FIRST
DIVISION
ANTONIO
B. MOLATO, RENATO ALEJAGA
and ESMERALDO B. MOLATO,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 113085
January 2, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
LABOR ARBITER RICARDO C. NORA, REACH OUT
BIBLICAL HOUSE and ILDEFONSO P. BARCELO,
Respondents.
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
Petitioners
appealed to the NLRC. On 12 August
1993 the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners sought are
consideration
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
Both public
respondents Labor Arbiter and NLRC
found just and valid causes in terminating the services of petitioners
on the basis solely on 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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 full back 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.cralaw:red
Costs against
private respondents Reach Out Biblical
House and Ildefonso P. Barcelo.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla, Vitug,
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr.,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________
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. |