This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
M+W ZANDER PHILIPPINES, INC. and ROLF WILTSCHEK, Petitioners,
- versus -
TRINIDAD M. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent. G.R. No. 169173
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CORONA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BERSAMIN, JJ.
Promulgated: June 5, 2009 x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION PUNO, C.J.: At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the decision, dated May 31, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 87597, entitled “Trinidad M. Enriquez v. National Labor Relations Commission, M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. and Rolf Wiltschek.” The decision of the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and ruled the dismissal of respondent Trinidad M. Enriquez (Enriquez) as illegal. The Court of Appeals also ordered petitioners M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. and Rolf Wiltschek to reinstate respondent to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and awarded her moral damages and attorney‟s fees. The facts are as follows. On June 4, 2001, respondent Enriquez was hired on probationary basis as the Administration Manager and Executive Assistant to the General Manager of petitioner M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. (M+W Zander), a multi-national corporation engaged in construction and facilities management. She was confirmed as a permanent employee on December 4, 2001. As Administration Manager, respondent‟s responsibilities include taking charge of the management of administrative personnel assigned to the head office, as well as the security of the company staff and premises and the implementation of company rules. As Executive Assistant to the General Manager, respondent was in charge of scheduling, monitoring and tracking all the General Manager‟s appointments and personal finances and serving as the liaison among the General Manager, the Division Heads, the Administrative Staff and external contacts. In January 2002, M+W Zander relieved its General Manager, Mr. Eric Van Stiegeren, and in his place appointed Mr. Rolf Wiltschek (Wiltschek). The appointment of Wiltschek as the Acting General Manager was announced in a meeting held on January 31, 2002. On the same day, a Letter of Appeal  was signed by 29 employees of M+W Zander, opposing the appointment of Wiltschek. The letter states:
TO: MR. KLAUS GAERTNER Managing Director
CC: CC: DATE:
MR. HELMUT KURZBOECK MISS KITY LEE January 31, 2002 LETTER OF APPEAL
We are writing you this Letter of Appeal in the hope of expressing our concern and sentiments on the appointment of Rolf Wiltschek as the new General Manager. We are appealing for your kind attention and consideration on this matter as part of the m+w Zander family worldwide. We know that above anything else, the well-being of the company is the first priority of every employee from whom he derives his livelihood and that of his family. However, we believe that Rolf Wiltschek as the General Manager here in the Philippines will not in any way contribute to our goal of making m+w Zander better equipped to fight all the financial deficiencies that the company is facing today. For how can we have a person represent the company when we cannot even respect him as a person. His human behavior and relationship, his manners and etiquette appear less than the accepted norms in a civilized society. His sarcasm and arrogance and seeming feeling of superiority as expressed by his verbal abuses on his contemporaries and subordinates is unacceptable even in a poor country like the Philippines. Most of us in m+w Zander have worked with all sorts of people with different nationalities, people with even higher positions in life but we have never seen such an obnoxious and demeaning attitude towards the Filipino workers. It has perhaps escaped Rolf Wiltschek, that we Filipinos take pride in our professions and in our Country humble as it is. We wish to relay to you our extreme disappointment on the replacement of Mr. Eric Van Stijgeren with the sudden appointment of Rolf Wiltschek as the new General Manager. We wish to convey to you our apprehension on the fate that awaits m+w Zander here in the Philippines with Rolf Wiltschek as the General Manager. Lastly, we assure you of our commitment to give our best performance in any task given us for the welfare of our Company. Please help us save m+w Zander (Phils.) Inc. Respectfully yours, M+W Zander- Manila Head Office STAFF
All of the Undersigned: 1. ABEC TAYAG (sgd.)
2. CARLITO GARCIA (sgd.) 3. MARK JOSEPH AMADOR (sgd.) 4. CHRISTINE SAN AGUSTIN (sgd.) 5. EMMANUEL PIELAGO, JR. (sgd.) 6. STANLEY MOSENDE (sgd.) 7. JOANNE A. MEDIARITO (sgd.) 8. MICHAEL M. ILAGAN (sgd.) 9. DIANE F. COMINTAN (sgd.) 10. ERIC V. NAPOLITAN (sgd.) 11. RAYMOND C. JOSE (sgd.) 12. CHE BONBON (sgd.) 13. POCHOLO G. RATON (sgd.) 14. JON-JON IBARRA (sgd.) 15. MICHELLE DE MESA (sgd.) 16. TRINIDAD M. ENRIQUEZ (sgd.) 17. VIRGILIO G. NATIVIDAD (sgd.) 18. CELSA L. BAG-AO (sgd.) 19. ALLAN RIVERA (sgd.) 20. RANDY TECSON (sgd.) 21. JOY P. ESGUERRA (sgd.) 22. LARRY N. MARASIGAN (sgd.) 23. ELMER M. ARANA (sgd.) 24. ALDRIN EVANGELISTA (sgd.) 25. EDWARD A. BORJA (sgd.) 26. ERNESTO M. ANTIQUIA (sgd.) 27. JESS DELA CRUZ (sgd.) 28. P.R. SIMPLICIANO (sgd.) 29. R.L. CRUZ (sgd.) The same appeal from the employees at the site to follow.
A day after the Letter of Appeal was released, a number of employees did not report to work. Petitioners allege that after the announcement of Wiltschek as the new General Manager, respondent actively solicited signatures for a letter opposing the appointment of Wiltschek (Letter of Appeal). The petitioners claim that Enriquez used her influence and moral ascendancy to coerce several employees into signing the letter of appeal. They referred to Affidavits of Mark Joseph M. Amador (Amador), Randy R. Tecson (Tecson) and Patrocinio R. Simpliciano, M+W Zander‟s Accounting Assistant, Network Administrator and Contract
Administrator, respectively, which state that respondent sought their signature for the Letter of Appeal. Amador stated in his affidavit that on February 1, 2002 one Abelardo Tayag asked him not to go to work and Enriquez only called him to confirm that he did not report for work. In Tecson‟s affidavit,it was stated that on February 1, 2002, he received a call from Enriquez in his mobile phone telling him not to report to work since other employees will not report to work and that he should just file for a sick leave since they were doing the same. Tecson said he was already on his way to the office and refused to follow Enriquez. Upon discovering respondent Enriquez‟s participation in drafting and in circulating the Letter of Appeal, as well as in the alleged work stoppage that occurred a day after the release of the Letter, M+W Zander sent a Notice to respondent Enriquez, requiring her to explain within 48 hours from receipt of the notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for willful breach of trust and using her authority and/or influence as Administration Manager of M+W Zander over her subordinates to stage a “no work day” on February 1, 2002. It was indicated that willful breach of trust has a corresponding penalty of dismissal. Meanwhile, respondent Enriquez was placed under preventive suspension for 15 working days. Respondent Enriquez signed a statement, dated February 5, 2002, denying that she used her authority and/or influence as Administration Manager and Executive Assistant to the General Manager to compel her co-employees to stage the illegal work stoppage. She also denied that she performed any act to disrupt the vital operations of the company. She said that when she arrived at work on February 2, 2002, she was given a notice of suspension for 15 days and was instructed to leave the premises without being given an explanation. Her personal belongings were inspected and she was escorted out of the premises like a criminal. Respondent stated in her affidavit that her colleagues were given an order that if she is seen in the premises of the company, the administration should be informed immediately and that in no case should respondent be allowed to enter the premises of the company except if she is with an authorized escort of the petitioner company. On February 14, 2002, an administrative investigation and an administrative hearing were conducted by the petitioner. During the administrative hearing, the respondent submitted several signed statements from her subordinates, such as Cecilia Benito, the receptionist; Michelle De Mesa, the Engineering Administrative Assistant; Joy Esguerra, an Administrative Assistant, and
IT WAS I WHO INSTIGATED THE INCIDENT. THAT THE ACCUSATION BY SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS IS NOT TRUE. all saying that they were never advised or prevailed upon by the respondent not to report to work. SINCE SOME HAD ALREADY LEFT & MOST OF THE PARTICIPANTS DID NOT ARRIVED [sic] YET. SHE ONLY STAYED FOR LESS THAN AN HOUR. IT WAS ALSO I.Christine Roma San Agustin. ASIDE FROM COMING LATE EVENING. FURTHER MS. 2002 NOT TO REPORT FOR WORK THE FOLLOWING DAY[. 2002. 2002 (FRIDAY). TRINIDAD ENRIQUEZ TO JOIN US. We quote Rivera‟s statement: 14 FEBRUARY 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: IN RELATION TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST MS. 2002. but he was not charged by the petitioners. TRINIDAD ENRIQUEZ. IT WAS ME [sic] WHO GAVE INSTRUCTION TO THOSE PRESENT THAT EVENING OF JANUARY 31. WHO WAS THEN LATER ACCUSED OF INSTIGATING THE SAID “NO WORK DAY SHOW. I ALLAN O.) ALLAN ORDINARIO RIVERA SALES ENGINEER Out of the eight subordinates who gave their statements during the administrative investigation. it was only Stanley Mosende (Mosende) who stated that he was influenced by respondent Enriquez not to report for work. . RIVERA REQUEST TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED & RECOGNIZED THROUGH MY OWN INITIATIVE & NOT FORCED TO PRESENT THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT TO CLARIFY WHAT REALLY TRANSPIRED ON JANUARY 31. WHO INVITED MS.” WHEREAS.] FEBRUARY 01. (Sgd. TRINIDAD ENRIQUEZ. It appears. THIS IS TO ATTEST TO THE TRUTH OF THE ABOVE. Sales Engineer Allan Ordinario Rivera (Rivera) admitted before the investigating panel that he was the one who instigated the no work day on February 1.
M+W Zander and Wiltschek. that Mosende was not absent from work based on the signed attendance sheet. were ordered to reinstate respondent without loss of seniority rights and privileges. Labor Arbiter Edgar B.however. Bisana held that respondent Enriquez was illegally dismissed. The respondent was found liable for “willful breach of trust and confidence in using [her] authority and/or influence as Administrative Manager of M+W Zander Philippines over [her] subordinate to stage a „no work day‟ last February 1. the company still continued its operations that day.m. The petitioners were further ordered to pay P100. a Notice of Termination was received by respondent informing her that her services as Administration Manager and Executive Assistant to the General Manager of M+W Zander are terminated effective the same day. Tecson submitted a written statement declaring that around 8:00 a.00 as exemplary damages. this time stating that it was respondent Enriquez who called him up in his mobile phone to tell him not to report to work.m. he contradicted his earlier statement when he submitted another affidavit that was attached to the Petition for Review of petitioner M+W Zander.m. 2002.” On the same day of her receipt of the Notice of Termination. On March 1. The accounts of Mosende are incongruous with the statement of Tecson. he received a text message from Mosende and from Wally Borja asking him not to go to the office. the Network Administrator. and to pay respondent full backwages and benefits from the time compensation was withheld from her up to her actual reinstatement. and signed out at 7:00 p. of February 1.000. 2002. which showed that he reported to the office at 5:00 p. Respondent Enriquez alleges that petitioners based her termination on mere speculation since there were a number of employees who reported to work despite signing the letter of appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 2002.000. respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Office of the NLRC. declaring that the dismissal .00 as moral damages. which in turn disrupted vital operations in the Company. P100.  He did not mention the respondent. Both petitioners. Later on. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and found that respondent was not illegally dismissed because she committed serious misconduct which destroyed the trust and confidence of the management in her. and despite the absence of some of the employees. as well as attorney‟s fees.
lay- . Loss of confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. or unjustified. After a thorough review of the records.” Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence.00.000. suspend. The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence. it must also be determined whether moral damages and attorney‟s fees should be awarded. if respondent was illegally dismissed.  Certain guidelines must be observed for the employer to terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence. The award of attorney‟s fees was also affirmed. There are two classes of positions of trust: managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees. The sole ground for respondent‟s termination by petitioners is “willful breach of trust and confidence in using [her] authority and/or influence as Administrative Manager of ZANDER over [her] subordinate to stage a „no work day‟ last February 1. not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.of respondent was illegal.: [L]oss of confidence should not be simulated. viz. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper. Consequently. We held in General Bank and Trust Company v. It must be genuine. and whether Wiltschek should be personally liable together with M+W Zander. we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and find that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner M+W Zander. transfer. Managerial employees are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire. At issue in this petition is whether respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioners. The Court of Appeals deleted the award of exemplary damages and reduced the award of moral damages to P25. 2002. Court of Appeals. The petitioners were ordered to reinstate respondent to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. illegal.
assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. To take charge of the over-all security for the company staff. and To coordinate schedule and documentation of regular staff meetings and one-onone meetings as required by EVS and the Division Heads. They refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof. etc. To take charge of the implementation of company rules on housekeeping. auditors. (Emphasis supplied. respondent was employed as the Administration Manager and the Executive Assistant to the General Manager. To take care of all official travel arrangements and documentation by company personnel. and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. tracking. are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer‟s money or property. and sensitive areas. To take charge of traffic. To ensure the proper allocation of company cars assigned to the Head Office.  These employees. To monitor attendance of all administrative personnel and enforce applicable company rules pertaining thereto. discharge. in the normal exercise of their functions. though rank-and-file. premises. To take charge of the timely provision of supplies and equipment covered by the proper requisition documents within the head office. recall. To take charge of the maintenance. or those who. and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.) - - - . cleanliness and security for all occupants of the Head Office in coordination with the company Division Heads and HRD. to guard against unauthorized entry in sensitive areas (as determined by the management committee). packages and facsimile messages.off. In the case at bar. Officers and members of the managerial staff perform work directly related to management policies of their employer and customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. and distribution of all incoming and outgoing correspondence. The second class or fiduciary rank-and-file employees consist of cashiers. property custodians. upkeep and inventory of all company property within the head office.. The responsibilities of the Administration Manager include: To take charge of the management of Administrative personnel assigned to the head office in so far as administrative functions are concerned (Administrative Assistants assigned to the Division heads and other managerial positions except HRD). regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.
being a head of administrative assistants of other divisions. monitoring. the Division Heads. To take care of immigration concerns and corresponding documents for the GM and the company expatriates. in so far as their administrative functions are concerned. To be a valid cause for dismissal.The duties of the Executive Assistant to the General Manager are as follows: To take care of the scheduling. and document calls for the GM. Though respondent‟s position is designated as the Administration Manager of M+W Zander. it does not satisfy the jurisprudential requirements for valid termination due to loss of trust and confidence. monitor. To serve as liaison between the GM. and ensures the timely provision of supplies and equipment. We find that it was not established that respondent used her authority to influence her subordinates to stage a “no work day”. It is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines whether he or she occupies a position of trust and confidence. To handle personal financials (Banking/Bills) for the GM and To perform any other tasks relative to the above functions which may be assigned from time to time by the GM. the Administrative Staff and external contacts. monitors the inventory of company property. Respondent‟s duties as the Administration Manager include management of the administrative assistants who are assigned to the division heads. the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The second requisite of terminating an employee for loss of trust and confidence is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. it does not automatically mean that she occupies a position of trust and confidence. She also takes charge of the implementation of company rules on housekeeping and cleanliness. and assuming that she performed this act as alleged by petitioners. . To effectively handle. oversees the security of the premises and the sensitive areas of the company. and tracking of all the GM‟s appointments. and because of the performance of work directly related to management policies and company rules. The position of an Administration Manager may thus be properly considered as a managerial position.
the rest of respondent‟s subordinates did not identify respondent as the one who influenced them not to go to work on February 1.” We note that while 29 other employees signed the Letter of Appeal. 2002. 2002. told him not to report to work on February 1. Petitioners anchored the termination of respondent on the statement made by a single subordinate. respondent did not commit any act which was dishonest or deceitful. without exerting any force or making any threats.Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on a dishonest. It was only Mosende who said that respondent forced him not to report to work on February 1. in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. which was made during the administrative investigation conducted by petitioners. This does not constitute dishonest or deceitful conduct which would justify the conclusion of loss of trust and confidence. deceitful or fraudulent act. Mosende. as his superior. it was only respondent who was singled out and dismissed. We are convinced that respondent's dismissal cannot justifiably be sustained since the findings in this case and whatever investigations may have been made by petitioners miserably fail to establish culpability on respondent‟s part. She did not use her authority as the Administration Manager to misappropriate company property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by petitioners with respect to her responsibility to implement company rules. neither should a condemnation on that ground be tolerated on the basis of suspicions spawned by speculative inferences. The act of influencing a single subordinate not to report to work is insufficient to merit the harsh and grave penalty of dismissal.” Petitioners may not arbitrarily assert loss of trust and confidence in respondent based on the lone affidavit of Mosende. and several employees joined the alleged work stoppage. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove that respondent in fact coerced a considerable number of employees to stage the “no work day. The most that can be attributed to respondent is that she influenced a single subordinate. While dishonesty or disloyalty of an employee is not to be condoned. During the administrative investigation. including affidavits from several subordinates of respondent and the categorical statement of Rivera that he was the one who influenced other employees to stage the “no wo rk day. Mosende stated that respondent. These protest activities bear out the general sentiment of discontent within the company and petitioners cannot pin the blame . In the case at bar. 2002. not to report to work.
 We thus find the dismissal to be illegal.on respondent alone. that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud. such as in the case of Balayan Colleges v. Consequently. arguing that there is no factual or legal basis to award such. respondent is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. separation pay should instead be paid the employee equivalent to one month salary for every year of service.. The penalty must be commensurate with the act. of course. grave anxiety. good customs or public policy. Petitioners also pointed out that there was also no discussion in the body of the decision of the Court of Appeals which states the reasons for the award of damages. In previous cases where moral damages and attorney‟s fees were award ed. and. National Labor Relations Commission where the employer posted copies of its letters of termination to the teachers inside the school campus and it also furnished copies to the town . that social humiliation. wounded feelings. the manner of termination was done in a humiliating and insulting manner. inclusive of allowances. good customs or public policy. We have consistently ruled that in illegal dismissal cases. especially where a less punitive penalty would suffice. i. or was done in a manner contrary to morals. computed from the time of the withholding of the employee's compensation up to the time of actual reinstatement. or constituted an act oppressive to labor. conduct or omission imputed to the employee and must be imposed in connection with the disciplinary authority of the employer. and to full backwages. there is sufficient basis to award moral damages and attorney‟s fees to respondent. If reinstatement is not possible due to the strained relations between the employer and the employee. computed from the time of engagement up to the finality of this decision.e. or was done in a manner contrary to morals. and similar injury resulted therefrom. or constituted an act oppressive to labor. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code. We find that based on the facts of the case. moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud. Petitioners may not terminate respondent‟s employment on mere speculation and base her dismissal on unclear and nebulous reasons. Such an award cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process. Petitioners also raised as an issue the propriety of the award of moral damages and attorney‟s fees. and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.
 In the case at bar. respondent‟s unjustified and unwarranted dismissal prompted her to engage the professional services of a counsel and she is thus entitled to an award of attorney‟s fees. We agree with petitioners . why she was banned from the premises. Furthermore. unfair and oppressive. And despite this. we come to the issue of whether Wiltschek. this Court awarded moral damages to a teacher who was flatly. told that she was dismissed.” she was given a notice of preventive suspension. When respondent reported to work a day after the alleged “no work day. and without warning or a formal notice. and she was escorted outside of the premises. why it was necessary at all to issue an order to her subordinates that she is not allowed in the company premises unless she is escorted by authorized personnel. an order was given by the administration to her subordinates that in no case shall she be allowed inside the company premises without an authorized escort. Such measures were unwarranted because the charges against respondent have no connection to the breach of trust involving loss of money or company property. These measures are uncalled for. Lastly. without any explanation.mayor and Parish Priest of their community for the purpose of maligning the teachers‟ reputation. deceitful or fraudulent. Court of Appeals. In the case at bar. we have ruled that attorney's fees may be awarded only when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer. So also in the case of Chiang Kai Shek School v. On the matter of attorney's fees. why she had to be escorted by guards. should be personally liable together with M+W Zander. we see it fit to award moral damages to respondent because the manner in which respondent was treated upon petitioners‟ suspicion of her involvement in drafting and in circulating the letter of appeal and the alleged staging of the “no work day” is contrary to good morals because it caused unnecessary humiliation to respondent. her personal belongings were inspected. and. why she was asked to leave the company building. as the General Manager. most importantly. which could have called for securing company property from respondent. based merely on mere suspicion. The crux is precisely that the charges against respondent are divorced from the essence of loss of trust and confidence—which is the commission of an act that is dishonest. respondent was treated unfairly when she was not given an explanation why her personal belongings were inspected.
The general manager of a corporation should not be made personally answerable for the payment of an illegally dismissed employee's monetary claims arising from the dismissal unless he had acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the services of the employee. therefore. was within the scope of his authority and was a corporate act for which he should not be held personally liable for. That exception is not applicable in the case at bar. SO ORDERED. REYNATO S. The portion of the assailed decision ordering Rolf Wiltschek liable with M+W Zander is DELETED. IN VIEW WHEREOF. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality. All other aspects of the decision of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The employer corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its officers who merely act as its agents. It is well settled that: [A] corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other entity to which it may be related.that he should not be made personally liable.  The exception noted is where the official "had acted maliciously or in bad faith. PUNO Chief Justice WE CONCUR: . because it has not been proven that Wiltschek was impleaded in his capacity as General Manager of petitioner corporation and there appears to be no evidence on record that he acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the services of respondent." in which event he may be made personally liable for his own act. His act. the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court‟s Division. pp. REYNATO S. 196-198. pp. PUNO Chief Justice   Rollo. Article VIII of the Constitution. 69-70. BERSAMIN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. CA rollo.ANTONIO T. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice LUCAS P. CORONA Associate Justice TERESITA J.  Id. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. .
as follows: 1. 45. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MANAGER‟S ACT OF INFLUENCING A SUBORDINATE NOT TO REPORT FOR WORK IS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL. either physically or in the payroll.  Id. p.  Id. p.  Id. declaring the dismissal of complainant as illegal.  Id. V. II. premises all considered. 74. Respondents are adjudged not guilty of illegal dismissal. 43-44.  Dated and received on February 4. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY DIRECTED RESPONDENT‟S REINSTATEMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HELD THE SUPREMELY SENSITIVE POSITION OF EXECUTIVE . at p.000. at p. The award of attorney‟s fees is likewise affirmed. 76.000. Ordering respondent to pay complainant her full backwages and other benefits from the time her compensation was withheld from her up to actual reinstatement. and 4.000. III. Declaring the dismissal of complainant as illegal. note 5.  Id. at the option of respondents.  Id. at p. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT RESPONDENT‟S DISMISSAL WAS ANCHORED ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE SUBORDINATE. at p. with the MODIFICATIONthat the exemplary damages are deleted. at p. p.875. p.00). p. judgment is hereby rendered. premises considered.  Id. partially computed in the amount of P485.  Id.  CA rollo.00. 2. 48. and the award of moral damages is reduced to TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25.  Id. 46.  Supra.  Rollo. 3. at p. 49.]  Petitioners raised the following errors in the questioned decision in their Petition for Review: I. 328.  The dispositive portion of the decision provides: WHEREFORE. at p.00 as moral damages and another P100. p. 2002. 65]  The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision provides: WHEREFORE. and ordering respondents to REINSTATE petitioner to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED RESPONDENT‟S ARGUMENTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING OR DISCUSSING THE POINTS RAISED BY PETITIONERS IN RESPONSE THERETO. note 6. at p.  Id. p. [Rollo. the assailed decision is hereby reversed and set aside. at p. THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 197.  Rollo. Ordering respondent to reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. 329. rollo. 58. at p. and attorney‟s fees in an amount equivalent to 10% of complainant‟s monetary award. 77. at pp. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby REINSTATED. 73. 80.]  The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision provides: WHEREFORE. 97. [Rollo. 268. premises considered the decision of public respondent NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Supra.00 as exemplary damages. Id.  Id. [ Rollo.  Id. 75. Ordering respondents to pay complainant P100. The Order to reinstate complainant as well as the monetary awards are deleted from the decision. IV.
] Id. 1992. 58028.R. 118506. October 8.]  G. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY MADE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT ROLF WILTSCHEK SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE COMPANY FOR RESPONDENT‟S MONETARY AWARD. G. NLRC.  Equitable Banking Corporation v. Art.  Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils. National Labor Relations Commission.R. No. 95145. April 9. G. Bristol Myers Squibb v.  EPG Construction Company. April 18.  G. 99-100. v. Inc. [Rollo.  Ford Philippines. Inc.R.  Primero v. 580.  CA rollo. 245 (1996). VII. 287 SCRA 554. Rollo.). 271 SCRA 670. No. et al . Richard Nixon A. at p.). Book III. No. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: xxx xxx xxx c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative[. G. No. 102958. No. National Labor Relations Commission. No. No. 167449. Art. June 22. Inc. G. pp.  Lim v.. No. 13-14. Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils. v. Baban . No. 2008. 1997. 171 SCRA 328. pp.R. 1989. 1993. 335. Baban. G.R. 2 (c) (1) and (2). 1998. see Lopez v. NLRC (Third Division).  Garcia v.  LABOR CODE. 2008.R. G. Richard Nixon A.R. 1993. 124548. National Labor Relations Commission. No. December 17. 127 SCRA 390. G. 1998. 578. National Labor Relations Commission . December 17. 1985.R. 1 (1997). G.  Radio Communications of the Philippines. April 18.  Estiva v. 156 SCRA 435. 2008.R. 225 SCRA 169. 444. v. G. August 5. No. No. 335 Phil. Sec. Baban . 223 SCRA 656. December 14. Court of Appeal. 297 SCRA 508. No.  San Miguel Corporation v. December 19. 210 SCRA 235-236.  Rollo. 167449. Richard Nixon A. 100. 103372. LABOR CODE.  Mabeza v.  Rules Implementing the Labor Code. G. National Labor Relations Commission. p. March 16. 351 Phil. Inc.R. 1989. December 17. . Termination by employer. National Labor Relations Commission.  Id. National Labor Relations Commission . 519. Court of Appeals. Intermediate Appellate Court. National Labor Relations Commission. 339 Phil 541 (1997).R.  ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER EVEN WHILE SHE HAS PUBLICLY MANIFESTED HER CONTEMPT FOR THE INCUMBENT GENERAL MANAGER. Inc. p.  Id. 123518. G. 72572.  Pascua v. v. v. 180 SCRA 281. 172 SCRA 389. 167449. 282. L-72644. 960 (1998). citing Sunio v. 82. et al. 79907.. June 25. VI. 135 SCRA 569. 49. March 13. at p.R. 1989.  325 Phil.R. L-42724. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY‟S FEES TO RESPONDENT DESPITE THE UTTER LACK OF BASIS FOR SUCH AWARD. 1987. 328.
JR.. Chairperson.: . Respondents. MYRNA B.R. NACHURA. Petitioners. JJ. G. 2009 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION NACHURA.THIRD DIVISION EATS-CETERA FOOD SERVICES OUTLET and/or SERAFIN RAMIREZ. 179507 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO.. and PERALTA. J. LETRAN and MARY GRACE ESPADERO. Promulgated: October 2. No.versus CHICO-NAZARIO. VELASCO. . J.
Petitioners are now assailing the CA’s decision only with respect to its ruling on Espadero’s case. when she reported for duty. as well as its August 30.Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the December 13. Espadero discovered that her time card was already punched in. Espadero. Letran’s complaint but modified it with respect to Mary Grace Espadero’s (Espadero) complaint declaring petitioners liable for her illegal dismissal. 2001 as cashier. Espadero had been employed by Eats-cetera Food Services Outlet since June 30. On November 20. She claimed that on November 21. 2002. The factual antecedents follow. Clarissa Reduca (Reduca). 2007 Resolution. 92551. 2002. Espadero contended that she was dismissed outright without being given ample opportunity to explain her side. petitioners called her and asked her to make a letter of admission as a condition for her reemployment. This prompted Reduca to report the incident to the personnel manager. she found out that a certain Joselito Cahayagan was the one who punched in her time card. SP No. failed to report the incident to her supervisor.R. Espadero. 2005 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with respect to Myrna B. 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). denying the motion for partial reconsideration filed by petitioners in CA-G. in its assailed decision and resolution. After asking around. The appellate court. wrote: Dear Sir/Madam. . Greta dela Hostria. affirmed the July 18. thus. however.
The following day. Petitioners. why no disciplinary action should be taken*”+ against them. as well as the corresponding penalties in case of violation thereof. She personally handed over to Mary Grace Espadero and Fritzie Eviota their individual memoranda for their acknowledgement. They also argued that contrary to her claim. 2002. The matter was immediately reported to our Personnel Manager. petitioners presented the affidavit of supervisor Reduca stating thus: On November 20. Espadero decided to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. DELA HOSTRIA. [which is] a gross violation of Rule # 24 of the company’s Rules and Regulations. petitioners gave Espadero ample opportunity to explain her side. Espadero was told to wait for an assignment. on November 22. maintained that the company rules and regulations. Di ko agad nasabi sa supervisor. Mary Grace Espadero After writing the letter. Ms. While they were able to submit their respective written explanations . within 72 hours. Because of this. Sana po ako ay inyong maunawaan. 2002. Gumagalang. but the said employees deliberately failed to inform her (sic) about it.Ako po ay humihingi ng paumanhin sa aking nagawang pagkakamali. To prove their contention. She then issued separate memorandum each for Mary Grace Espadero and Fritzie Eviota “to explain in writing. they would be going over the same first. Hindi ko po alam na pina in po ng aking kasama sa trabaho ang aking time card. but they requested a little time more before returning the duly acknowledged cop[ies] as. allegedly. however. someone else punched in the respective time cards of the said Mary Grace Espadero and Fritzie Eviota. GRETA V. the company issued a Memorandum terminating her for violation of Rule 24 of the company rules and regulations. Nagpapasalamat din po ako kay Januarylyn Paq (some text missing) at Nida Tendenilla sa kanilang ginawa dahil dito maituwid po ang aking pagkakamali. were made known to Espadero before and upon her actual employment as cashier.
the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s findings. On December 13. Upon appeal. The appellate court also observed that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and unjustified. petitioners decided to terminate her.anent the aforesaid incident. considering that Espadero’s job requires a higher degree of honesty. The Labor Arbiter faulted petitioners for their failure to prove that Espadero deliberately caused another person to punch in her time card on her behalf. For this reason. 2006. the contents of which were never denied nor rebutted by Espadero. Flores rendered a Decision declaring petitioners liable for illegally terminating Espadero. 2005. It ratiocinated that Espadero was duly afforded her right to due process as can be gleaned from Reduca’s affidavit. On January 31. Aggrieved. Labor Arbiter Luis D. respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. Petitioners now come before this Court via this Rule 45 petition. and said that no hearing or investigation was conducted to prove that Espadero was in cahoots with somebody in the alleged dishonest act prior to her dismissal. the CA rendered a ruling affirming the Labor Arbiter’s pronouncement that Espadero was not afforded due process. they never returned the duly acknowledged cop[ies] of my (sic) memoranda to me. . Petitioners also claimed that they conducted an impartial investigation of the incident and found substantial evidence that Espadero was in cahoots with a co-worker in punching in her time card. It is their contention that Espadero’s infraction constitutes serious misconduct. Petitioners were ordered to reinstate Espadero and to pay her full backwages from the date of dismissal up to actual reinstatement.
to wit: SEC. Not only must the employee be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. fraud and willful breach of trust among the just causes for termination. The procedural requirements are set forth in Section 2(d). the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code: . xxxx (d) In all cases of termination of employment. Article 282 of the Labor Code includes serious misconduct. the employer must satisfy both substantive and procedural due process. 2. Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code. whether Espadero’s infraction was serious enough to warrant the penalty of dismissal. but the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause as provided by law. The petition is impressed with merit. whether Espadero was afforded her right to due process prior to being dismissed from her job. Security of Tenure. But prior to termination on such grounds. and second. x x x.There are essentially two issues to be resolved: first.
or rebut the evidence presented against him. 2002. and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination. Petitioners likewise complied with the second notice requirement. as personnel manager. Wittingly or not. This being so.e. the averment is deemed to have been admitted by Espadero. While it may be highly suspicious for a personnel manager not to keep a copy of such an important document. Reduca’s averment that the only copy of the notice to explain was handed to Espadero herself was never denied nor controverted by the latter. with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge. (ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned. It reads: MEMORANDUM TO : Mary Grace Espadero – CB Manila . Reduca’s affidavit avers that Espadero was notified by the personnel manager and was asked to explain her side within 72 hours. Greta dela Hostria. petitioners may be said to have sufficiently complied with the first notice requirement. indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances. i. As there was no duplicate copy. present his evidence. grounds have been established to justify his termination. (iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee. issued a Memorandum stating with clarity the reason for Espadero’s dismissal.. the only copy of the notice to explain remained with Espadero. On November 22. that the employee must first be given a notice to explain her side.
. 2002 as provided by *the+ company*’s+ Rules and Regulations. RAMIREZ Vice-President Substantively. 2002 We received your explanation regarding [you] not reporting to your immediate supervisor that somebody have (sic) punched in your Time Card last November 20. DELA HOSTRIA Personnel Manager NOTED: (Sgd. which is punishable by DISMISSAL. we also sustain petitioners’ reasoning that Espadero’s position as a cashier is one that requires a high degree of trust and confidence. (Sgd. and that her infraction reasonably taints such trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. 2002.” Because of this we regret that we are terminating your services effective November 22.) SERAFIN T. After a thorough investigation of the incident.FROM RE DATE : : : Personnel Department As stated November 22.) GRETA V. we found that you violated Rule # 24 which states: “Punching/Signing of timecards for other employees or requesting another employee to punch/sign his Time Card Record.
the labor tribunal cannot justly deny the employer the authority to dismiss such employee. The rule. and whether Espadero was or was not in cahoots with a co-worker. we explained: Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct. In the instant case. It is for this reason that the Court has sustained the dismissal of cashiers who have been found to have breached the trust and confidence of their employers. she failed to report to her immediate supervisor the tampering of her time card. the Court upheld the validity of the dismissal of a school cashier despite her 19 years of service after evidence showed that there was a discrepancy in the amount she was entrusted to deposit with a bank. or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him. Whether her failure was deliberate or due to sheer negligence. therefore. the fact remains .A position of trust and confidence has been defined as one where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters. petitioners cannot be faulted for losing their trust in Espadero.] that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. handling. or care and protection of the employer’s property and/or funds. A cashier is a highly sensitive position which requires absolute trust and honesty on the part of the employee. As an employee occupying a job which requires utmost fidelity to her employers. is that if there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee occupying a position of trust and confidence is guilty of a breach of trust. One such position is that of a cashier. National Labor Relations Commission. or with the custody. It is enough that there be “some basis” for such loss of confidence or that “the employer has reasonable grounds to believe. if not to entertain the moral conviction[. In one case. In Metro Drug Corporation v.
 With the degree of trust expected of Espadero. Her failure to promptly report the incident reflects a cavalier regard for the responsibility required of her in the discharge of the duties of her position. a forbidden act. not have been known by petitioners. therefore. to be serious. such infraction can hardly be classified as one that is trivial or unimportant.that the tampering was not promptly reported and could. and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. The December 13. must be of such a grave character and not merely trivial or unimportant. the peculiar nature of Espadero’s position aggravates her misconduct. The misconduct. could have been discovered at a much later period. Moreover. cannot be blamed for losing their trust in Espadero. the transgression of some established or definite rule of action. at least. or. To constitute just cause for termination. if it had not been reported by Espadero’s supervisor to the personnel manager. a dereliction of duty. it must be in connection with the employee’s work. NACHURA Associate Justice . is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. Accordingly. as well as its August 30. 2007 Resolution with respect to Mary Grace Espadero’s case. very likely. the petition is GRANTED. 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners. 2005 is REINSTATED. premises considered. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. SO ORDERED. the National Labor Relations Commission’s Resolution dated July 18. WHEREFORE. willful in character.
VELASCO. PERALTA Associate Justice ATTESTATION . JR.WE CONCUR: CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. Associate Justice DIOSDADO M.
Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson. REYNATO S. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. PUNO Chief Justice . Third Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13.I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Bersamin (now a member of this Court). at 126. 560. 52-66.R. and Lucas P.  Id. 88. Jr.  Panday v. concurring. 209 SCRA 122. National Labor Relations Commission . G. 159701. No. 355 SCRA 195. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. p. May 20. 121 (1986). rollo. (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. at 208. and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis removed.  Id. which is punishable by DISMISSAL. Bolso . 2001. National Labor Relations Commission .R.R. G. 67664. 123 SCRA 673.  Philippine Long Distance Company v. p. Inc. pp.  Id.)  Rollo. March 26. at 127. at 138-140. 651 (1996). No. 86. at 101-102.  Supra note 5. 2007. (Emphasis supplied. at 67-69. National Labor Relations Commiss ion. at 56. August 17. 131653.  Rollo.  Gonzales v. 648.  Garcia v. supra note 14. CA rollo. signing of time cards for other employees. (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. pp. ( Rollo.  Gonzales v. (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative. p.  Id.)  Id. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa. G. 1992.  Rule 24 of the company rules and regulations provides: Punching.  227 Phil. p. at 62. citing Dole Philippines. Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION . 125. 204. v. 46. The Late Romeo F. Villarama.  Id. or requesting another employee to punch in or sign his time card records.  Id.  Article 282 of the Labor Code provides in full: ART. 128-143. NLRC. with Associate Justices Martin S. 282. No. at 650.  Id. 98.   Id. National Labor Relations Commission. 327 Phil. at 95-104.)  CA rollo. 530 SCRA 550.
The complaint filed by Antonio B... Respondents. BRION.....R. ..... . JJ.. J.... premises considered. SALENGA and NATIONAL LABOR COMMISSION... The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision states: WHEREFORE...... 174941 Present: Petitioners... The assailed resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 10... February 1..... 2003 and January 21. SERENO......x DECISION SERENO...: The present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on 13 September 2005. RELATIONS G..versus PORTUGAL PEREZ.. Chairperson.. dismissing the Complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Antonio F.. 2004 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.ANTONIO P.. the original and supplemental petitions are GRANTED. and REYES...... COURT OF APPEALS and CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.. CARPIO. Salenga against Clark Development is DISMISSED. 2012 Promulgated: x. Salenga against respondent Clark Development Corporation (CDC).. Nos...
The Complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission-Regional Arbitration Branch (NLRC-RAB) III in San Fernando. which was received by him as a consequence of the immediate execution of said resolutions. petitioner’s employment was to be terminated thirty (30) days from notice of the Order. alleged that the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain the case on the ground that petitioner was a corporate officer and. his dismissal was an intra-corporate matter falling properly within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). President/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rufo Colayco issued an Order informing petitioner that. the LA held that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the Complaint.400. . SO ORDERED. the position of head executive assistant – the position held by petitioner – was declared redundant.Consequently. On 17 September 1999. represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). Antonio B. respondents.222. In defense. Darlucio issued a Decision in favor of petitioner Salenga. after which the interest shall be at the rate of 12% per annum until said amount is fully restituted. plus interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from date of such receipt until finality of this judgment. Pampanga. petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with a claim for reinstatement and payment of back wages. not subject to election or appointment by the board of directors. On 29 February 2000. He held the position of head executive assistant. pursuant to the decision of the board of directors of respondent CDC. The undisputed facts are as follows: On 22 September 1998. thus. The latter informed him that the Order had been issued as part of the reorganization scheme approved by the board of directors. categorized as a Job Level 12 position. labor arbiter (LA) Florentino R.00. considering that petitioner was not a corporate officer but a managerial employee. and moral and exemplary damages against respondent CDC and Colayco. Thus. benefits. First. Salenga is ordered to restitute to Clark Development Corporation the amount of P3. Petitioner received a copy of the Order on the same day and immediately went to see Colayco.
the LA awarded moral damages amounting to P2. Naguiat. the LA pointed out that respondent CDC and Colayco failed to establish a valid cause for the termination of petitioner’s employment.400. he subsequently instructed Atty.000. The dispositive portion of the LA’s Decision reads: WHEREFORE. manager of the Corporate and Legal Services Department and concurrent corporate board secretary. 2. The evidence presented by respondent CDC failed to show that the position of petitioner was superfluous as to be classified “redundant. To pay complainant moral damages in the amount of P2.000. and. At the time the above Decision was rendered. the LA found that petitioner had not been accorded the right to due process. two separate appeals were filed before LA Darlucio on 20 March 2000. To reinstate complainant to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and privileges.00. 4. or an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Finally. To pay complainant his backwages reckoned from the date of his dismissal on September 22.000.000.00.” The LA further pointed out that respondent corporation had not disputed the argument of petitioner Salenga that his position was that of a regular employee.Second. 1998 until actual reinstatement or merely reinstatement in the payroll which as of this date is in the amount of P722. To pay complainant exemplary damages in the amount of P500. not to appeal the Decision and to so inform the OGCC.000 and exemplary damages of P500. Moreover. Despite these instructions. The OGCC reiterated its allegation that . 3. One appeal was from the OGCC on behalf of respondent CDC and Rufo Colayco. premises considered. Pineda. as follows: 1. Monina C. When he received the Decision on 10 March 2000. SO ORDERED.00.000. judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondent Clark Development Corporation and Rufo Colayco guilty of illegal dismissal and for which they are ordered. considering petitioner’s reputation and contribution as a government employee for 40 years. respondent CDC was already under the leadership of Sergio T. Instead. the latter was dismissed without the benefit of an explanation of the grounds for his termination.
they were not the “employer” whom the Rules referred to. Mallari filed the above-mentioned appeal. consent or approval. to pursue the case or to file the appeal on behalf of respondent. Sections 4 to 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. supersedeas bond covering the amount due to petitioner as adjudged by LA Darlucio. Inc. Petitioner also alleged that appellants failed to refute the findings of LA Darlucio in the previous Decision. executed an Affidavit on 20 March 2002. Colayco alleged that petitioner was dismissed not on 22 September 1998. The second appeal. The Memorandum was accompanied by a UCPB General Insurance Co. the Memorandum of Appeal and the Joint Affidavit of Declaration were not accompanied by a board resolution from respondent’s board of directors authorizing either Timbol-Roman or Atty. However. on 19 October 2000. meanwhile. Mallari.. dated 17 March 2000 in order to secure the monetary award. In the meantime. Timbol-Roman and OGCC lawyer Roy Christian Mallari also executed on 17 March 2000 a Joint Affidavit of Declaration wherein they swore that they were the “respective authorized representative and counsel” of respondent corporation. Mallari – and Rufo Colayco had failed to observe Rule VI. Petitioner thereafter opposed the two appeals on the grounds that both appellants. respondent CDC – as allegedly represented by Timbol-Roman and Atty. The dismissal was allegedly approved by respondent’s CDC board of directors pursuant to a new organizational structure. and that appellants had not been authorized by respondent’s board of directors to represent the corporation and. or both. respondent’s board chairperson and concurrent President/CEO Rogelio L. but twice on 9 March 1999 and 23 March 1999. The Memorandum of Appeal was verified and certified by Hilana Timbol-Roman. Colayco likewise stated that he had posted a supersedeas bond – the same bond taken out by Timbol-Roman – issued by the UCPB General Insurance Co. It is noteworthy that Naguiat. exclusive of moral and exemplary damages.petitioner was a corporate officer. was filed by former CDC President/CEO Rufo Colayco. thus. Singson . the executive vice president of respondent CDC. Timbol-Roman and Atty. and that the termination of his employment was an intra-corporate matter. He further alleged that their statements were false. while the appeal was pending. wherein he stated that without his knowledge. who was president/CEO of respondent CDC from 3 February 2000 to 5 July 2000.
 In August 2001. Angeles issued a Memorandum. In other words. Tamayo and Thelma M. petitioner filed an application for the early retirement program. It also found that redundancy.25-month equivalent of their basic salary. since LA Darlucio had failed to provide any ground on which to anchor the former’s solidary liability. which Angeles approved on 3 December 2001. rendering the dismissal illegal. has not been sufficiently proven. and (4) both appeals had not been perfected for failure to post the required cash or surety bond. Petitioner Salenga thereafter moved for a partial reconsideration of the above-mentioned Decision. However. Nevertheless. the NLRC held that the award of exemplary and moral damages were unsubstantiated. Those who wished to avail themselves of the program were to be given the equivalent of their 1. as an authorized cause for dismissal. Moreover. (2) both Timbol-Roman and Colayco were admittedly not real parties-in-interest. petitioner’s theory revolved on the fact that neither Timbol-Roman nor Colayco was authorized to . it also dropped Colayco as a respondent to the case. which offered all managers of respondent corporation an early separation/redundancy program. had no right to appeal. on 12 September 2001. respondent CDC’s new President/CEO Emmanuel Y. It is worthy to note that the said Decision referred to the reports of reviewer arbiters Cristeta D. Thus. Meanwhile.ordered the reinstatement of petitioner to the latter’s former position as head executive assistant. petitioner received on 12 September 2001 its 30 July 2001 Decision on the appeal filed by Timbol-Roman and Colayco. in the proceedings of the NLRC. Concepcion. who in turn found that petitioner Salenga was a corporate officer of CDC. thus. respondent CDC offered another retirement plan granting higher benefits to the managerial employees. He sought the reinstatement of the award of exemplary and moral damages. He likewise insisted that the NLRC should not have entertained the appeal on the following grounds: (1) respondent CDC did not file an appeal and did not post the required cash or surety bond. (3) they were not the employer or the employer’s authorized representative and. effective 24 October 2000. the First Division of the NLRC upheld LA Darlucio’s ruling that petitioner Salenga was indeed a regular employee. On 28 May 2001.25-month basic salary for every year of service and leave credits computed on the basis of the same 1.
petitioner Salenga’s counsel wrote to the board of directors of respondent to follow up the payment of the retirement benefits allegedly due to petitioner. complainant’s partial motion for reconsideration is denied. The complaint below is dismissed for being without merit. The motion. 2000 report and Thelma M. the OGCC also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC’s 30 July 2001 Decision insofar as the finding of illegal dismissal was concerned. Angeles subsequently denied the former’s request for his retirement benefits. as the latter insisted. the NLRC denied petitioner Salenga’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and dismissed the Complaint. pending the Motions for Reconsideration of the NLRC’s 30 July 2001 Decision. pending clarification of the computation of these benefits. and should not be limited to the length of his employment with respondent corporation only. As recommended by Reviewer Arbiters Cristeta D. Pursuant to the NLRC’s dismissal of the Complaint of petitioner Salenga. For its part. On 5 December 2002. 2002 report.A. Darlucio dated 29 February 2000 is set aside. or the GSIS Act. SO ORDERED. Tamayo in her August 2. Respondent CDC did not immediately give his requested retirement benefits. He claimed that the computation of his retirement benefits should also include the forty (40) years he had been in government service in accordance with Republic Act No.) 8291. . was not verified by the duly authorized representative of respondent CDC. another issue arose with regard to the computation of the retirement benefits of petitioner. so the corporation itself did not appeal LA Darlucio’s Decision. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads as follows: WHEREFORE. Concepcion in her November 25. It no longer questioned the commission’s finding that petitioner was a regular employee. Meanwhile. to wit: Please be informed that we cannot favorably grant your client’s claim for retirement benefits considering that Clark Development Corporation's dismissal of Mr. (R. however. the decision of Labor Arbiter Florentino R.represent the corporation. that Decision should be considered as final and executory. In a letter dated 14 March 2003. As a result. but instead insisted that he had been dismissed as a consequence of his redundant position.
Salenga had been upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission through a Resolution dated December 5. The OGCC. petitioner Salenga demanded from the OGCC to present a board resolution authorizing it or any other person to represent the corporation in the proceedings. the appeal was not perfected and was thus a mere scrap of paper. the First Division of the NLRC held that. absent a proper verification and certification against forum-shopping from the duly authorized representative of respondent CDC. The NLRC further held that respondent CDC had failed to show that petitioner Salenga’s dismissal was pursuant to a valid corporate reorganization or board resolution. premises considered. After giving due course to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Salenga.. neither could the OGCC act on behalf of the corporation. the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the appeal filed before it. the OGCC failed to do. absent a board resolution authorizing Timbol-Roman to file the appeal on behalf of respondent CDC. partially granting the motion. he is not entitled to receive any retirement pay from the corporation. While it granted the award of moral damages. Without that authority. it nevertheless denied exemplary damages. xxx xxx xxx As it is. the said Resolution dismissed the Complaint filed by Mr.Antonio B. because petitioner Salenga was a corporate officer. The . This time. the dispositive portion of its Decision reads: WHEREFORE. the NLRC issued a Resolution on 10 September 2003. Salenga for being without merit. Meanwhile. meanwhile. In other words. During these times. It also deemed respondent estopped from claiming that there was indeed a redundancy.. the complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and We set aside our Resolution of December 5. The parties underwent several hearings before the NLRC First Division. petitioner Salenga filed a second Motion for Reconsideration of the 5 December 2002 Resolution of the NLRC. considering that petitioner Salenga had been reinstated to his position as head executive assistant. This. Thus. 2002. reiterating his claim that it should not have entertained the imperfect appeal. 2002. Consequently. resurrected its old defense that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the case.
) Being a nominal party.) Respondent CDC is likewise ordered to pay the complainant moral and exemplary damages as provided under the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. 2000 is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that: 1. On 3 October 2003. the LA issued an Order to the manager of the Philippine National Bank. the OGCC filed a Motion for Reconsideration despite the absence of a verification and the certification against forum shopping.) All other money claims are DENIED for lack of merit. the executive clerk of the NLRC First Division entered the judgment on the foregoing case. Despite the pending Petition with the CA. On 4 March 2004. respondent CDC is ordered to pay the complainant his retirement benefits without further delay. Pampanga for appropriate action. On 21 January 2004.) Respondent Clark Development Corporation is ordered to pay the complainant his full backwages and other monetary claims to which he is entitled under the decision of the Labor Arbiter. again. Thereafter. the NLRC forwarded the entire records of the case to the NLRC-RAB III Office in San Fernando. LA Isorena issued a Writ of Execution enforcing the 10 September 2003 Resolution of the NLRC. and 4. The OGCC opposed the motion on the ground that it had filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari seeking the reversal of the NLRC Decision dated 30 July 2001 and the Resolutions dated 10 September 2003 and 21 January 2004. the motion was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit.  On 5 February 2004. Isorena. there was no board resolution attached to the Petition authorizing its filing. . It is noteworthy that. Office of LA Henry D. respectively.Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated February 29. petitioner Salenga filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution before the NLRC-RAB III. 3. 2. respondent Rufo Colayco is declared to be not jointly and severally liable with respondent Clark Development Corporation. On 1 April 2004. on 9 February 2004. In the meantime. SO ORDERED.
Clark Branch. Respondent CDC filed with the CA in February 2004 a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. He also prayed for the computation of his retirement benefits plus interests in accordance with R. his previous government service totalling 40 years must also be credited in the computation of his retirement pay. the Petition still lacked a board resolution from the board of directors of respondent corporation authorizing its then President Angeles to verify and certify the Petition on behalf of the board. Meanwhile. or compromising any lawsuit in connection with its business. This active exchange of pleadings and motions and the delay in the payment of his money claims eventually led petitioner Salenga to file an Omnibus Motion before LA Isorena. he recomputed the amount due him representing back wages.920. They both cited the failure to afford to respondent due process in the issuance of the writ. It was only on 16 March 2004 that counsel for respondent filed a Manifestation/Motion with an attached Secretary’s Certificate containing the board’s Resolution No. Series of 2001.400 representing partial satisfaction of the judgment award. In his motion. However. other benefits or allowances. Angeles City. From the illegal dismissal suit: (In Philippine peso) . They also reiterated that the Petition for Certiorari dated 11 February 2004 was still pending with the CA. Pampanga. Both motions were denied by LA Isorena for lack of factual and legal bases. both respondent CDC’s legal department and the OGCC on 6 April 2004 filed their respective Motions to Quash Writ of Execution. including the execution fee of P31. 1616.720. 8291and R. respondent filed with LA Isorena another Motion to Quash Writ of Execution.772. he demanded the payment of the total amount of P23. legal interests and attorney’s fees. 86.A. maintaining. The Resolution authorized Angeles to represent respondent corporation in prosecuting. Thus.30. in the proceedings before LA Isorena. They claimed that the pre-conference hearing on the execution of the judgment had not pushed through.A. again reiterating the pending Petition with the CA.222. On 6 May 2004. He insisted that since respondent CDC was a government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC). to immediately release in the name of NLRC-RAB III the amount of P3. broken down as follows: A.
respondent CDC had issued a check amounting to P852.90 On 11 May 2004.440. representing . the CA issued a Resolution ordering petitioner Salenga to comment on the Petition and holding in abeyance the issuance of a temporary restraining order.328 4. Recomputed award b.786 5. respondent alleged that petitioner Salenga had been more than sufficiently paid the amounts allegedly due him.089. since respondent corporation was created under the Corporation Code. on 24 September 2004. Subsequently. LA Isorena issued a Notice of Hearing/Conference scheduled for 1 October 2004 on petitioner’s Omnibus Motion dated 7 May 2004. Meanwhile. On 12 March 2002. Attorney’s fees 3. The parties thereafter filed their respective pleadings. this time denying the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. In the motion.000 6.147.944 1. On 19 July 2004.052.96 1.342. Legal interest d.544.a.758.29.196. Legal interest c.916. Respondent alleged that the examiner had erred in including the other years of government service in the computation of retirement benefits. Respondent CDC subsequently filed a Supplemental Petition with the CA. Retirement gratuity b. It claimed that. including the award made by LA Darlucio. petitioner Salenga was not covered by civil service laws. challenging the computation petitioner Salenga made in his Omnibus Motion filed with the NLRC. After the lapse of the 60 days.781. the CA issued another Resolution.80 250. Litigation expenses B. after finding that the requisites for the issuance of the writ had not been met. respondent CDC filed an Omnibus Motion to admit the Supplemental Petition and to reconsider the CA’s Resolution denying the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Attorney’s fees d.050. Hence. the CA temporarily restrained the NLRC from enforcing the Decision dated 29 February 2000 for a period of 60 days.987. his retirement benefits should only be limited to the number of years he had been employed by respondent.58 1. Unused vacation and sick leave c. Retirement pay a.
P3. In addition. he no longer had jurisdiction to amend or to alter the judgment. LA Bactin held that since the Decision had become final and executory. In the Order. First. On 7 February 2005. the NLRC held that respondent corporation’s legal department. benefits. it was asked to resolve the issue of the propriety of having the Laguesma Law Office represent respondent CDC in the proceedings before the LA. Anent the second issue of the computation of retirement benefits.120 representing the initial award was debited from the account of respondent CDC. LA Bactin denied petitioner’s Motion for the recomputation of the award of back wages. Meanwhile. who had taken over the case from LA Isorena. The LA. the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement and were thus required to submit their relevant pleadings and documents in support of their respective cases. however. LA Bactin also denied the claim of petitioner Salenga.petitioner’s retirement pay and terminal pay. either under the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) or under the Social Security System (SSS). On this issue. LA Bactin issued an Order resolving the Omnibus Motion filed by petitioner Salenga for the recomputation of the monetary claims due him. Petitioner Salenga thereafter appealed to the NLRC. considering that the latter’s retirement benefits had already been paid. allowances and privileges based on the 29 February 2000 Decision of LA Darlucio. which granted the appeal in a Resolution dated 22 July 2005. which had previously been representing the corporation. respondent CDC filed a Motion once again asking the CA to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in the light of a scheduled 14 February 2005 conference called by LA Mariano Bactin. on 2 April 2004. the NLRC held that . Thereafter. At the 14 February 2005 hearing. was not validly substituted by the Laguesma Law Office. but denying the prayer for the issuance of an injunctive writ. and held that this issue was beyond the expertise and jurisdiction of a LA. The said law firm entered its appearance as counsel for respondent during the pre-execution conference/hearing on 1 October 2004. the CA issued a Resolution admitting the Supplemental Petition filed by respondent. On 16 February 2005. on 8 March 2005.254. did not rule on whether petitioner was entitled to retirement benefits.
9. 2004. the NLRC stated: The final and executory judgment in this case is clearly indicated in the dispositive portion of Our Resolution promulgated on September 10. and the prior written concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA). The very purpose of the pre-execution conference is to explore the possibility for the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement to satisfy the judgment award speedily. SETTING ASIDE Our Resolution of December 5. as the case may be.respondent had failed to comply with Memorandum Circular No. On this issue. The second issue raised before the NLRC was whether LA Bactin acted without jurisdiction in annulling and setting aside the former’s final and executory judgment contained in its 10 September 2003 Resolution. not to delay or prolong its implementation. which strictly prohibits the hiring of lawyers of private law firms by GOCCs without the prior written conformity and acquiescence of the Office of Solicitor General. Arbiter Isorena issued an Order dated May 24. absent the necessary board resolution allowing or authorizing Timbol-Roman and Atty. 2004. (3) ordering respondent CDC to pay complainant moral and exemplary damages as provided under the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. wherein it held that the appeal had not been perfected. correctly stating thusly: “Let it be stressed that once a decision has become final and executory. and REINSTATING the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated February 29. 2000 with the following modification[s]: (1) declaring respondent Rufo Colayco not jointly and severally liable with respondent Clark Development Corporation. Thus. (2) ordering respondent CDC to pay the complainant his full backwages and other monetary claims to which he is entitled under the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Mallari to file the appeal. 2003 GRANTING complainant’s motion for reconsideration. DENYING respondent’s Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution dated March 22. it becomes the ministerial duty of this Office to issue the corresponding writ of execution. The rationale behind it is based on the fact that the winning party has suffered enough and it is the time for him to enjoy the fruits of his labor with dispatch. 2002. the NLRC held that all actions and submissions undertaken by the Laguesma Law Office on behalf of respondent were null and void.” . Series of 1998. This was entered in the Book of Entry of Judgment as final and executory effective as of February 2. Implementing this final and executory judgment. 2004. and (4) ordering respondent CDC to pay the complainant his retirement benefits without further delay.
LA Bactin had jurisdiction over that case. Thus. it insisted that petitioner Salenga was not covered by civil service laws on retirement. Concepcion. instead of implementing. as the statutory counsel of GOCCs. The OGCC likewise filed another Motion for Reconsideration dated 31 August 2005 with the NLRC. Tamayo and Thelma M. Again. and thus. the final and executory judgment of this Commission. The OGCC alleged that the issues in the Resolution addressed monetary claims that were raised by petitioner Salenga only in his Omnibus Motion dated 7 May 2004 or after the issuance of the 10 September 2003 Decision of LA Darlucio. On 13 September 2005. Thus. the Laguesma Law Office filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 August 2005 with the NLRC. the appeal of herein complainant is hereby GRANTED. it did not need authorization from them to maintain a case. and We declare NULL AND VOID the appealed Order of March 8.Thus. the issue before the NLRC was an intra-corporate dispute. the labor arbiter a quo acted WITHOUT JURISDICTION. the OGCC also filed with the CA a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 30 August 2005against the NLRC’s 22 July 2005 Resolution. The OGCC reiterated that. the motion lacked proper verification and certification against nonforum shopping. for the matter was still pending with the CA. The OGCC maintained that it was only acting in a collaborative manner with the legal department of respondent CDC. 2003 Resolution. Unwilling to accept the above Resolution of the NLRC. when Arbiter Bactin. which should have been . We direct the immediate issuance of the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution to enforce the final and executory judgment of this Commission as contained in Our September 10. the CA promulgated the assailed Decision. premises considered. the OGCC insisted that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the issue. it held that petitioner Salenga was a corporate officer. Finally. who took over from Arbiter Isorena upon the latter’s filing for leave of absence due to poor health in January 2005. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. issued the appealed Order nullifying. the CDC having been created under the Corporation Code. 2005 and SET ASIDE said Order. In the meantime. for which the former remained the lead counsel. Relying heavily on the reports of Reviewer Arbiters Cristeta D.
R. The CA likewise held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed and granted petitioner Salenga’s second Motion for Reconsideration. No. praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file the Petition. which was a prohibited pleading. 174159. On 7 July 2008. No.R. alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering the findings of fact. III. 174159 closed and terminated. which was eventually docketed as G. petitioner Salenga filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. absent a board resolution allowing the appeal. The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the original Petition as a remedy for an appeal that had actually not been filed.R. finding no merit in petitioner’s allegations. through a Resolution. He manifested before us that he would instead file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. this Court. The motion was granted through this Court’s Resolution dated 13 September 2006. Petitioner raises the following issues for our resolution: I. however. and in taking cognizance of the latter’s Petition which had not been properly verified. petitioner filed a  Manifestation withdrawing the motion. denied the motion in its 17 August 2006 Resolution. On 25 September 2006. considered the Petition for Review in G. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 7 October 2005. 174941. . II. No. On 4 September 2006.lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). which had already been found to be conclusive against respondent. which had jurisdiction over the case at the time the issue arose. The case was docketed as G. The CA. The Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in reviving and relitigating the factual issues and matters of petitioner’s illegal dismissal and retirement benefits.
c. despite the NLRC being a party to the present case. d. b. subjecting them to a . 21 January 2004 Resolution. It failed to dismiss the original and supplemental Petitions despite the lack of a board resolution authorizing the filing thereof. motions and manifestations the latter had filed before the Court of Appeals. as well as copies of pertinent court resolutions and decisions. It failed to dismiss the Petitions on the ground of forum shopping. and copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. It failed to dismiss the Petitions despite the absence of a proper verification and certification against nonforum shopping. e. f. g. 10 September 2003 Resolution. It failed to dismiss the Petitions despite respondent’s failure to inform it of the pending proceedings before the NLRC involving the same issues. It did not act on respondent’s failure to serve on the Office of the Solicitor General a copy of the pleadings. It did not dismiss the Petition when respondent failed to attach to it certified true copies of the assailed NLRC 30 July 2001 Decision. It disregarded the findings of fact and conclusions of law arrived at by LA Darlucio. copies of material portions of the record as are referred to therein.The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it did the following: a.
10 September 2003 Resolution and 21 January 2004 Resolution. Nevertheless. private petitioner’s employment was an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the SEC. It dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and ordered the restitution of the P3.second analysis and evaluation and supplanting them with its own findings.222. It granted the Petition despite respondent’s failure to show that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the latter’s 30 July 2001 Decision. and thus. In relation to this. i. his years in government service are not creditable for the purpose of determining the total amount of retirement benefits due him. plus interest thereon. . However. thus. h. Private respondent also asserts that it has persistently sought the reversal of LA Darlucio’s Decision by referring to the letters sent to the OGCC.400 already awarded to petitioner. not the NLRC. private respondent insists that the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to question the Decision of the CA. private respondent contends that private petitioner is not covered by civil service laws. when they entertained respondent’s so-called appeal of the 29 February 2000 Decision rendered by LA Darlucio. private respondent enumerates the amounts already paid to private petitioner. the case should be dismissed outright. we need to determine whether the NLRC and the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As such. these documents were signed only during Angeles’ time as private respondent’s president/CEO. First. In its defense. and not of the former presidents. The Court’s Ruling The Petition has merit. as well as Verification and Certificate against forum-shopping. it reiterates that private petitioner was a corporate officer whose employment was dependent on board action. This Court deigns it proper to collapse the issues in this Petition to simplify the matters raised in what appears to be a convoluted case. Moreover.
1998 and March 25. because of the turn of events. he had undergone a six-month probationary period before having acquired the permanency of his appointment. Although the second issue may be considered as separate and distinct from the illegal dismissal case. adding more confusion to what should have been a simple case to begin with. this Office finds and so holds that respondents have miserably failed to show or establish the valid cause in terminating the services of complainant. To recall. While it is true that his previous positions are classified as Job Level 13 which are subject to board confirmation. stating as follows: xxxComplainant cannot be considered as a corporate officer because at the time of his termination. Joint Ventures and Special Projects. the status of his appointment was permanent in nature. Xxx xxx xxx . 200 and 214 by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on February 11. Thus. on 29 February 2000. 1998 clearly refers to the New CDC Salary Structure where the pay adjustment was based and not to complainant’s relief as Vice-President. The approval of Board Resolution Nos. a second issue – the computation of retirement benefits – cropped up while the first case for illegal dismissal was still pending. he was demoted to the position of Head Executive Assistant. In fact. The NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by Timbol-Roman and former CDC CEO Colayco. However.Second. complainant correctly postulated that he was not elected to his position and his tenure is not dependent upon the whim of the boardxxx xxx xxx xxx Anent the second issue. he was holding the position of Head Executive Assistant which is categorized as a Job Level 12 position that is not subject to the election or appointment by the Board of Directors. LA Darlucio rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner. due to the refusal of the board under then Chairman Victorino Basco to confirm his appointment. the issue of the proper computation of the retirement benefits was nevertheless considered by the relevant administrative bodies.
studies made since 1994 by various management consultancy groups have determined the need for the said position in the Office of the President/CEO in relation to the vision. mission. complainant was not apprised of the grounds of his termination. as the employee. as well as its other three meetings held in the month of September 1998 (Annexes “B”. the ground of redundancy is merely a device made by respondent Colayco in order to ease out the complainant from the respondent corporation. It is clear from the NLRC Rules of Procedure that appeals must be verified and certified against forum-shopping by the parties-in-interest themselves. There is no evidence on record to show that the position of Head Executive Assistant was abolished by the Board of Directors in its meeting held in the morning of September 22. and respondent Clark Development Corporation as the employer. Complainant’s Reply). In the case at bar. 1998. “D” and “E”. second. representing respondent CDC and former CEO Colayco separately appealed from the above Decision. A corporation can only exercise its powers and transact its business through its board of directors and through its officers and agents when authorized by a . “C”. In the case at bar. clearly reveal that no abolition or reorganization plan was discussed by the board. Hence. they never disputed the argument advanced by complainant that the position of Head Executive Assistant was classified as a regular position in the Position Classification Study which is an essential component of the Organizational Study that had been approved by the CDC board of directors in 1995 and still remains intact as of the end of 1998. a notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and. The minutes of the meeting of the board on said date.In the case at bar. Both alleged that they had filed the proper bond to cover the award granted by LA Darlucio. the parties-in-interest are petitioner Salenga. Likewise. respondents failed to adduce any evidence showing that the position of Head Executive Assistant is superfluous. Moreover. plans. The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices before termination may be validly effected: first. a subsequent notice informing the employee of the decision to dismiss him. the other ground for complainant’s dismissal is unclear and unknown to him as respondent did not specify nor inform the complainant of the alleged recent developmentsxxx This Office is also of the view that complainant was not accorded his right to due process prior to his termination. He was not given the opportunity to be heard and defend himselfxxx The OGCC. In fact. programs and overall corporate goals and objectives of respondent CDC.
In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award. who signed the Memorandum of Appeal and Joint Affidavit of Declaration allegedly on behalf of respondent corporation. Failure on the part of the appellee who was properly furnished with a copy of the appeal to file his answer or reply within the said period may be construed as a waiver on his part to file the same. not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules. we agree with petitioner that. neither Timbol-Roman nor Atty. the relief prayed for. with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule. which state: SECTION 4. shall be verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4. (c) Subject to the provisions of Article 218. The physical acts of the corporation. . absent the requisite board resolution. Sections 4 to 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. BOND. SECTION 6. APPEAL FEE. may be considered as the “appellant” and “employer” referred to by Rule VI.(a) The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule. SECTION 5.00) to the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or .board resolution or its bylaws. Mallari. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate bylaws or by a specific act of the board. the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding specific issues that were elevated on appeal. and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision. shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof. . Thus. -The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of one hundred fifty pesos (P150. (b) The appellee may file with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the appeal was filed. his answer or reply to appellant's memorandum of appeal. and the official receipt of such payment shall be attached to the records of the case. The purpose of verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and have been filed in good faith. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. like the signing of documents. The power of a corporation to sue and be sued is exercised by the board of directors.
(Emphasis supplied) The OGCC failed to produce any valid authorization from the board of directors despite petitioner Salenga’s repeated demands. exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees. We cannot agree with the OGCC’s attempt to downplay this procedural flaw by claiming that. In Constantino-David v. Upon verification by the Commission that the bond is irregular or not genuine. Pangandaman-Gania. No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. and shall be in effect until final disposition of the case. it does not need such authorization. and (c) a copy of security deposit or collateral securing the bond. It had been given more than enough opportunity and time to produce the appropriate board resolution. The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. and the bonding company. In fact. the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal. and yet it failed to do so. representations. A certified true copy of the bond shall be furnished by the appellant to the appellee who shall verify the regularity and genuineness thereof and immediately report to the Commission any irregularity.surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. as the statutorily assigned counsel for GOCCs. In case of surety bond. his counsel. the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court. and shall be accompanied by: (a) a joint declaration under oath by the employer. (b) a copy of the indemnity agreement between the employer-appellant and bonding company. many of its pleadings. and submissions lacked board authorization. we exhaustively explained why it was necessary for government agencies or . attesting that the bond posted is genuine.
S. For in such a case it becomes necessary to determine whether the petitioning government body has authorized the filing of the petition and is espousing the same stand propounded by the OSG. Chapter 12. it is not improbable for government agencies to adopt a stand different from the position of the OSG since they weigh not just legal considerations but policy repercussions as well. The ruling therein mentions merely that the certification of non-forum shopping executed by the OSG constitutes substantial compliance with the rule since “the OSG is the only lawyer for the petitioner. 1992) to be represented only by the Solicitor General. Verily. and the prerogative to determine whether further resort to a higher court is desirable and indispensable under the circumstances. This concept is expressed in the statement “the rigidity of a previous doctrine was thus subjected to an inroad under the concept of substantial compliance. if signed by the proper officials of the client agency itself. The verification of a pleading. Inc. is not also a precedent that may be invoked at all times to allow the OSG to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in place of the real party-in-interest.” the focus is always on the presence of equitable conditions to administer justice effectively and efficiently without damage or injury to the spirit of the legal obligation.C.. would fittingly serve the purpose of attesting that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. Book IV. We ruled thereon as follows: But the rule is different where the OSG is acting as counsel of record for a government agency. They have their respective mandates for which they are to be held accountable.” By its very nature. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Title III. which is a government agency mandated under Section 35. Of course. The case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. 152 dated May 17. Johnson and Son. “substantial compliance” is actually inadequate observance of the requirements of a rule or regulation which are waived underequitable circumstances to facilitate the administration of justice there being no damage or injury caused by such flawed compliance. of the 1987 Administrative Code (Reiterated under Memorandum Circular No. xxx xxx xxx .instrumentalities to execute the verification and the certification against forumshopping through their duly authorized representatives. the OSG may opt to file its own petition as a “People's Tribune” but the representation would not be for a client office but for its own perceived best interest of the State.” In every inquiry on whether to accept “substantial compliance.
in election cases or where sensitive issues are involved. equitable as it may seem. or complaint for that matter. and even if the OSG does have the relevant information. it becomes necessary for the concerned government agency or its authorized representatives to certify for non-forum shopping if only to be sure that no other similar case or incident is pending before any other court. But this difficult fact of life within the OSG. the courts on the other hand would have no way of ascertaining the accuracy of the OSG's assertion without precise references in the record of the case. the OSG would have no personal knowledge of the history of a particular case so as to adequately execute the certificate of non-forum shopping. the OSG must (a) allege under oath the circumstances that make signatures of the concerned officials impossible to obtain within the period for filing the initiatory pleading.C. Inc. This predicament is especially true where the period for filing such pleading is non-extendible or can no longer be further extended for reasons of public interest such as in applications for the writ of habeas corpus. does not operate per se to vest the OSG with the authority to execute in its name the certificate of non-forum shopping for a client office. We recognize the occasions when the OSG has difficulty in securing the attention and signatures of officials in charge of government offices for the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping of an initiatory pleading. If the OSG is compelled by circumstances to verify and certify the pleading in behalf of a client agency. unless equitable circumstances which are manifest from the record of a case prevail. does not excuse it from wantonly executing by itself the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. Thus. the OSG should at least endeavor to inform the courts of its reasons for doing so. Estrella and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. client agencies of the OSG have legal departments which at times inadvertently take legal matters requiring court representation into their own hands without the intervention of the OSG. in many instances. (b) append to the petition or complaint such authentic document to prove that the party-petitioner or complainant authorized the filing of the petition or complaint and understood and adopted the allegations set forth therein. Johnson and Son. tribunal or quasijudicial agency. S. . beyond instinctively citing City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. and an affirmation that no action or claim involving the same issues has been filed or commenced in any court. to be able to verify and certify an initiatory pleading for nonforum shopping when acting as counsel of record for a client agency. This quandary is more pronounced where public officials have stations outside Metro Manila. and. (c) undertake to inform the court promptly and reasonably of any change in the stance of the client agency. For. Henceforth. Consequently.The fact that the OSG under the 1987 Administrative Code is the only lawyer for a government agency wanting to file a petition.
Instead. In this exceptional situation where the OSG signs the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. It ought to have advised respondent corporation. While in previous decisions we have excused transgressions of these rules. these officials let the case drag on for years. or other correspondence to prove that the subject-matter of the initiatory pleading had been previously discussed between the OSG and its client. italics provided) The ruling cited above may have pertained only to the Office of the Solicitor General’s representation of government agencies and instrumentalities. (Emphasis ours. it has always been in the context of upholding justice and fairness under exceptional circumstances. the proper procedure for pursuing an appeal. they have contributed to the injustice done to petitioner Salenga. Thus. the letter-endorsement of the client agency to the OSG. depriving him of the enjoyment of property rightfully his. The OGCC was equally remiss in its duty. though. we have said that the perfection of an appeal within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional. is satisfactory evidence of the facts under letter (b) above. Thus. there is no . it maintained the appeal and failed to present any valid authorization from respondent corporation even after petitioner had questioned OGCC’s authority all throughout the proceedings. the court reserves the authority to determine the sufficiency of the OSG's action as measured by the equitable considerations discussed herein. what is clear to us is that the so-called appeal was done against the instructions of then President/CEO Naguiat not to file an appeal. Instead. but we see no reason why this doctrine cannot be applied to the case at bar insofar as the OGCC is concerned. In this case. and the lapse of the appeal period deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment. What should have been a simple case of illegal dismissal became an endless stream of motions and pleadings. who signed the Verification and the Certification against forum-shopping. Time and again. More alarmingly. The unauthorized and overzealous acts of officials of respondent CDC and the OGCC have led to a waste of the government’s time and resources.Anent the document that may be annexed to a petition or complaint under letter (b) hereof. Timbol-Roman. By taking matters into their own hands. was not even an authorized representative of the corporation. respondent failed to provide any iota of rhyme or reason to compel us to relax these requirements. it is evident that the appeal was made in bad faith.
all other subsequent proceedings regarding the issue of petitioner’s dismissal are null and void for having been conducted without jurisdiction. therefore. but was a different issue altogether and should have been properly addressed in a separate Complaint. However. in the case at bar. it is no longer incumbent upon us to rule on the other errors assigned in the matter of petitioner Salenga’s dismissal. If it were not for the “appeal” undertaken by Timbol-Roman and the OGCC through Atty. As a result. Thus. To recall. petitioner does not question that ruling. We cannot fault petitioner. While the case was still persistently being pursued by the OGCC.other recourse but to respect the findings and ruling of the labor arbiter. the issue would have taken its proper course and would have been raised in a more appropriate time and manner. absent a board resolution. Thus. for raising the issue while the case was still pending with the NLRC. Thus. The issue was not covered by petitioner’s Complaint for illegal dismissal. CDC is not under the civil service laws on retirement. Clearly. LA Darlucio’s Decision with respect to the liability of the corporation still stands. . Colayco thereafter filed his separate appeal. Mallari. though. it dropped him as respondent. the NLRC correctly held in its 30 July 2001 Decision that he may not be held solidarily responsible to petitioner. a new issue arose when petitioner Salenga reached retirement age: whether his retirement benefits should be computed according to civil service laws. we deem it proper to resolve the matter at hand to put it to rest after a decade of litigation. As to him. we note from that Decision that Rufo Colayco was made solidarily liable with respondent corporation. Based on the foregoing. the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Petition filed before it after the NLRC had dismissed the case based on lack of jurisdiction. the issue of how to compute the retirement benefits of petitioner was raised in his Omnibus Motion dated 7 May 2004 filed before the NLRC after it had reinstated LA Darlucio’s original Decision. Notably. The assailed CA Decision did not even resolve petitioner Salenga’s consistent and persistent claim that the NLRC should not have taken cognizance of the appeal in the first place.
) 7227. and fall under the Civil Service Law. his creditable service shall be reckoned from such date.Petitioner Salenga contends that respondent CDC is covered by the GSIS Law. 2(1). We cannot uphold petitioner's contention that his fourteen years of service with the DOH should be considered because his last two employers were government-owned and controlled corporations. respondent was formed in accordance with Philippine corporation laws and existing rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act (R. instrumentalities.3333 years. Since the retirement pay solely comes from Respondent's funds. since Respondent took over the shipping business of LUSTEVECO and agreed to assume without interruption all the service credits of petitioner with LUSTEVECO. Respondent CDC owes its existence to Executive Order No. CDC. As such.. and agencies of the Government. petitioner's creditable service is 17. the civil service embraces only those government-owned or -controlled corporations with original charter. Expressly. . Section 2 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution states — Sec. petitioner's creditable service must start from 9 November 1977 when he started working with LUSTEVECO until his day of retirement on 1 April 1995. Ramos. we held: Retirement results from a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter after reaching a certain age agrees to sever his employment with the former. in which we established this distinction. starting from the original appointment forty (40) years ago up to his retirement. 80 issued by then President Fidel V. 2. NLRC. Petitioner was absorbed by Respondent from LUSTEVECO on 1 August 1979. including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. the computation of his retirement benefits should include all the years of actual government service. in Gamogamo v. Pursuant to Article IX-B. respondent CDC and its employees are covered by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law. subdivisions. Sec. PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. Thus. Ordinarily. consistent with our ruling in NASECO v. However. Article IX(B).A. Thus. a government-owned or -controlled corporation without an original charter. (1)The civil service embraces all branches. It was meant to be the implementing and operating arm of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) tasked to manage the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ). he says. Thus. was incorporated under the Corporation Code. it is but natural that Respondent shall disregard petitioner's length of service in another company for the computation of his retirement benefits.
SERENO . In Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation v. 8282. SO ORDERED. Henceforth. the Petition in G.R. we ruled: xxx “Thus under the present state of the law. they have no original charters. WHEREFORE. as well as other benefits given to him by existing laws. in view of the foregoing. the rate of legal interest shall be 12% until the satisfaction of judgment. petitioner Salenga is entitled to receive only his retirement benefits based only on the number of years he was employed with the corporation under the conditions provided under its retirement plan. The Decision of LA Darlucio isREINSTATED insofar as respondent corporation’s liability is concerned. National Labor Relations Commission. the test in determining whether a government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service Law are [sic] the manner of its creation. deducting therefrom the sums already paid by respondent CDC. The case is REMANDED to the labor arbiter for the computation of petitioner’s retirement benefits in accordance with the Social Security Act of 1997 otherwise known as Republic Act No. 174941 is partially GRANTED. the latter is not solidarily liable with respondent Clark Development Corporation. If any. Considering that petitioner did not maintain the action against Rufo Colayco. the remaining amount shall be subject to the legal interest of 6% per annum from the filing date of petitioner’s Omnibus Motion on 11 May 2004 up to the time this judgment becomes final and executory.It is not at all disputed that while Respondent and LUSTEVECO are government-owned and controlled corporations. hence they are not under the Civil Service Law . MARIA LOURDES P. such that government corporations created by special charter(s) are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under the General Corporation Law are not within its coverage.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence. A. No.
CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson ARTURO D.Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. BRION Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice .
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court‟s Division. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson. Second Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13.BIENVENIDO L. Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson‟s Attestation. ANTONIO T. REYES Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. .
Calaycay concurring.  Id.  Id.  Id. at 2240-2257. with Associate Justices Romeo A. at 1212.  Id.. at 593-598. Quimpo concurring.  Id. at 1983-1991. at 30-35.  Id.  Id. 1498. at 739.  Philippine Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997.  Id. at 688.  Id. at 1176-1209. at 606-607. at 2260-2275. at 1458-1461. Bukal Enterprises and Development Corp. at 1975-1976. Brawner and Jose C. 186.  Id.  Id. at 2299-2318. Señeres and Alberto R. at 1142-1146.  Id.RENATO C. at 577-604.  Id. at 862-875. at 647-658.  Id. p.  Id. pp. at 2277-2281  Id. at 603-604.  Firme v. at 961.  Id. at 253. or the Government Service Insurance Act. with Commissioners Romeo L. 321 (2003). at 1504-1530.E. at 874. at 1162-1174. at 1173-1174.  Id.  Id. Go and Victoriano R. at 743. at 1931-1932.  Id.  Id. . CORONA Chief Justice  Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P.  Id.  Penned by Commissioner Vicente S. with Commissioners Roy V.  Amending Commonwealth Act No. at 2206-2207.  Id.  Id. Mendoza concurring.  Id. at 2274. id. Veloso.  Id.  Id. at 810-830.  Penned by Commissioner Roy V. id. 240-254. Señeres. 460 Phil. at 1467.  Id.  Id.  Id.  Rollo. at 955-959. at 1978-1982. at 2154-2155. at 1472.  Id. rollo.  Id.  Id. Cruz. at 2264-2265.  Id.
Sec. 521-522 (2002). . 510. No.  431 Phil. Court of Appeals. 1. 129 (1988). 1231(1977). 273.O.  456 Phil. Galima v.  250 Phil. 80.  E. 294-298 (2003). 166 Phil.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.