every appencled

paper

is

expected

to

be

a certified

true

copy. Frorn

the

second

paragraplr

ol'

Sectir:n

1., llule 65, it

was

plain

that

only the assariled

judgrnent,

Order

or

llesolution must be

certified as a Lrue

copy

thereof.28

23

Rollo,

pp

332-352

)l

'"

Ginet.e

v,

Sunrise

Manning Agency,

ef

a/., G.R. No. 142023, June

21,2407

25 Pilnce Transport

Inc,,

etc.

v.

Garcia,

ef a/,,

G.R. 1,6129 , January

L2,

2011

26

Rules of

Court, Rule

65,

Section 4

21

Section

7,

Rute 22,

t997 Rules of

Civil

Procec.lure; I Regatacio, Reme<lial

Law

Compendium, LOth edition,

pp.

336-342,

28

"The

petition

shall

be

accompanied

by

a certified true copy

of

tl-re

judgment,

order

or

resolution

subjecf thereof, copies of all

pleadings

and dscuments relevant and

pertinent

thererLo,

xxx.";

Regalado, Vide,

page

797.



cA-G.R.

SP

NO,

127660

Decisiorr

page

B

of

15

We now shift

our

attention

to substantive

issues

..nired

on ther

Petition,

Irs opposed

to

pr.rt:lic

respondent's

assessnlent,

petitioner

Calanza

was not

validly dismissed

for

r,villful

disobedience

or

loss

of trust.

In

order

to

validly

dismiss

an

employee,

the

employer

must

comply

with

botlr

substantive

and

procedural

due

process

requirenrents.

Sul:stantive

due

proCeSS

means

tlrat

the

termination

must

be

based on

just

arrd/or

authori:zed

causes

of dismissal.

By conIrast,

procedural

due

proc:ess

requires

the employer

to

eftect

tlre

dismissal

in

a

rrlanner

specifiecJ

in the

Labor

Code

and

its implernenting

rules;

ancl

reg u l.l

tions.2e

It

rnay

be

recalled

that

Calanza

was dismissed

cit"te

t.o

"insubordination

on

the

lawful order

of the

President

of

the

University

to

come

to

Marrila

and

rnake an

explanation

on

tlre

nnissing

twenty-five

(25)

unused

official

rec.eipts

booklets

with Serial

Nos.

86251'-87500."3o

Clearly,

Calanza

Was

rlismissed not

because

it

was

proven

that

slre

was

liable

for the

loss

of

the

25

unused

official

rer:eipts

booklets.

Rather,

she

was dismissed

on

account

of

her

refulsill

to

come

to

Manila

and

mal<e an explanation

of

the

rnissinrg

booklets.3l

In order

to

dismiss

an

employee

on

the

grouncl

of

insubordination

or

serious

disobedience,

the following

requisites

must

concur:

(

1)

the

employee's

assetiled

concluct

must

lrave been

wilful,

tlrat

is, characterized by

a

wrongful

and

perverse

attitude; and

(2)

the order

violated

must

trave

been

reasonable,

lawful,

rnade l<nown

tro

tlre

Deaferio vs, Intel

Technology Philippines,

Lnc.

etc.,

ciling

Agaban v,

NLRC,485

Pltil.

248, 284

(2004).

Com,plainants'

Position

Paper,

Annex

"E",

Rollo,

page

Annerx "3";

Rollo,

page

363

rd,

G.R.

No.

202996,

June

1r3, 2014,

B2;

Private Respondent's

C0mment,

31



cA-G,R,

SP

NO, 127660

Decision

page

9

of l-5

163431,

Augirst

28,

158693,

[t]ovenrber

w

employee

and

mus[

pertain

to

the

duties

which

he

had

been engaged

to discharge."

Both

requisites

must

concur.

In

Nathaniel

iV.

Dongon

v,

Rapid

Movers

and

Forwarders

co,

Inc.,

efc

.3'

the

High

court

discussed

that,

as

a valid

ground

for

dismissal,

the

conduct

of"Ure

employee

must

constitute

harmful

behavior

againsl:

the

business

interest

or

person

of his

employer.

It is

irnpliecl

tlrat

in

every

act

of

willl'ul

disoberJience,

tlre

errring

employee

obtains

undue

advantage

detrimental

tcl

tlre

busin{3ss

interest

of

the

employer.3a

calanza's

apathy

towards

travel

to

Manila

ancj rnal<e

an

elxplanation

cannot

be

equated

with

clemeanor

prejudicial

to the

business

interest

of

private

respondent.

Neither

was

it

al<in

to

wrongful

and

perverse

conduct

on

the

part

of

cala nza.

It

nrust

not

be

ignored

that

private

respondent's

orders

for

calanza's explanation

ancl

t"o

transl=er

traced

tlreir roots

from

the

alleged

rnlssing

boolclets

imputed

to

be

the

Iiatrility

of

Calanza.,t

lPreliminarily,

there was

no

evaluation

that

calanza

was/

indeed,

the

culprit

for

the

missing

bool<lets.

wlrile

private

respondent

authorized

Ms.

Gilda

Beleno

to

,check

and

look for

the

rnissing

l:oolclets,

the

result

o1i tlre

investigation

did not

yield

that

Calanza

was

resporrsible

therefor. As such,

it

will

be

illogical

to

assume

Calernza's

culpability

and neither can

we

expect

her

to lreed

calls

for

transfer

to

Manila.

we reiterate

jurispruclential

guidelines

concerrning

transfer-

of

employees:

(a)

a transfer

is

a

movement

fronr

one

position

to

another

of

equivalent

ran[<,

level

or salary

without

breal< in

tlre

service

or

a lateral

movement from

32

Apacible

v.

Muttimed

Ind.

Inc.,

et

al.,

G.R.

No.

178903

,

May

30,

2011

citing

gascon

v.

CA,

G.R.

No. 144899,

February

5,

2004, 422

SCRA

122.

G.R,

No.

163431,

August

28,

2013

Dontton

v.

Rapid

lrlovers

and Farwarders

Co.

Inc., et

a/., G.R, No,

2013

citing

Separate

Opinion

of J. Tinga

in

Agabon

v.

NLRC,

G.R, No.

L7

t

71"OO4,442

SCRA 573,

693.

ls

Complainants'

Position

Paper,

Annex

"E",

Rollo,

page

82



cA-G.R,

SP

NO. 127660

Decision

page

10

of L5

one

position

to another of equivalerrt

rank

or salaryi

(b)

the

employer has tlre inherent right

to

transfer

or

reassign

an

employee

for

legitimate

business

purposes;

(c)

a tranlsfer

[:ecomes

unlawful

wlrer

ivated

b

cliscriimination

or

bad

faitlr

or

is

effectecl

as

a

forlrn

o'f

pu_trisrlrment

or.

is a

demotion

uritlrout

suffi(lel]l

caulset;'6

(d)

the

employer

must be

able

to show

that

the

transfer

is not

unreasona[:le, inconvenient,

or

prejudicial

to

the

ernployee.3T

i

n

lieu

of

interpreting

the

transfer

as a legitimate

exerclise

of

a

business

prerogative,

it

would

appear

l:o

Us

that

it

was

a retaliatory rnove,

or

a

punishment

for

ttre

unproven

transgression allegedly

committed

by Calarrz;a.

tA/ithal,

and

as correctly

understood,

the

concepL

of

loss

of

trust

or

confidence

will

not

assume

pertinenc::e

for

Calanza's

plight.

Loss

of

conl1dence

generally

applies

only

to:

(1)

cases involving employees

occupying

positicns

of

trust and

conficlence;

or

(2)

situations

where

tlre employee

is routinely

charged

with

the

care

and custody

of

tlre

employer's rnoney

or

property.

To the

first

class belorrg

managerial

employees,

that

is,

those

vested

witlr the

powers

and

prerogatives

to

lay

down

management

policies

and/or to

hire, transfer,

suspend,

Iay-oft,

recall,

discl-xarge,

assign or discipline employees,

or eFfectively

recommend

such

managerial actions"

To

the

second

class

belorrg

cashiers,

auditors,

property

custodians;,

or tlrose

whcr, in

the

normal

and

routine

exercise

of

tl"reir functions,

regularly

lrandle significant

amounts

of money

or

property,"

Without

demeaning tlre

nexus

of

Calanza witlr

lrer

ernployerr

she

merely

served

as

an all-around

emprloyee

and

a

receptionist.3e

An

"all

around"

employee

is a broad

term involving

a

wide

range

of

duties. While slrel

was

assigned

as

front

desk

clerl<

or

receptionist,

still,

we

trelieve

35

Emphasis

ours

31

Peckson v,

Robinsons

Supermarket Corp.,

eta/.,

G.R, No, 198534,

July 3,

2013

38

Villanueva,

Jr.

v.

NLRC,

et ai. G.R, No.

1"76893,

June

I3,

2012

3e

Complaint,

Rollo,

page

50; Petition for

Certiorari,

page

5, Rollo,

pageT;



cA-c,R"

sP

NO, 127660

Decisiorr

page

11

of 15

that tfitis

was

not

a

ranl(

and

File

position

imbuecl

witlr

trust

and

confidence,

witlr

respect

to

ranr<-anjfi-file

person

nel,

loss

ftr

cl

confi

as

(Ir

d

for

valiel

di

utres

involv

ent

inr

'[[re

a

I

leg

reel

and

at

lnerq

u

ora

ancl

ation

IItg

elrployer

wiU

not

be

suf'ficient.a,

Relative

to

tl're

Affidavit

of

Nieves

G.

Gonrez,ar

presented

by

private

respondent,

it

was

insufficient

to

absorb

the

sugg€r:stion

that

the

position

of

front

desk

clerk,

then

occu

pied

by

cala nza,

involvecl

trust

and

confidence

as

prelude

for

dismissal.

It

is

needless

to

stress

that

private

responclent

shoulrl have

provided

evidence

of

calanza's

functions;,

tlre

extent

of

lrer

duties, the

procedure

in

the

handling

crf

tlre

receipts

and the fact

that

no

other

personnel

was invoived

therercn.

Anent

procedural

due

process,

private

responclent

failed

to

corrrply

with

tlre requirement

of the

law

in

tlre

dismissal

of

employees,

An

employer

must

furnish

the

workr:r

with

two written

notices;

(1)

a written

ncrtice

specifying

the

grounds

for

terrnination

and

giving

to

saicl

employee

a

reasonable

opportunity

to

explain

his

sidri:

and

(2)

anotlrer

written

notice

indicating

that,

uporl

due

consideration

of all

circumstances,

grouncls

have

Lreen

establislred

to

justify

the ernployer's

decision

to dismis;s

the

empl,lyee.o'-

As

observed by the

NLRC,

calanza

was

only

"verbalry

inforrned

about

the

missing

booklets

ancJ

was

told

to

go

to

Manila

to

explain her side."'3

That

she

was

not furriris;lred

any

written

notice

particularly

stating

the

offense

slre rnight

have

committed

was

bad

enouglr,

But

to

ask her

to

[ravel

to

tt'lanila

just

to explain

her

side

was

dowinright

a0

Bluer

than

Blue

Jointventures

company,

etc.

v, Esteban,

G.R

No.

lg2s12,

April 7,

2014;

Emphasis

Ours

al

Private

Respondent's

Memorandum,

Anlrex

.'I,,,

Rollo,

page

444

42

Pere,z

and Doria

v.

Phit.

Telegraph

and Telephone

co., G.R.

No.

152048, April

7,

citinrl

omnibus

Rules

Implementing

the Labor

Cade, Book

VI,

Rule

1, Sec.

2

(a)

and

*3

l\LRC

Resolution

dated

July

Og, ZO 2,

page

10,

Rollo,

page

44

2009

tt'"

h



cA-G,R.

SP NO,

:t27660

Decisiorr

page

12 of

1"5

u

n reasona

ble.44 We therefore

su

bscribe

with

tlre

observation

of

the Labor Arbiter

that:

"She

was

not

able

to

adequately

defend

lrerself

as slre was

not

fully

or

correctly

inforrned

ol'the charges agains[

her which

the

respondent

intended

to

prove.

It is unfair

tcl

charge

an

employee

witlr

an offense

and

to

transfer lrer without

deferrding

herself."as

l,(ing

of

l{ings

Transport,

Inc.,

et al,, v.

Mamacau v,,ras

a

constant

reminder

about

notices

to

be

furnished

the

em

ployee

:

"l-he

first

written

notice

to

[:e

served

on

the

ermployees

slrould

contairr

the

specific

causes

or

grounds

for

terrninatiorr

against

tlrern,

and

a directive

that

the

employees are

given

the

opport_unity

to

subrnit

tlreir

written

explanation

wil-hin

a reasonable

perio<1.

F{easonable

opportunity

uncier

tlre Ornnibus

t{ules means

every

kind

of assistance

tirat

management

must

accorcl

to

the

employees

to

enable

thenr

to

prepare

adequately

for

tlreir

defense.-fhis

shoultJ

be

construed

as a

period

r:f

at

least

five

(5)

catendar

days

frorn

receipt

of

the notic:e

to

give

the

employees an

opportunity

to

sludy

tlre

accusation

against tlrern,

consult

a

uniorr

official or

lawyer,

gatlrer

data and

evidence,

and

decide

on tlre

rJel'enses

they

will

raise against

the

cr:ruiplairrt.

Moreover,

in

order

to

enable

Lhe

errr;:loyees

l-r: intelligently

prepare

Lheir

explarration

and

cJefenses,

the

notice

slrould

corrtailr

in

detailed

rrarration

of

t.he

facts

and circunrstances

tlr;tt

will

serve as

basis l'or

the

clrarge against

the

ernployees,

,A

general

description

ol'the charge

will

not

suffice.

[-astly,

the notice

sl-toL.tltJ

specil'ically

rnention

rrvl"rir.:lr

r:orxpdr-ly

rules,

if

any,

are violated

arrd/or

which

arnong

the

grounds

under

Art.

282 is

beirrg

charged

against

the

enrployees, "

Furthermore,

dismissal slrould

only

be

a

last resort,

a

penalty

to

be meted

only after

all the

relevant

circumstances

have

been

appreciated

and

evaluated

with

the

goal

of ensuring

that the

ground

l'or

disrnissal was not

oo

Rollo,

page

185

ot

Id.,

J:age

523

'6

G,R. No.

166209,

June

29, 2OQ7



cA-G.R. SP

NO.

127660

Decisiorr

page

13 of L5

only

serious

but

true.

Tlre

cause

of

termination,

to

be

lawful,

must

be a

Serious

and

grave

malfeasance

to

jttstify

the

deprivation

of

a

means

of

livelihood.

This

requirement

is

in

keeping

with

the spirit

of our

Constitution

and

laws

to

lean OVer

bacl<wards

in

favor of the

worl(ing class,

and

with

the

rnandate

tl-rat

every

doubt

must

be resolved

in

their

favor,aT

Corollary

to

the

discussion

on transfer

of

employees,

We

share

similar

perceptions

for

Pifiera and

Songalia,

We

recall

that

they

were

accused of

workirrg

at Dely's

inn while

employed

in BPTL

Petitioners

did

not

deny

this

fact,

But

what

created dark

clouds

of doubt on

the

motive

fon

the

transf'er

waS the

series

of

bare

accusations

on

private

respondent's

Comment

and

Menlorandum

:

"They committed

fraud or

willful

breach

of

the trus;t

reposed

in them

when

they

worked

in

Dely's

Inn

despite

the

fac[

that

they

are

employed

with

U.M

(in

BP-|-I)

arrd

receiving their

salary

from

U.M.

l3esides,

they consented

to

the

stealing

of

electricity

and water by

Ernesto

de

lcrs

Iiantos

fronr

BPI-I,

l=or

which the latter

is

now

indicted

for

Qualified

Theft,

to

tl-re

prejudice

of

their

employer

(U.M.),

They

also

allowed

Ernesto Delos Santos to

pirate

trotel

guests

of

BP-ru

into

Dely's Inn; likewise

allowerd

Ernesto

Delos

Santos

to take

supplies lil<e soap,

tissues,

rice and

the

like from

BPTI

to

Dely's

Inn, all

to the

prejudice of

their

employer

(U.M.)."*'

Again, tlre

transfer

r:f

the

rernaining

petitioners

appeilred

to

be

a

retaliatory

rnove for

actuations

allegedly

comnritted

by

Calanza's

co-petitioners

even

as

there,:

was

no

indication

that

Pifiera

and Songalia

were

previ,ously

subjected

to

a transfer

or

reshuffle

during

their long

years

of

service.as

Constructive

disrnissal

exists

where

there is

cessation

of

work because

"continued

employment

is

rendered

o7

Dongon

v. Rapid

Movers and

Forwarders Co,

Inc.,

et

al.,

supra.

aB

Private

Respondent's Comment,

pp

15-16,

Rollo,

pp.

346-347;

Private

Respotrdent's

Memorandum,

pp

14-15, Rollo,

pp.

416-4t7

oe

Petition for Certiorari,

Paragrapl-r 71,

page

21,

Rollo.

page

23

q



cA-G.R.

SP

NO.

127660

Decision

page

1r[ of

]-5

impos;sible,

unreaSonable

or unlikely,

aS

an offer involv'ing

a

demotion

in

rank

or

a

climinution

in

pay"

and

other

trenefits.

Aptly

callecJ

a

disrnissal

in disguise

or

an

act

amounting

to

dismissal

but

made

to appear

as

if it

were

not,

constructive

dismissal

may,

li[<ewise,

exist

if

an

act of

clear

discrirnination,

insensibility,

or

disdain

by

an

ernployer

becornes

so

unbearable

on

tl-le

part

ol'tlre

employee

thai

ii

coulcl

foreclose

any

choice

l,ry

him

except

to

forego

lris

continued ernploylnent.

In

CaSe

of a

transfer

ql=

an

employee,

the

rule

is

settlecl

ttrat

the

employer

is ch;arged

with

the

burden

of

proving

tlrat

its coriduct

and

action

are

for

valid

and

legitimate

grounds

such

as

genuine

bu:,;iness

necessity

and

that

the

transfer

is not

unreasonable,

inconvenienL

or

prejudicial

to

the

employee.

11'

the

empl,oyer

Cannot

overcome

this

burden

of

proof

,

the

enrployee's

transfet'

shall

be

tantanrount

to

unllawful

constructive

dismissal.50

we

clo

not

agree

with

the

NLRC's

reasoning

tlrat:

"...When respondents-appellants

deprived

complainant-

appellees

of

their

livirrg

quarters,

this

was done

as

a

colsequence

of

tlre

order

that

they

are

to

report

to

['4anila

as a

result

of

the

reshufflirrg

policy."sl

Following

the

preceding discourse,

tlre

transfer

of

petitiorrers

to

lvlanila

was

legally

impermissible.

Perforce,

private

respondent

was

not

juitifiect,

especially

so

when

the

privacy

of

Caliarlza's

roorn was

invaded.

Wlrile

generally

an

employer

has

managrtsrnent

prerogative

to

transfer

its

employees,

the

ernployer's

exercise

of

its

managemelrt

prerogative,

however,

is

not

an

unbridled

right

that

cannot

be

subjected

to

this

Court's

scrutiny,

The

exercise

of

rnanagenrent

prerogatiive

is

subjr:ct

to tlre

caveat

that

it

should

not

be

perfornred

in

so

Morales

v. Harbour Center

PortTerminal,

Inc.,

G.R,

No. t74208,

January

25,20.12,

citing

Gtobe Tetecom,

Inc. v.

Florendo-Flores,43B

Phil.

756,766

(2002)

citing Pltil.

Japan

Active carbon

corp,

v.

NLRC,

et al.,

253

Phil. 149,

I52,

(1989),

Uniwt',de

sales

warehouse

Club

v.

NLRC, G.R.

No.

154503,

29 February

2008,

547

SCRA

2,,20,

236

;

Hyatt Taxi Services,

Inc.

v,

Catinoy,412

Phil,

295, 306

(2001);

Phil, Veteran:;

Rank

v.

NLRC,

G.R.

No.

1BBBB2,30

March

2010,6L7

SCRA

204,212.;

lrVestmont

Pharmaceuticals,

lnc.

v. Santaniego,

518

Phil.

41, 51

(2006).

s1

NLR.C

Resolution

dated

July

09,

2012,

page

13, Rollo,

page

47

-I

h



cA-G,R.

SP

NO.

127660

Decision

page 15; of

L5

violatlon

of

any

law

and

that

it

is

not

tainted

by

any

arbitrary

or

malicious

motive

on

the

part

of

the

employ'er'sz

wHEREFORE,

premises cOnsidered,

the

instant

Petition

for

Certiorari

is

hereby

GRANTED.

Hence,

the

NLRC's

dispositions

on

September

lZ,

20LZ

and

July

09,

?:}tZ

are

hereby

SET

ASIDE

and

We

AFFIR.M

the

llabor

Arbiter's

Decision

on

March

22,

20L7.

r,

r$o

0RDERED.

##dflr'

trfl

1ff

EDUARDOh.

pHRALTA,

JlR.

Associate

Justice

WE CONCUR:

NoE+S\

Assofute

TIJAM

Justice

Associate

Justice

CER,TTFTCATION

Pursuant

to

Article

VIII,

Section

L3

of the

Constil:ution,

it

is

hereby

certified

that

tlre

conclusions

in the

above

decis;ion

were

reaCheCI

in

consultation

before

the

case

was

assigyned

to

the

writer

of

TTO'Pn

of

the Court.

N*UUG\uAM

ch

a

i

rp e

r=r\,)Fo

rlth

D iui

t

i

o,',

s2

Arabit,

etal.

v,

lardine

Paciflc

Finance,

/nc.,

G.R.

No. 181719,

April 2t,20t4

11) court of appeals nlrc no-127660

Documents