Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > January 1997 Decisions > G.R. No. 113085 January 2, 1997 - ANTONIO B. MOLATO, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113085. January 2, 1997.]

ANTONIO B. MOLATO, RENATO ALEJAGA and ESMERALDO B. MOLATO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER RICARDO C. NORA, REACH OUT BIBLICAL HOUSE and ILDEFONSO P. BARCELO, Respondents.

Jose C . Espinas for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for Public Respondent.

Umali Soriano & Associates for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; ON GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. � The original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review the decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence but confined merely to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is therefore incumbent upon petitioners to establish satisfactorily that public respondents acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

2. LABOR LAW; EMPLOYMENT; DISMISSAL; REQUISITES. � To constitute a valid dismissal from employment two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art. 282 of the Labor Code; and, (b) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUNDS; MISCONDUCT; WHEN PROPER. � For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal the same must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties and must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The affidavits of private respondents’ witnesses which contain mere general allegations are insufficient to warrant such findings. It is grave abuse of discretion for public respondents Labor Arbiter and NLRC to rule that petitioners were guilty of serious misconduct and insubordination based on those affidavits alone.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; REQUIREMENTS, NOT OBSERVED. � The twin requirements of notice and hearing, which are the essential elements of due process, were not observed. The memoranda dismissing the petitioners took effect on the very day they were issued. Clearly, petitioners were not given the opportunity to present their side. Thus they were terminated from their employment maliciously, whimsically and without just cause. The act of illegally dismissing an employee violates the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure of workers and contributes heavily to the economic burdens of the nation. chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which seeks to annul the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora dated 6 September 1991 and the resolutions of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 12 August 1993 affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dated 6 October 1993 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners Antonio B. Molato, Renato Alejaga and Esmeraldo B. Molato are regular employees of private respondent Reach Out Biblical House. On 16 March 1991 private respondent Ildefonso Barcelo, manager of Reach Out Biblical House, issued three (3) separate Inter-Office Memoranda to petitioners informing them of their dismissal from the office for grave misconduct, insubordination and inefficiency which greatly affected the operations and security of the company. Their dismissal was to take effect on the same date the memoranda were issued.

Petitioners immediately filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment and non-payment of certain benefits.

On 6 September 1991 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding just and valid cause for the termination of petitioners’ employment based on the joint affidavit of six (6) co-employees of petitioners dated 28 June 1991 and the affidavit of the company’s external auditor Emmanuel Tiongson of the same date attesting to the misconduct of petitioners. Nonetheless, the Labor Arbiter ordered private respondent to indemnify petitioners P5,000.00 each for failure to observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing in effecting their termination.

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. On 12 August 1993 the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners sought a reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC on 6 October 1993.

Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging that public respondents Labor Arbiter and NLRC gravely abused their discretion when they gave evidentiary weight to the self-serving affidavits of private respondents’ witnesses which were executed three (3) months after the complaint for illegal dismissal was lodged. Petitioners contend that the affidavits contain general statements and do not allege specific acts committed by them to warrant their dismissal under Art. 282, pars. (a) and (b), of the Labor Code. Furthermore, petitioners claim that the affidavits were mere afterthoughts to put a semblance of legality to their arbitrary and illegal dismissal. chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

The original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review the decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence but confined merely to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is therefore incumbent upon petitioners to establish satisfactorily that public respondents acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. 1

The petition is meritorious. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art. 282 of the Labor Code; and, (b) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. 2 Unfortunately, both requirements were not satisfied.

Both public respondents Labor Arbiter and NLRC found just and valid causes in terminating the services of petitioners on the basis solely of the affidavits executed by External Auditor Emmanuel Tiongson and the six (6) co-employees of petitioners. However, a perusal of the aforesaid affidavits readily reveals that the acts allegedly committed by petitioners were merely general allegations which were not adequately substantiated �

2. Na magmula noong Agosto 1990 hanggang sa sila’y matanggal sa trabaho noong Marso 16, 1991, ang nasabing tatlong (3)kawani ay nagpakita ng mga sumusunod na asal at pag-uugali na hindi karapat-dapat sa isang matinong manggagawa.

2.1 Ang Pagpapakita ng kawalang galang kay Ginoong Ildefonso P. Barcelo, may-ari ng Reach Out Biblical House lalong-lalo na kung sila’y bibigyan ng mga kaukulang gawain sa shop;

2.2 Ang pagtataas ng boses, pagsigaw at pagsagot ng pabalang at wala sa katwiran kay Ginoong Barcelo sa tuwing magkakaroon ng pulong ang mga manggagawa;

2.3 Ang sadyang pagbagal sa pagtupad ng mga tungkuling kanilang ginagampanan upang ma-delay ang mga trabaho sa shop at;

2.4 Ang hindi pagpapakita ng respeto kay Ginoong Barcelo bilang isang employer sa kabila ng lahat ng kabutihan, kababaang loob at mga makataong patakarang ipinapakita nito; . . . 3

Quite obviously, affiants failed to cite particular acts or circumstances when petitioners were disrespectful to their employer. Affiants merely alleged that petitioners would raise their voices and utter unpleasant remarks at their employer during their meetings without however pointing in detail when, where and how the incidents transpired. The same is true with the affidavit of Emmanuel Tiongson. He merely stated that he witnessed the arrogance, misconduct, grossly abusive language, serious disrespect and uncalled-for remarks of petitioners towards their employer.

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal the same must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties and must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer. 4 The affidavits of private respondents’ witnesses are insufficient to warrant such findings. It is grave abuse of discretion for public respondents Labor Arbiter and NLRC to rule that petitioners were guilty of serious misconduct and insubordination based on those affidavits alone.

As regards the manner by which petitioners were dismissed, it is apparent that the twin requirements of notice and hearing, which are the essential elements of due process, were not observed. The memoranda dismissing the petitioners took effect on the very day they were issued. Clearly, petitioners were not given the opportunity to present their side. Thus they were terminated from their employment maliciously, whimsically and without just cause. This act of illegally dismissing an employee violates the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure of workers and contributes heavily to the economic burdens of the nation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of public respondent Labor Arbiter dated 6 September 1991 and the resolutions of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated 12 August 1993 and 6 October 1993 are SET ASIDE. A new decision is entered declaring illegal the dismissal of petitioners ANTONIO B. MOLATO, RENATO ALEJAGA and ESMERALDO B. MOLATO, and ordering private respondents REACH OUT BIBLICAL HOUSE and ILDEFONSO P. BARCELO to reinstate petitioners to their former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges with fullback wages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time these compensations were withheld until their actual reinstatement, pursuant to Art. 279 of the Labor Code.

Costs against private respondents Reach Out Biblical House and Ildefonso P. Barcelo.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sta. Fe Construction Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101280, 2 March 1994, 230 SCRA 593, citing Pan Pacific Industries Sales Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96191, 4 March 1991, 194 SCRA 633.

2. Mapalo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 107940, 17 June 1994, 233 SCRA 266.

3. Annex 2 of private respondent’s position paper, Original Records, p. 71.

4. Alcantara, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation Annotated, vol. 1, 1994 ed., p. 670; Aris Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97817, 10 November 1994, 238 SCRA 59.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1053 January 2, 1997 - MAKADAYA SADIK, ET AL. v. ABDALLAH CASAR

  • G.R. No. 108278 January 2, 1997 - NIACONSULT INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110017 January 2, 1997 - RODOLFO FUENTES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110405 January 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TAÑEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113085 January 2, 1997 - ANTONIO B. MOLATO, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114733 January 2, 1997 - AURORA LAND PROJECTS CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116682 January 2, 1997 - ROBLETT INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117190 January 2, 1997 - JACINTO TANGUILIG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117574 January 2, 1997 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118045 January 2, 1997 - JARCIA MACHINE SHOP AND AUTO SUPPLY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89894 January 3, 1997 - M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116181 January 6, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117460 January 6, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117506-07 January 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALOLOD

  • G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997 - LEONARDO A. PAAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101632 January 13, 1997 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1104 January 14, 1997 - FRANCISCO BOLALIN v. SALVADOR M. OCCIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1105 January 14, 1997 - DBP v. FEDERICO A. LLANES, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 114003-06 January 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO VIOLIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122196 January 15, 1997 - F. F. MAÑACOP CONSTRUCTION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104828 January 16, 1997 - RAFAEL BENITEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113498 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 114105 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES ATAD

  • G.R. No. 114350 January 16, 1997 - JOSE T. OBOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114872 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOMEDES MAGALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116773 January 16, 1997 - TERESITA SAGALA-ESLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 - CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97920 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 106580 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113657 January 20, 1997 - P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118852 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO QUITORIANO

  • G.R. No. 122641 January 20, 1997 - BAYANI SUBIDO, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997 - IGNACIO PALOMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113220-21 January 21, 1997 - DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114928 January 21, 1997 - THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119729 January 21, 1997 - ACE-AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120615 January 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL T. SUICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121143 January 21, 1997 - PURIFICACION G. TABANG v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124076 January 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SARABIA

  • G.R. Nos. 100481, 103716-17 & 107720 January 22, 1997 - PHIL. INTERISLAND SHIPPING ASSN. OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106244 January 22, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113074 January 22, 1997 - ALFRED HAHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121178 January 22, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CAHINDO

  • G.R. No. 107372 January 23, 1997 - RAFAEL S. ORTAÑEZ v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112977 January 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMARIE NAVALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119053 January 23, 1997 - FLORENTINO ATILLO III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98060 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 111547 January 27, 1997 - PAULINO ESTONINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111713 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 111897 January 27, 1997 - GONPU SERVICES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111924 January 27, 1997 - ADORACION LUSTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119063 January 27, 1997 - JOSE G. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120482 January 27, 1997 - REFORMIST UNION OF R. B. LINER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124074 January 27, 1997 - RESEARCH and SERVICES REALTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter RTJ- 93-1031 January 28, 1997 - RODRIGO B. SUPENA v. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. 95352 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PAGAURA

  • G.R. No. 101312 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT DINGLASAN

  • G.R. No. 102199 January 28, 1997 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104400 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO PADAO

  • G.R. No. 106194 January 28, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107624 January 28, 1997 - GAMALIEL C. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110564 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMY VALLES

  • G.R. No. 111193 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1339 January 29, 1997 - MANUEL T. PEPINO v. TIBING A. ASAALI

  • G.R. No. 112719 January 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO OMOTOY

  • G.R. No. 118325 January 29, 1997 - VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1067 January 30, 1997 - CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LAOAG CITY v. BIENVENIDO ARZAGA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1235 January 30, 1997 - ERNIO PORTES vs.CESARIO G. TEPACE

  • G.R. No. 111385 January 30, 1997 - JULIE G. CHUA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112965 January 30, 1997 - PHILIPPINES TODAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114185 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO OBIAS

  • G.R. No. 117684 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLODUALDO CABILLAN

  • G.R. No. 117689 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119160 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA SEÑORON

  • G.R. No. 124766 January 30, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1021 January 31, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111245 January 31, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113703 January 31, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. SORIANO CORP., ET AL.