FIRST
DIVISION
ORIENT
EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHILIPPINES
AND DOMINADOR BATENGA, JR.,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 124766
January 30, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
HON. LABOR ARBITER ERNESTO DINOPOL,
AND MA. LUISA P. COLLINS,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
With the filing
of Comment on the instant petition
by both private respondent Ma. Luisa Collins[1]
and the Office of the Solicitor General[2]
in behalf of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission
[NLRC],
issues are now joined, and the instant petition is proper for
adjudication.
We rule to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner Orient
Express Placement Phils. [hereafter,
"Orient"], before it dismissed private respondent on suspicion of
charging
excessive placement fees from applicants seeking overseas employment,
had
private respondent on its employ as liaison officer tasked with dealing
with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency [POEA]. On November 9,
1993,
private respondent was called to the office of petitioner Dominador
Batenga,
Jr., who is the President and General Manager of petitioner Orient.
During
that meeting private respondent was confronted with the charge of
exaction
of excessive placement fees and was there and then dismissed shortly
after
explaining herself Petitioners make no qualms about having terminated
private
respondent on the same day that she was accused of demanding and
accepting;
excessive placement fees.cralaw:red
On November 17,
1993 or eight [8] days after her
termination, private respondent filed with the Arbitration Branch of
the
NLRC a complaint[3]
for illegal dismissal, various monetary claims, damages and attorney's
fees. On both issues of the illegality of the private respondent's
dismissal
and her entitlement to various monetary claims, damages and attorney's
fees, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent.[4]
Analyzing the documentary and testimonial evidence, the labor Arbiter
pointed
out that it was petitioner Dominador Batenga, Jr.'s cousin, Jose
Batenga,
who acted as officer-in-charge of the ground floor office of petitioner
Orient, directed private respondent to charge excessive placement fees
and signed receipts therefor. Thus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that no
substantial
evidence was proffered to prove the charge leveled against private
respondent
and accordingly ordered her reinstatement and payment of her backwages.
Neither did it escape the Labor Arbiter's keen perception of the
undisputed
facts that in dismissing private respondent, petitioner Orient failed
to
comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Therefore,
since
there was a violation of private respondent's right to due process, not
to mention the oppressive and anti-social manner by which private
respondent
was terminated, the Labor Arbiter also awarded moral and exemplary
damages
as well as attorney's fees.cralaw:red
Expectedly,
petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter's
decision to the NLRC. The NLRC, however, agreed with the Labor Arbiter
that "the [petitioner] failed to substantiate [the] charges. Moreover,
the record shows that complainant was dismissed without due process.
She
was not afforded due notice and the chance to be heard."[5]
Yet, the NLRC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages as well
as attorney's fees for lack of legal basis. It found no sufficient
proof
that the questioned dismissal was accompanied by fraud or bad faith.cralaw:red
Both petitioners
and private respondent filed
tardy motions for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. Petitioners
squarely
admit this fact in their petition, and private respondent, in her
Comment.
The late filing by petitioners of their
motion
for reconsideration is fatal to the present petition. In the absence of
a motion for reconsideration timely filed within the ten-day
reglementary
period, the assailed order, resolution or decision of the NLRC, becomes
final and executory after ten [10] calendar days from receipt thereof.[6]
Private
respondent implores this court to restore
the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees
deleted
by the NLRC in its decision; this, notwithstanding categorical
admission
that private respondent's own motion for reconsideration thereof was
likewise
filed out of time. To the same extent that the NLRC decision must now
be
deemed final and executory as regards petitioners, the same decision
cannot
be otherwise as regards private respondent, hence, we cannot oblige
private
respondent.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is
HEREBY DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla,
Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
_______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Comment of the Private Respondent, Rollo, pp. 64-74.
[2]
Comment of the Solicitor General, Rollo, pp. 86-95.
[3]
Docketed as Case No. NLRC-NCR-00-11-07150-93.
[4]
Decision of Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol dated Apri1 26, 1992,
Rollo,
pp. 14-22.
[5]
Resolution of the NLRC [Third Division], penned by Commissioner Joaquin
A. Tanodra and concurred in by Commissioners Lourdes C. Javier and
Ireneo
B. Bernardo, p. 4, Rollo, p. 6.
[6]
Gonzalo D. Labudahon, etc. v. NLRC, et al., 251 SCRA 129, 132 [1995];
Sec.
14, Rule VII, New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. |