ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 186019 : March 29, 2010
WHITE DIAMOND TRADING CORPORATION and/or JERRY UY and JESSIE UY, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NORLITO ESCOTO, MARY GRACE PASTORIL and MARIA MYRNA OMELA, Respondents.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
For resolution is the present Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioners White Diamond Trading Corporation and/or Jerry Uy and Jessie Uy. The petition seeks to nullify the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), promulgated on October 24, 2008 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 94137.4
THE ANTECEDENTS
The background and facts are summarized below.
The petitioner White Diamond Trading Corporation (the company) is engaged in buying and selling second hand motor vehicles; Jerry Uy is its owner and Jessie Uy its President. The company employed Maria Myrna Omela (Omela) in 1999 as assistant secretary, Mary Jane Pastoril (Pastoril) in 2000 as secretary, and Norlito Escoto (Escoto) in 2001 as salesman.
On
February 28, 2004, Escoto consummated the sale of a Toyota Town Ace to Teodoro
Abejar Aquino (Aquino) for P200,000.00. Aquino tried but failed to haggle for a lower price. While the purchase price indicated in the
original copy of the receipt issued to Aquino was P200,000.00, it was only P190,000.00 in the duplicate copy that remained with
the company. The receipt was issued by
Omela to Aquino after he gave Omela P200,000.00 in cash, which amount Aquino counted in the
presence of Pastoril. Pastoril then took
out the deed of sale and handed it to Aquino. The deed showed that the consideration for the sale to be P190,000.00.
On March 8, 2004, the company terminated the employment of Escoto, Omela and Pastoril. On March 10, 2004, the three employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and its two top officers.
THE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
Before
the labor arbiter, the dismissed employees described themselves as hardworking
with no derogatory record in the course of their employment. They were therefore surprised when their
employer terminated their employment without conducting an investigation, on
the accusation that they stole company funds. They denied the accusation and alleged that on the day Aquino bought the
Toyota Town Ace, he paid the purchase price of P200,000.00 to Omela who issued a receipt for that
amount. Aquino then went to Escoto, who
was then attending to the release of the vehicle, to ask for an additional
discount. Escoto told Aquino that he
would bring the matter up to Jessie Uy. Jessie Uy agreed to give the requested discount, but Aquino had already
left the premises. Omela then reflected
the correct amount of the purchase price in the duplicate receipt. When Escoto contacted Aquino on March 1,
2004, he told him that he (Escoto) had a refund of P10,000.00. Aquino collected the refund on March 8, 2004 and issued a receipt for
that amount. By way of intervening
development, on insistent questioning by their co-employee Neil Rodriguez (Rodriguez) on February 28, 2004, Escoto
disclosed to Rodriguez that they would remit the P10,000.00 discount to Aquino. Rodriguez responded by asking that they keep
the money for themselves (Escoto, Rodriguez, Omela, Pastoril and Bernie,
another co-employee). Rodriguez even
told Escoto that he was in dire need of money because he had been involved in a
vehicular accident and had paid the victim a substantial amount as
settlement. Escoto informed Rodriguez
that the money was with Omela; thereafter, Escoto lent Rodriguez P1,000.00, an amount that Rodriguez had not yet
paid. The complainants denied that they
altered the phone number and address of Aquino, and argued that the receipt for
P10,000.00 that Aquino issued belied the charge that
they swindled the company. Based on this
story, the complainants posited that their dismissal was without just cause.
For its
part, the company alleged that in connection with the sale of the Toyota Town
Ace on February 28, 2004, Rodriguez asked the manager how much the vehicle's
selling price was; the manager replied that it was bought for P190,000.00. Rodriguez continued talking and at some point wondered why Pastoril and
Omela gave him P1,000.00. At this point, the manager became suspicious
and was prompted to look at the records of the sale; he even tried to contact
Aquino by telephone, to no avail. The
company then sent Rodriguez to Aquino's address on record, but there was no
such person in the given address. On
March 3, 2004, Rodriguez found out that the complainants had changed Aquino's
phone number. The company found the
correct information later and, upon contacting Aquino, recovered the original
copy of the official receipt issued by Omela. According to Aquino, he paid P200,000.00 in cash to Omela but the duplicate copy
indicated P190,000.00. The company further alleged that it summoned
Escoto, Omela and Pastoril to shed light on the differing entries of the
purchase price in the original and duplicate copies of the receipts. Omela and Pastoril appeared at the
investigation conducted on March 6,8 and 9, 2004, but Escoto could not be
contacted at his given address. Omela
and Pastoril initially denied that an anomaly took place, but later admitted
that Escoto had planned and executed it and who had changed Aquino's address
and phone number. On March 9, 2004,
Omela and Pastoril were issued a memorandum terminating their services.
Labor Arbiter
Ermita T. Abrasaldo-Cuyuca dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in her
decision of September 30, 2004.5 The arbiter found that Escoto, Omela and
Pastoril defrauded the company through their concerted action. The labor arbiter found that they made it
appear in the company records that Aquino bought the Toyota Town Ace for P190,000.00, but charged Aquino and issued him a
receipt for P200,000.00. Except for the claim for service incentive
leave, the labor arbiter denied the complainants' money claims for lack of
supporting evidence.
On
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter's ruling with modification.6 While the NLRC was convinced that the company
had validly dismissed Escoto and Omela for having "effected the discrepancies
in sales amount" of the Toyota Town Ace, it found that "no contributory act was
shown from Pastoril who, in Aquino's Sinumpaang Salaysay, merely handed
him the Deed of Sale."It therefore
ruled that Pastoril's dismissal was without just cause. The NLRC also held that the company failed to
accord Escoto and Omela the twin-notice requirement, noting that while the
company conducted an administrative investigation, the questions posed to the
complainants were not reduced to writing. Consequently, the NLRC awarded Escoto and Omela nominal damages of P10,000.00 each. To Pastoril, the NLRC awarded backwages and separation pay of one
month's pay for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement, citing the
evidently strained relations between him and the company as reason for the
separation pay.
The NLRC denied the company's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution rendered on February 15, 2006,7 paving the way for the elevation of the case to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
THE CA DECISION
On October 24, 2008, the CA promulgated its decision8 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. It found that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged rulings. The company sought but failed to secure a reconsideration of the CA decision; hence, the present petition.
THE PETITION
The petition raises the sole issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC decision finding that Pastoril had been illegally dismissed and awarding her backwages and separation pay. The company and its principal officers question the appellate court's findings of facts, as well as the conclusions it derived from the facts. Specifically, they dispute the following conclusion of the CA:
xxxx
. Notably, the record is bereft of any substantial proof that private respondent Pastoril conspired with private respondents Escoto and Omela and covered up the irregularity in the sale of the vehicle. It would be speculative to infer conspiracy on her part, when all that she did was to give the deed of sale to Aquino.9
xxxx
The company submits that contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, Pastoril took part in the fraudulent transaction. It cites the following statement of Aquino in his Sinumpaang Salaysay in support of its position:
xx xx
Na, pinapunta na ako sa
opisina para magbayad at doon ay ibinigay ko kay Ms. Myrna Omela ang pera at niresibuhan niya ako ng P200,000.00
habang inilabas naman ni Mary Grace Pastoril ang Deed of Sale at pinapirmahan
sa akin sabay ng abot ng gatepass sa akin.[10
xx xx
The company points out that Pastoril, well-aware that
the buyer had paid P200,000.00,
placed the sum of P190,000.00
in the Deed of Sale. In a subsequent
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated December 3, 2005,11
Aquino deposed as follows:
xx xx
Pebrero 28, 2004 pagitan ng alas 9:00 hanggang 10:00 ng umaga, pumunta ako sa WHITE DIAMOND TRADING CORP. sa Valenzuela City, para bumili ng sasakyan. Ang nag-assist po sa akin ay Norlito Escoto o tinatawag nilang Lito.
Pagkatapos po naming
magkasundo ni Lito sa halagang P200,000.00 na halaga ng binibili kong
TOYOTA TOWN ACE, agad po niya akong pinapunta sa opisina para magbayad.
Pumasok ako sa loob ng opisina at sinabing babayaran ko na ang sasakyan sa halagang aming napagkasunduan at binigay ko kay Myrna Omela ang pera na kanyang binilang sa harapan naming ni Grace (Pastoril).
Pagkatapos pong bilangin ni
Myrna ang pera at sinabing eksaktong P200,000.00 dali dali niya naming
itong niresibuhan sa ganon din halaga. Agad agad din po pinapirmahan sa akin ni Grace ang deed of sale na siya ang
naghanda. Habang si Lito naman ay dali
daling pinalabas ang aking biniling sasakyan na hindi na nalinisan.
Maliit lang din po ang kanilang opisina sa katunayan isa lang itong container van, masikip at magkakatabi ang mga lamesa at upuan kaya imposibleng hindi nila alam ang mga nangyayari.
Pagkaraan ng mga ilang araw
tumawag sila sa akin sa telepono at ako raw ay may discount na P10,000.00
na isasauli daw nila ito sa akin at nakiusap na pag may taong pumunta sa akin
at gustong makita ang orihinal na resibo sabihin ko raw na ito ay nawala.
Marso 6, taon 2004. Sabado ng
gabi. May taong pumunta sa aking bahay
na nagngangalang Neil Rodriquez na nagpakilalang taga White Diamond, inutusan
daw siya ng kanyang manager na mag imbestiga sa bentahan na naganap noong
Pebrero 28, 2004. Ipinakita niya sa akin
ang duplicate copy na nagsasaad ng pagkakabili ko sa van at ito nga ay P190,000.00
malinis at walang bahid ng bura. Dahil
na rin sa ebidensyang ipinakita sa akin ni Neil ako'y kanyang nakumbinse at
binigyan ko siya ng kopya ng orihinal na resibo ko.
Marso 7, taon 2004. Linggo ng umaga, magkakasama silang tatlo nila Lito, Myrna at Grace pumunta sa aming bahay at isinauli ang perang diumano discount ko raw sa pagkabili sa Toyota Town Ace.
Marso 8, taon 2004. Lunes ng umaga, pumunta ako sa White Diamond sa Valenzuela naabutan ko ang may ari na si Ginang Jessie Uy sa opisina at ang kanyang anak na si Joanne Uy at sinabi ko sa kanila ang mga pangyayari at ang maling ginawa ng kanilang tauhan. Sa kasamaang palad hindi ko nakita ang grupo nila Lito noong umaga na iyon at hindi nga raw ito nagpasukan. Inireklamo ko rin at pinaayos ang pangalan, address at halaga ng pagkabili ng sasakyan at baka kasi magkaproblema ito sa paglipat sa aking pangalan at sila naman nangakong aayusin ito. Ibinigay ko po ang orihinal na resibo na issue ni Myrna Omela na Acknowledgment Receipt No. 626 sa may-ari.
xx xx
The company posits that Pastoril's acts amounted to fraud and serious misconduct so that her dismissal was for a just cause under the law.12 It prays that Pastoril be declared legally dismissed.
PASTORIL'S COMMENT
In her Comment filed on December 2, 2009,13 Pastoril contends that the company allegation that she conspired with Escoto and Omela in the irregularity that attended the sale of the Toyota Town Ace was speculative; the record clearly shows that her participation was limited only to handing the deed of sale to the buyer and nothing more.14
THE COURT'S DECISION
Procedural Issue
We first resolve an apparent procedural question involving the propriety of giving due course to a petition that essentially raises questions of fact. While as a rule, factual findings of the CA are binding on the Court,15 we deem it necessary to exercise our discretionary review authority in this case in view of the conflict in the findings of facts of the labor arbiter, on the one hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other.16
The conflict lies in the precise role Pastoril played in the irregularity that attended the company's sale of a used Toyota Town Ace on February 28, 2004. The labor arbiter found substantial evidence showing that Escoto, Omela and Pastoril were legally dismissed due to fraud committed in connection with the sale. The NLRC and the CA saw the case differently, but only with respect to Pastoril. They found that Pastoril had no participation in the commission of the fraud because she merely handed the deed of sale to Aquino, the buyer; in short, she had no knowledge of the discrepancies in the entries of the purchase price in the original receipt given to Aquino, the duplicate copy of the receipt retained by the company, and the deed of sale given to Aquino
The Merits of the Case
The records support the labor arbiter's factual and legal conclusions
After a
review of the records, we find that Pastoril was as actively involved as Escoto
and Omela in the sale of the Toyota Town Ace that resulted in a loss to the
company. All three participated in making
the company believe that Aquino bought the Toyota Town Ace for P190,000.00 when in fact, Aquino paid P200,000.00 for the vehicle. The company was completely in the dark about
the actual purchase price until it learned about the irregularity and commenced
an investigation.17
Escoto
undisputably closed the sale, while Omela received the purchase price of P200,000.00 from Aquino, Omela then gave Aquino a
receipt indicating P200,000.00
as the purchase price, although the duplicate copy of the receipt (left with
the company) showed the price of P190,000.00. Pastoril thereafter
handed Aquino the deed of sale, likewise indicating P190,000.00 as consideration for the sale.18 It was this involvement in the sale that the
NLRC viewed as a purely mechanical act, with Pastoril completely unaware of the
details of the sale, particularly of the actual purchase price.
We find that the NLRC misappreciated the facts and the CA grossly erred in upholding the labor tribunal's findings. Pastoril's involvement in the questionable transaction was much more than handing over to Aquino his copy of the deed of sale. The payment of the purchase price, the issuance of the receipt and the handing of the deed of sale to Aquino were not separate isolated acts. They occurred in one continuous logical sequence with the players in close proximity with one another. Under these circumstances, to say that Pastoril merely handed over the deed of sale to Aquino without even looking at the document or knowing what it contained, and without knowing what was actually happening, can hardly be believed. The deed of sale did not appear out of thin air; somebody in the company prepared the document. Given the positions of the three dismissed employees in the company and based on the sequence of events, it could only be Pastoril, the secretary, who prepared the deed of sale, not Omela. Had Omela prepared the deed aside from the receipt, then Pastoril's presence and participation would have been a surplusage; Omela could have handed the receipt and the deed to Aquino herself. Significantly, this conclusion finds support in Aquino's Sinumpaang Salaysay in July 2004,19 as well as a subsequent Sinumpaang Salaysay dated December 3, 2005.20 For the NLRC to disregard these very vital pieces of evidence constitutes grave abuse of discretion that the CA should have discovered and reflected in its ruling
To
reiterate, Pastoril was not an innocent participant in the fraudulent sale of
the company's Toyota Town Ace. She acted
in concert with Escoto and Omela in the transaction that defrauded their
employer in the amount of P10,000.00
- the difference in the vehicle's actual price of P200,000.00 paid by the buyer, and the price (P190,000.00) entered in the duplicate purchase receipt
and in the deed of sale. Pastoril
prepared and issued the deed of sale indicating that the vehicle was sold for P190,000.00, although she knew that the buyer was being
charged P200,000.00 for the
vehicle. Escoto, Omela and Pastoril
helped themselves to the price difference and tried to silence Rodriguez (who
got wind of the anomaly)21
by giving him P1,000.00 and
passing the P10,000.00 price difference off as the approved discount Aquino
asked for.22 Under these facts, there was a conspiracy
where every participant had made significant contributory acts.23
Despite
the above conclusion, we note that the company itself admits that it failed to
observe procedural due process in Pastoril's dismissal and, for this reason, it
states that the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages is
warranted.24 We note further that the NLRC had the same
conclusion with respect to Escoto and Omela; hence, the award to them of P10,000.00 each by way of nominal damages. We find a similar award of nominal damages to
Pastoril to be warranted.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
hereby GRANT the petition. Accordingly, the assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE with respect to the ruling on Mary Grace Pastoril whose
valid dismissal from employment is hereby confirmed. For the procedural lapses in dismissing Mary
Grace Pastoril, the company is hereby ORDERED
to pay her nominal damages of P10,000.00. Costs against respondent Mary Grace
Pastoril
SO ORDERED
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CARPIO*, Acting C.J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decisionwere reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Endnotes:
[1 Rollo , pp. 10-18; Filed pursuant to Rule 45, RULES OF COURT.
[2 Id. at 26-35; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
[3 Id. at 67.
[4 White Diamond Trading Corp. and/or Jerry Uy and Jessie Uy v. NLRC, et al.
[5 Rollo, pp. 37-52; Petition, Annex "B."
[6 Decision of October 28, 2005; Id. at 53-63; Petition, Annex "C."
[7Id. at 65-66; Petition, Annex "D."
[8 Supra note 2
[9 Rollo, p. 31; CA Decision, p. 6, par. 2.
[10 Id. at 84; Petition, Annex "H," par. 4.
[11 Id. at 91; CA Decision, Annex "J."
[12 LABOR CODE, Article 282.
[13 Rollo, pp. 108-109.
[14 Id. at 108; Comment, par. 2.
[15 Lanuza v. Muñoz, 473 Phil 617 (2004).
[16 Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 188232, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 737.
[17 Rollo, p. 39; Labor Arbiter's Decision, p. 3, par. 1.
[18 Ibid.
[19 Supra note 10.
[20 Supra note 11.
[21 Rollo, pp. 85-90; Petition, Annex "I" dated June 10, 2004.
[22 Id. at 41-45; Labor Arbiter's Decision, pp. 5-9.
[23 Supra note 12.
[24 Rollo, pp. 17-18; Petition, p. 8, last paragraph.
[25 Agabon v. NLRC, 485 Phil 248 (2004).
|