Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > April 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 152234 : April 15, 2010] DIVERSIFIED SECURITY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ALICIA V. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 31, 2001 affirming the finding that petitioner illegally dismissed respondent, and the CA Resolution^[2] dated February 11, 2002 denying herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.

The undisputed facts are as follows.

Respondent was employed by petitioner as an Executive Pool Secretary, but petitioner alleged that respondent turned out to be incompetent. Petitioner then assigned her to perform menial or insignificant jobs and allegedly transferred her to their branch office in Makati City. However, respondent allegedly failed to report for work at said branch office on the day she was supposed to do so.

On the other hand, respondent claimed that petitioner dismissed her on October 31, 1997 without any valid reason, neither was she given any notice and hearing.

In December of 1997, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner. Petitioner countered that respondent was not dismissed; rather, she was the one who severed her connection with petitioner by her "voluntary and unequivocal acts."

On September 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter issued a Decision,^[3] the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered, ordering the respondents [herein petitioner and its officers], jointly and severally, to pay the total sum of P92,733.33 as separation pay and proportionate mandatory 13^th month pay of complainant. Other issues or claims are hereby DISMISSED for want of substantial evidence.

SO ORDERED.^[4]

The foregoing Decision was appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling that herein respondent was illegally dismissed. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision^[5] dated February 23, 2000 is set forth hereunder:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby MODIFIED by ordering the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the complainant her proportionate 13^th month pay for 1997 and full backwages from the date of her dismissal in October 31, 1997 up to the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision when separation pay was adjudged as an alternative relief to reinstatement in the total amount of SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P67,300.00). Respondents are likewise ordered to pay the complainant severance compensation equivalent to her one month salary for every year of service reckoned from February 1990 to October 1997, a fraction of six (6) months being considered as one year, the total amount being FORTY-ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P41,600.00).

SO ORDERED.^[6]

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and on August 31, 2001, the CA issued the assailed Decision which disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby MODIFIED, in that, the liability of individual petitioners is hereby DELETED while the rest of the decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.^[7]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the Resolution dated February 11, 2002. Hence, this petition wherein it is alleged that:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENT BAUTISTA WAS DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT AND THE DISMISSAL WAS ILLEGAL, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACT, ON THE PART OF PETITIONER, CONSTITUTIVE OF DISMISSAL OR MUCH LESS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT;

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER DSI DISMISSED RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND OF ABANDONMENT, DESPITE THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT THAT THE SAID GROUND WAS NEVER RAISED BY PETITIONER BY WAY OF DEFENSE AND ERRED IN THE AUTOMATIC APPLICATION OF THE RULE THAT A COMPLAINT OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH ABANDONMENT;

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING SEPARATION PAY TO RESPONDENT COMPUTED FROM 1990 ON THE BASIS ALONE OR PETITIONER DSI'S ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION DATED 1990, DESPITE THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT THAT RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER ONLY IN NOVEMBER 1996;

IV.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING ARTICLE 279 OF THE LABOR CODE BY ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF FULL BACKWAGES AND THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY TO THE RESPONDENT, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, OR EVEN OF ANY DISMISSAL.^[8]

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

Petitioner's assignment of errors boils down to the sole issue of whether the CA correctly upheld the NLRC ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner.

The Court sees it fit to reiterate and emphasize the oft-repeated ruling in Reyes v. National Labor Relations Commission,^[9] to wit:

x x x findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in due course, are conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts.

x x x x

x x x Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.^[10]

In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were all consistent in their factual findings that respondent's employment was indeed terminated without giving her notice and hearing. The NLRC's finding that respondent had been petitioner's employee since 1990, had also been affirmed by the CA. A close perusal of the records show that there is no cogent reason for this Court to deviate from the settled rule that factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded not only respect but finality.

Moreover, the Court cannot subscribe to petitioner's argument that it did not dismiss respondent. Such a proposition stretches credulity as it is not in accord with human nature for an employee to go through all the trouble of filing a labor case against his or her employer if he or she were not in fact dismissed from employment. It is also quite telling that petitioner admitted in its Memorandum of Appeal^[11] dated January 29, 1998 and in its Position Paper^[12] dated July 21, 1998, that it considered respondent as "resigned" starting November 1997. Notably, such period of time coincides with respondent's contention that she was dismissed by petitioner on October 31, 1997. Petitioner's admission bolsters respondent's claim that she was, indeed, dismissed by petitioner at that time.

For the very same reason stated above, the Court cannot give any consideration to petitioner's contention that did not put up as a defense the alleged abandonment by respondent of her work. Petitioner insists that its defense is that there was no dismissal to speak of in the first place; respondent merely ceased reporting for work. Again, if that is indeed petitioner's defense, then the lower courts were right in giving it short shrift. Verily, the scenario presented by petitioner, i.e., that an employee who has not been terminated from employment would, for no apparent reason, just

stop coming to work and file a labor case against her employer, totally defies logic and common sense.

The absurdity of petitioner's defense highlights the fact that respondent's claim, that she was dismissed without any notice and hearing, rings with truth. This Court views with approval the observation of the CA and the NLRC, to wit:

x x x the petitioners cannot justify their defense of abandonment as they failed to prove that indeed private respondent had abandoned her work. It did not even bother to send a letter to her last known address requiring her to report for work and explain her alleged continued absences. The ratiocination of public respondent [NLRC] on this score merits our imprimatur, viz:

The law clearly spells out the manner with which an unjustified refusal to return to work by an employee may be established. Thusly, respondent should have given complainant a notice with warning concerning her alleged absences (Section 2, Rule XIV, Book V, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code). The notice requirement actually consists of two parts to be separately served on the employee to wit: (1) notice to apprise the employee of his absences with a warning concerning a possible severance of employment in the event of an unjustified excuse therefor, and (2) subsequent notice of the decision to dismiss in the event of an employee's refusal to pay heed to such warning. Only after compliance had been effected with those requirements can it be reasonably concluded that the employee had actually abandoned his job. In respondent's case, it is noted that more than two (2) months had already lapsed since complainant allegedly started to absent herself when the latter instituted her action for illegal dismissal. During the said period of time, no action was taken by the respondents regarding complainant's alleged absences, something which is quite peculiar had complainant's employment not been severed at all. Accordingly, we do not find respondents defense of abandonment to be impressed with merit in view of an utter lack of evidence to support the same. Hence, complainant's charge of illegal dismissal stands uncontroverted x x x .^[13]

From the foregoing, it is quite clear that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was illegal dismissal in this case.

Having firmly established that petitioner dismissed respondent without just cause, and without notice and hearing, then it is only proper to apply Article 279 of the Labor Code which provides that an illegally dismissed employee "shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement." In addition to full backwages, the Court has also repeatedly ruled that in cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, then separation pay may be awarded instead of reinstatement.^[14] In Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena,^[15] the Court reiterated that the separation pay, as an alternative to reinstatement, should be equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.^[16]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated August 31, 2001 and February 11, 2002, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 64038, are AFFIRMED. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay respondent Alicia V. Bautista (a) separation pay in the amount equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service; and (b) backwages, computed from the time compensation was withheld from her when she was unjustly terminated, up to the time of payment thereof. For this purpose, the records of this case are hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of said awards. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero, with Associate Justices Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-40.

^[2] Id. at 42-43.

^[3] CA rollo, pp. 77-80.

^[4] Id. at 80.

^[5] Id. at 24-33.

^[6] Id. at 31-32.

^[7] Rollo, p. 39.

^[8] Id. at 11-12.

^[9] G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 487.

^[10] Id. at 494, 499. (Emphasis supplied.)

^[11] Rollo, pp. 67-77.

^[12] Id. at 50-58.

^[13] CA Decision, rollo, pp. 37-38

^[14] Nissan North Edsa Balintawak, Queson City v. Serrano, Jr., G.R. No. 162538, June 4, 2009, 588 SCRA 238, 247.

^[15] G.R. No. 173076, October 10, 2007, 535 SCRA 518.

^[16] Id. at 541.