ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5851 - GRACE DELA CRUZ-SILLANO v. ATTY. WILFREDO PAUL D. PANGAN

  • A.M. No. 03-9-02-SC - RE: ENTITLEMENT TO HAZARD PAY OF SC MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC PERSONNEL

  • A.M. No. 2008-13-SC - RE: VEHICULAR ACCIDENT INVOLVING SC SHUTTLE BUS NO. 3 WITH PLATE NO. SEG-357 DRIVEN BY GERRY B. MORAL, DRIVER II-CASUAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1680 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1876-MTJ - KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) v. JUDGE LUIS ZENON O. MACEREN, ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1720 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1267-MTJ - LOLITA ANDRADA v. HON. EMMANUEL G. BANZON

  • A.M. No. P-08-2494 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2399-P - RE: REPORT ON THE IRREGULARITY IN THE USE OF BUNDY CLOCK BY ALBERTO SALAMAT, SHERIFF IV, RTC-BR.80, MALOLOS CITY

  • A.M. No. P-08-2519 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P and A.M. NO. P-08-2520 : November 19, 2008 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P - ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. MIGUEL MORALES, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA

  • A.M. No. P-08-2542 Formerly A.M. No. 08-1-09-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CYRIL JOTIC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2572 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2950-P - JUDGE ILUMINADA P. CABATO v. FELIX S. CENTINO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2053 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2171-RTJ - LILIA RAGA v. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, RTC BR 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2108 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2-93-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ORLANDO P. DOYON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144 - ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2146 Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2742-RTJ - MELY HANSOR MAGPALI v. JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO

  • G.R. No. 138437 - RAMON J. QUISUMBING v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148435 - ROGELIO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ENGRACIO AND CLAUDIA BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149017 - VALENTE RAYMUNDO v. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA DE SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149322 - JAIME L. YANEZA v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149984 and G.R. NO. 154991 - SPS ROLANDO M. ZOSA AND LUISA Y. ZOSA v. HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150270 - CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO ET AL. v. ROLANDO BANIQUED

  • G.R. No. 154491 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. INC. v. QUINTIN J. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155407 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. LEONILO A. MAGLASANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155635 and G.R. NO. 163979 - MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156029 - SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER AND PROMOTION SERVICES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 156654 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. VICENTE LOPEZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 157870, G.R. NO. 158633 and G.R. NO. 161658 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158312 - JOHN DY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158996 - SPS FREDELICTO FLORES (DECEASED) & FELICISIMA FLORES v. SPS DOMINADOR PINEDA ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160127 - RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 161946 - MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE v. BITHUEL MACAS

  • G.R. No. 163443 and G.R. NO. 163568 - LIZA M. QUIROG, ET AL. v. GOV. ERICO B. AUMENTADO

  • G.R. No. 163609 - SPS. BUENA VENTURA JAYME AND ROSARIO JAYME v. RODRIGO APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163794 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ETC. v. HON. NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163942 and G.R. NO. 166295 - NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164242 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO. INC., ET AL. v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 164340 - OTILIA STA. ANA v. SPOUSES LEON G. CARPO and AURORA CARPO

  • G.R. No. 164510 - SPS SANTIAGO J. TANCHAN, JR & RUFINA C. TANCHAN v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 165060 - ALBINO JOSEF v. OTELIO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 165969 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN

  • G.R. NOS. 166309-10 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ETC. v. UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GMBH

  • G.R. No. 166377 - MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166554 - JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMNMERCIAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 167357 - 88 MART DUTY FREE, INC. v. FERNANDO U. JUAN

  • G.R. No. 167571 - LUIS PANAGUITON, JR. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167622 - GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167755 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR VELUZ

  • G.R. No. 167805 - ARNOLD STA. CATALINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 167809 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168819 - ALFREDO, PRECIOSA, ANGELITA & CRISOSTOMO ALL SURNAMED BUENA VETURA v. AMPARO PASCUAL & REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 169047 - EVA FLOYD, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169365 and G.R No. 169669 - SPS PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169888 - RAMON Y. TALAGA v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168923 - BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170567 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADO DIOCADO

  • G.R. No. 170596 - NGO SIN SING and TICIA DY NGO v. LI SENG GIAP & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171164 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NASARIO CASTEL

  • G.R. No. 171348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY ERGUIZA

  • G.R. NOS. 171383 & 172379 - SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 171961 - FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON

  • G.R. No. 172241 - PUREFOODS CORPORATION (NOW SAN MIGUEL PUREFOODS COMPANY, INC.) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172428 - HERMAN C. CRYSTAL, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

  • G.R. No. 172584 - EDMUNDO Y. TORRES, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172910 - SPS LORETO LEYBA AND MATEA LEYBA v. RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO, INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173248 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO

  • G.R. No. 173608 - JESUS GERALDO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 173856 - DAO HENG BANK INC. NOW BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. SPS LILIA & REYNALDO LAIGO

  • G.R. No. 174012 - MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174641 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION v. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 175006 - BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN & LEO H. MANLAPAS

  • G.R. No. 175049 - HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY, ET AL. v. CITY OF ILIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175894 - NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. v. ALFONSO T. TALAVERA

  • G.R. No. 176152 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NIDO GARTE

  • G.R. No. 176169 - ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 176276 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176474 - HEIRS OF ARTURO REYES REP BY EVELYN R. SAN BUENA VENTURA v. ELENA SOCCO-BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 176484 - CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176951 - LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 177353 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANCHO ENTRIALGO

  • G.R. No. 176951 - G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499, G.R. No. 178056 - REYES - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 177354 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO TALAN Y DOE @ CARDING

  • G.R. No. 177356 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHBERT AMODIA Y BABA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 177414 - NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 177505 - HEIRS OF GORGONIO MEDINA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO NATIVIDAD REP BY PHILIP M. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 177886 - SPOUSES LEOPOLDO AND MERCEDITA VIOLA v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.

  • G.R. No. 177947 - SPS GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 178923 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179413 - PRISCILA R. JUSTIMBASTE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179802 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORP., ET AL. v. JAIME M. VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179848 - NESTOR A. JACOT v. ROGEN T. DAL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180507 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR BAJADA Y BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180597 - RAUL BASILIO D. BOAC, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R No. 181441 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 181899 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLLY MONTESA y LUMIRAN

  • G.R. No. 181901 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMILIO MANCHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 182136-37 - BON-MAR REALTY AND SPORT CORPORATION v. SPS NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182193 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL CANETE

  • G.R. No. 182348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 182374 - JEMIAS V. ESTEVES v. RENE V. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182867 - ROBERTO LACEDA, SR. v. RANDY L. LIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 184098 - AMADO TAOPA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 177414 - NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION

      G.R. No. 177414 - NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 177414 : November 14, 2008]

    NOEL E. MORA, Petitioner, v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    CARPIO MORALES, J.:

    On Petition for Review on Certiorari is the February 28, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86993 affirming the ruling of Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Nicolas Barriatos that Noel Mora (petitioner) was not illegally dismissed as he voluntarily resigned.

    In March 1996, petitioner was hired as a "sales engineer" at Avesco Marketing Corporation (respondent) to supervise and install sound and communications systems for its clientele.2 On March 25, 2003, he tendered his letter of resignation to be effective a month after or on April 25, 2003. The letter reads verbatim as follows:

    FOR :

    EDWIN L. TANG
    Vice - President Mktg.

    CC :

    FRANTOR B. FERNANDEZ
    Personnel Manager

    BENNIE B. GUIAMOY
    PMK - Manager

    DATE :

    MARCH 25, 2003

    Dear Sir:

    It is with much reluctance and regret that I must ask to be released from my position of Sales Engineer at Avesco Marketing.For the past seven years, I cannot forget how much this company has meant to me.

    With this regard, I'm tendering my resignation effective on April 25, 2003. Please extend to Mr. Jimmy Tang my appreciation of his kindness during the time I served.3 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

    It appears that petitioner's filing of a resignation letter came about after he was confronted for "selling competitors' products" to the prejudice and detriment of respondent and was given the option of either immediately resigning or face administrative charges.4

    It further appears that petitioner changed his mind and withdrew his letter of resignation on the same day, March 25, 2003, after respondent denied his request to have his resignation made effective a month after or on April 25, 2003. Petitioner was later to claim that he inadvertently left a copy of the letter at respondent's office.5

    The following day or on March 26, 2003, respondent's personnel manager issued to petitioner a notice of disciplinary action reading:

    A report by your Superiors has reached our office just recently some days ago [sic] that you again have committed another breach of trust [sic] against our Company in violation of our [sic] Company Rules and Regulations. This time instead of attending to the products you have to sell, you have surreptitiously undertaken sales transaction [sic], which is patently inimical to the interest of the Company that results to sales loss for the company. x x x x.

    As you know very well, earlier[,] you have been disciplined for breach of trust against the Company . . . where you served a penalty of six days suspension . . . with a stern warning that commission of similar offense will eventually lead to your dismissal from the service of the company. The report that reached us now is a repetition of similar breach of trust reported upon you as Jr. Sales Engineer and for this, Management is constrained to dismiss you from the service for loss of trust and confident[sic] in gross violation of our Company Rules & Regulations on Dishonesty and Fraud.

    On account of the foregoing, you are hereby directed to submit to the undersigned not later than 48 hours upon receipt of this memo why dismissal penalty should not be effected against you for the cited violation. Should you fail to comply with our requirement, the company may have no other recourse except to initiate dismissal proceedings. Meantime, you are placed under preventive suspension effective today, March 26, 2003 until further notice pending investigation of your case.6 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

    In his March 27, 2003 Response to the above-quoted notice, petitioner gave his side as follows, quoted verbatim:

    In response to your memo with reference no. PD-C003-095 dated March 26, 2003 regarding to [sic] the preventive suspension you serve to me [sic], I am not culpable.

    The report of my superior that I am surreptitiously selling other products instead of our products is just speculation and his mere tactics [sic] for our unfavorable sales output for the month. I sell products only from Avesco and never transact/deal other products. I know the consequences of that move and never cross to my mind doing that kind of accusation [sic].

    I have been accused for a thing [sic] that I did not know what particular transactions [sic], I was not being talked by my superior [sic] about this or even asked me [sic], this is just a one[-]sided accusation and I am willing to know what it is all about. Your office did not explain to me what this accusation is all about[,] instead offering me an immediate resignation and your notice is a step for my termination [sic].

    x x x x 7 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

    Petitioner had not heard from respondent thereafter. He was later to learn from third party sources that his employment had been terminated as of April 1, 2003.

    Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which the labor arbiter8 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction9 since the dispute falls within the province of the grievance procedure provided for by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between respondent and the workers' union.

    The case was thus referred to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Barriatos, by Decision of August 23, 2004, dismissed petitioner's complaint upon the ground that he had voluntarily resigned.10 Petitioner received a copy of the decision on August 31, 2004.11 Forty nine days later or on October 19, 2004, he filed a petition for certiorari 12 before the Court of Appeals which denied the same, it similarly finding him to have voluntarily resigned from his job.

    His motion for reconsideration having been denied,13 petitioner filed the present Petition for Review .

    Petitioner argues that he was only inveigled to file a resignation letter on March 25, 2003 after he was asked by respondent's vice president to immediately resign and that respondent's subsequent show cause order cum preventive suspension clearly proves that he did not resign.

    Respondent at once raises procedural infirmities in the petition, foremost of which is its attribution of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court, instead of raising errors of law, apart from a lack of verified statement of material dates.14

    On the merits, respondent maintains that petitioner resigned.15

    The Court notes that the appellate court erred in giving due course to petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, for his proper mode of appeal was for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent had pointed this out in its Comment16 before the appellate court. The appellate court, however, misappreciated this Court's ruling in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees17 which, together with Circular 1-95,18 was subsequently used as basis of the Rules of Court Revision Committee for the inclusion of the decisions of the VA as appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.19

    Section 1 of Rule 43 reading:

    SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals* and from awards, judgments final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission,** Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

    vis - á-vis Section 420 thereof requires that the Petition for Review to be taken to the Court of Appeals should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment or final order or resolution of the VA.

    While Sec. 221 of the same Rule 43 provides that said Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code, the same refers only to cases decided by labor arbiters which are appealable to the National Labor Relations Commission.

    As earlier noted, petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari on October 19, 2004 or 49 days after receipt of the decision of the VA at which time the 15-day period to file appeal had expired.

    An independent action for certiorari may of course be availed of when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,22 if the decision of the voluntary arbitrator involves a question of jurisdiction. What petitioner is contesting, however, is the finding that he voluntarily resigned. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, the proper remedy should be appeal.23 The appellate court should thus have dismissed outright the Petition for Certiorari, as the decision of the VA had already become final and executory.

    The Court, however, resolves to set aside procedural infirmity and rule on the merits of the present petition in the interest of substantial justice to arrive at the proper conclusion that is conformable to the evidentiary facts.24

    In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad,25 the Court held that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon the employer, respondent herein, to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.

    Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature, both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concur. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation yet the employee specifically denies such evidence, as in petitioner's case, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such evidence.26

    Respondent in this case failed to discharge such burden. The notice of disciplinary action - "show cause" letter indefinitely suspending petitioner, even after petitioner had submitted on March 25, 2003 his letter of resignation, albeitalleged to have withdrawn on even date, negates respondent's assertion of voluntary separation. If respondent considered petitioner resigned on account of his March 25, 2003 letter, to be effective on April 25, 2003, there would have been no more need to preventively suspend him effective March 26, 2003 "until further notice pending investigation" of his alleged transgressions.

    It is significant to note that in his response to the March 26, 2003 "show cause" letter of respondent, petitioner denied being "culpable" and sought to know what were those "particular transactions"-bases of breach of trust. He had not had the courtesy of any reply from respondents, however. His preventive suspension effective March 26, 2003 lapsed into termination six days later or on April 1, 2003, which he was to learn from third parties.

    For a resignation tendered by an employee to take effect, it should first be accepted or approved by the employer.27 Petitioner's receipt by respondent's personnel department of his resignation letter is not equivalent to approval. Since petitioner requested that his resignation was to be effective a month later or on April 25, 2003, respondent's approval was a fortiori necessary.

    That respondent issued the "show cause" letter a day after petitioner filed the controversial letter of resignation could only mean that it did not accept the same.

    Petitioner's "resignation" being premised on a qualification ─ that it be effective April 25, 2003 ─ was conditional in character. It is thus only considered as a mere offer. Since respondent did not accept the condition attendant to the offer as, it bears repeating, he was in fact given a "show cause" letter a day after, there was no resignation to speak of.

    This brings the Court to the issue of whether petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court finds in the affirmative.

    While selling of respondent's competitors' products is a valid ground for termination of employment, an employer cannot just hurl generalized accusations but should at least cite specific instances and proof in support thereof. Respondent relied on a "report by [petitioner's] superiors" in faulting petitioner. What this alleged "report" was and what it contained, no testimonial or documentary proof thereof was proffered. And while respondent gave the impression that it conducted or was going to conduct an investigation on the basis of the "report," there is no showing that one such was conducted and, if there was, what the result was.

    The tenor of respondent's "show cause" letter sent to petitioner ─ it was "constrained to dismiss" petitioner ─ shows that it was terminating his services, the incongruent directive for him to explain notwithstanding.

    While the appellate court's ratio that "preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company's property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee,"28 is well-taken, it overlooked that the preventive suspension of petitioner effective on March 26, 2003 "until further notice" lapsed into dismissal six days later without petitioner substantiating the basis therefor.

    Petitioner's questioned filing of the illegal dismissal case three months and 20 days after he withdrew his letter of resignation does not dent his case. Under the law,29 he has four years to file his complaint.

    In fine, petitioner's dismissal was illegal. His claim for damages and attorney's fees must, however, be denied in light of his failure to prove the bases therefor. Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.30 Broad allegations, bereft of proof, cannot sustain the award of moral damages, as well as attorney's fees.

    WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is ordered to reinstate petitioner with full backwages without loss of seniority rights and privileges from the time of his dismissal until his actual reinstatement or, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, to give him separation pay equivalent to at least one month salary for every year of service.

    SO ORDERED.


    Endnotes:


    1 Penned by Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal with Justices Jose L. Sabio Jr. and Jose C. Reyes Jr. concurring, rollo, pp. 37-49..

    2 Rollo, p. 15.

    3 CA rollo, p. 63; Annex "A."

    4 Rollo, p.16.

    5 Id. at p.17.

    6 CA rollo, p. 54.

    7 Id. at p. 55.

    8 Labor Arbiter Fe Superiaso-Cellan.

    9 CA rollo, pp. 79-82.

    10 Id. at pp. 21-29.

    11 Id. at p. 3.

    12 Id. pp. 2-20.

    13 Rollo, p. 49.

    14 Id. at 69-73.

    15 Id. at 74-81.

    16 CA rollo, pp. 141-154.

    17 G.R. No. 120319, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 162.

    18 Issued May 16, 1995.

    19 Vide: Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allied Workers-Independent Union v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490 SCRA 61, 69-70. In this case, the Court related the development of Rule 43, as regards the proper appeal of decisions of voluntary arbitrators. It observed that the Labor Code was silent as regards the appeals from the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator, unlike those of the Labor Arbiter which may be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court noted, however, that the voluntary arbitrator is a government instrumentality within the contemplation of Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The decisions of the voluntary arbitrator are akin to those of the Regional Trial Court, and, therefore, should first be appealed to the Court of Appeals before being elevated to the Court. This is in furtherance and consistent with the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial agencies not expressly excepted from the coverage of Section 9 of BP 129. Circular No. 1-91 was later revised and became Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. The Rules of Court Revision Committee incorporated said circular in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The inclusion of the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator in the Rule was based on the Court's pronouncements in Luzon Development Bank.

    * As amended.

    ** As amended.

    20 Section 4, Rule 43: Period of appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the Petition for Review . No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

    21 Section 2 of Rule 43: Cases not covered. - This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.

    22 Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

    23 Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 123.

    24 Progressive Development Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 138820, October 30, 2000; 344 SCRA 512; Samson v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121035, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 460; PAL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126805, March 16, 2000; 328 SCRA 273 (2000); Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439, January 25, 2000, 323 SCRA 258.

    25 G.R. No. 159195, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 308, 323.

    26 Ibid.

    27 Rase v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110637, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 523, 536..

    28 Rollo, p. 46.

    29 Article 1146 of the Civil Code states: The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;

    (2) Upon a quasi-delict.

    30 Article 2217 of the Civil Code states that: Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

    G.R. No. 177414 - NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED