May 2004 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Phil Journalists Inc v. Michael Mosqueda : 141430 : May 7, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 141430 : May 7, 2004]
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MOSQUEDA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision1 dated August 23, 1999 and the Resolution2 dated December 15, 1999 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50485, entitled Journal Employees Union and Michael Mosqueda v. National Labor Relations Commission and Philippine Journalist, Inc.
The undisputed facts of this case are as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
After the 1986 EDSA revolution, Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI), Petitioner, was sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). 3 By virtue of the writs of sequestration issued by the Sandiganbayan, PJI was placed under the management of PCGG, through its nominees to the Board of Directors.
However, Rosario Olivares, who owns 20% or 1,000 common shares, attempted to regain control of the PJI management.During the stockholders meeting on February 4, 1992, Olivares insisted on acting as presiding officer over the vehement objections of the PCGG representatives. As a consequence, the Olivares group and the PCGG group held separate stockholders meetings, where each group elected its own members to the Board of Directors.
During that stockholders meeting, the Olivares group passed Resolution No. 92-2 designating Michael Mosqueda, respondent, as Chairman of a Task Force, along with five (5) other members, to protect the properties, funds and assets of PJI and enforce or implement directives, instructions and orders of the Olivares group. Respondent was also tasked to post copies of the Resolution4 dated February 3, 1992 of the Sandiganbayan, Notice to all PJI employees of its elected board members and officers, and the Secretarys Certificate issued by Andrea de la Cueva.
On February 5, 1992, Abraham J. Buenaluz, Officer-in-charge of PJIs Administrative Services Division, issued a memoradum to respondent and the other members of the Task Force charging them with serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the company and/or present management; willful breach of trust and confidence; conflict of interest; and disloyalty under the PJI Personnel Handbook and directing them to submit their written explanation within 24 hours from notice.
Respondent submitted his explanation the next day, while the other members of the Task Force submitted their joint explanation on February 7, 1992.
Meanwhile, in a Memorandum dated February 8, 1992, petitioners new management placed respondent and other members of the Task Force under preventive suspension pending the investigation of the formal charges against them.
On February 18, 1992, petitioners new management served upon respondent and the other members of the Task Force the notices of the formal investigation set on February 27 and 28, 1992.
However, prior to the investigation, the Journal Employees Union (Union), for and in behalf of respondent and other members, filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal suspension, unfair labor practice, and damages against petitioner.
Subsequently, petitioner conducted clarificatory hearings, but respondent and the other employees concerned failed to appear despite notice. Nonetheless, petitioners investigating panel5 gave the employees an opportunity to present their evidence on March 4, 1992, but still they failed to do so.
Upon recommendation of Officer-in-charge Buenaluz, petitioner terminated the services of respondent and the other members of the Task Force on March 10, 1992.
This prompted the union to file, on March 25, 1992, with the Labor Arbiter an amended complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practices and damages.
On June 10, 1993, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding
that respondent and the other five employees were illegally dismissed from
employment and ordering petitioner (1) to reinstate them to their former
positions and (2) to pay their backwages and moral and exemplary damages
amounting to P2,708,479.76; and attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the
monetary awards, thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
This Office after careful review and evaluation of the pleadings and documents the parties submitted, finds for the complainants.
Records of the case will show that the only reason for the dismissal of the complainants was following the instructions of the crony group. Even the pleadings and evidence submitted by respondents will bear this out. It is now for this Office to find out what kind of instruction is this. Is it against the interest of PJI, their employer?
x x x
A perusal of these instructions will reveal that the Task Force is only supposed to safeguard the assets of the corporation. There is nothing wrong with these instructions because even the PCGG is duty bound to safeguard the assets of the corporation (PJI). The only thing wrong with these instructions is that they were given out by the crony group.
To punish the complainants with dismissal for following instructions to safeguard the assets of the corporation (PJI) just because it was given by the said group is the perfect example of illegal dismissal.
x x x
Complainants were victims of power play in the corporation.
x x x
WHEREFORE, premises above-considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1) Reinstate complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other benefits/privileges;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2) Pay backwages to complainants, as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Mosqueda:
Backwages from
February 1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993
amounts to (P 6,068.67 x 16 months)
------------------------------------------------------------P 97,088.00
Desunia:
Backwages from
February 1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993
amounts to (P 6,083.61 x 16 months)
------------------------------------------------------------P 97,347.76
Santos:
Backwages from
February 1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993
amounts to (P 5,994.25 x 16 months)
-----
-----------------------------------------------------P 95,908.00
Masola:
Backwages from
February 1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993
amounts to ( P 6,517.00 x 16 months)
-----------------------------------------------------------P 104,272.00
Rivera:
Backwages from February
1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993 amounts to
(P 7,069.25 x 16 months)
-----------------------------------------------------------P 113,108.00
Dalmacion:
Backwages from
February 1992 up to actual reinstatement which if computed as of May 31, 1993
amounts to (P 6,297.25 x 16 months)
-----------------------------------------------------------P 100,758.00
3) Pay complainants three hundred
thousand (P 300,000.00) Pesos, each as moral damages and fifty thousand
(P 50,000.00) pesos, each as exemplary damages; andcralawlibrary
4) Pay attorneys fees of 10% of the
total monetary award of P 2,708,479.76 or in the amount of P
270,847.97.
The complaint for unfair labor practice is dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis.
SO ORDERED.
Upon appeal by petitioner, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision dated March 20, 1996 affirming the Arbiters Decision with modification in the sense that the award of backwages, damages and attorneys fees was deleted. Both parties filed their motions for reconsideration but were denied.
On July 4, 1996, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing, as grave abuse of discretion, the NLRCs deletion of the award of backwages, damages and attorneys fees.
In a Decision dated August 23, 1999, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and reinstated the Arbiters award of backwages, thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and then NLRC have the same findings that the petitioner and the other complainants were illegally dismissed. However, they differ as to: (1) the award of backwages, damages and attorneys fees; x x x; (3) NLRC deleted the award of backwages to petitioner Michael Mosqueda and likewise deleted the awards for damages and attorneys fees.
x x x. The public respondent considered the penalty imposed by respondent PJI as too harsh considering the fact that no damages has yet been incurred or done by the acts of petitioner Mosqueda & company because PJI immediately acted on the supposed unlawful act of the February 4, 1992 and PJI acted on the matter on February 5, 1992 when respondent Buenaluz issued a Memorandum requiring petitioner & company to explain within twenty four hours why no charges will be filed against them for doing acts inimical to the interests of respondent PJI. As correctly pointed out by the Labor Arbiter and public respondent NLRC, the dismissal of the petitioner and his co-complainants is too harsh a penalty.x x x.
However, respondent NLRC erred in merely ordering private respondents to reinstate petitioner without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and benefits due him without payment of backwages. The non-payment of backwages was considered as a penalty for petitioner for obeying an order knowing that the same is unlawful or illegal.
x x x