June 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 165381 : June 27, 2011]
NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, V. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 165381 � NELSON A. CULILI, petitioner, v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., respondents.
"Before the Court are the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the Petitioner and the Respondents, respectively, of this Court�s February 9, 2011 Decision.
Petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideration
In asking this Court to reconsider our February 9, 2011 Decision, petitioner posits several grounds all of which we have already addressed in said Decision, except for the following:
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION OF ITS THIRD DIVISION IN G.R. NO. 165447 ENTITLED EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. V. NELSON CULILI, WHICH RESOLVED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ASSAILING THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTING HEREIN PETITIONER (THE RESPONDENT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE) FULL BACKWAGES FROM THE TIME HIS SALARIES WERE NOT PAID UNTIL FINALITY OF THE DECISION PLUS SEPARATION PAY UNDER THE SERRANO DOCTRINE. SAID RULING, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE THIRD DIVISION, BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY ON 5 APRIL 2005. THEREFORE, HAVING ATTAINED FINALITY, THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT, THUS NECESSITATING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE 9 FEBRUARY 2011 DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE.[1]
In essence, petitioner is asking us to apply this Court�s Third Division�s Resolution denying respondent�s petition in G.R. No. 165447, on the apparent theory that, with the finality of the Third Division�s Resolution, the Court of Appeals� award of full backwages plus separation pay under the Serrano doctrine has become final. However, in the same breadth, petitioner is asking us to reverse the very same Court of Appeals� ruling, and find that he was illegally dismissed and should be reinstated. Truly, petitioner�s desperate resort to inconsistent arguments demonstrates the paucity of merit of his cause.
While it is true that the Third Division Resolution of this Court had already attained finality, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner himself filed his own petition for review on November 11, 2004, before G.R. No. 165447 was resolved on December 1, 2004. Undoubtedly, when petitioner filed his Petition for Review with this Court, he himself prayed for us to pass upon all the issues he presented, review them, and resolve them in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. That is exactly what the Court did.
This Division�s February 9, 2011 Decision in G.R. No. 165381, contrary to petitioner�s thinking, is not in any way contradictory to the December 1, 2004 Resolution of the Third Division in G.R. No. 165445. They both affirmed the Court of Appeals� findings that the petitioner�s dismissal was due to the authorized cause of redundancy, albeit there was no compliance with the procedural due process in effecting his termination. However, this Court in deciding petitioner�s appeal is duty bound to adjust the monetary award to be consistent with current, applicable jurisprudence. If the petitioner felt that the monetary award in his favor as it was adjudged way back in 2001 was correct, he should have manifested so instead of filing a memorandum on September 5, 2005 in the present case, wherein he asked for a complete reversal of the Court of Appeals� Decision.
Respondents� Motion for Partial Reconsideration
The respondents, also dissatisfied with our February 9, 2011 Decision, is urging us to reconsider the amount of nominal damages we awarded on the ground that it �was excessive and against prevailing jurisprudence.�[2]
To support their arguments, they cited three recent cases wherein the nominal damages awarded was only P30,000.00, as opposed to the P50,000.00 we awarded in this instance.
The respondents� argument is misplaced. The cases they relied upon all have factual backgrounds markedly different from the case before us.
In Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association[3] and Spic N� Span Services Corporation v. Paje,[4] the cause of the dismissal was a just cause, and following the doctrine in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[5] the dismissed employees who were deprived of procedural due process, were entitled to P30,000.00 as nominal damages.
In Ancheta v. Destiny Financial Plans, Inc.,[6] although the cause for the employees� dismissal was an authorized cause, just like in this case, the Court noted that the employer therein had to terminate some of its employees because it was incurring losses. As much as the respondents herein alleged that the Company was not performing well at the time they implemented their Right-Sizing Program, it must be remembered that the ground for their termination of petitioner�s services was redundancy, which is an entirely separate and different authorized cause under the Labor Code from serious losses or business reverses.
We have fully explained in our February 9, 2011 Decision the distinction between a procedurally infirm dismissal based on a just cause and one that is based on an authorized cause, to wit:
In Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[7] this Court, taking a cue from Agabon, held that since there is a clear-cut distinction between a dismissal due to a just cause and a dismissal due to an authorized cause, the legal implications for employees who fail to comply with the notice requirements must also be treated differently:
Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer�s exercise of his management prerogative.[8]
To reiterate, the Jaka decision further qualified the Agabon decision in the sense that when the termination or dismissal was initiated by the employer, without any act imputable to the employee, failure to comply with the procedural due process requirements would merit a higher penalty, since the dismissal was due to the employer�s exercise of his management prerogative.
It must be remembered that the nominal damages we awarded was based on the Jaka ruling. As early as 2005, we have been awarding P50,000.00 to employees who were dismissed based on a valid authorized cause, but were not afforded procedural due process.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideration and the respondents' Motion for Partial Reconsideration are DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case.
Let an Entry of Judgment in this case be made in due course.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 1260.[2] Id. at 1282.
[3] G.R. No. 170830, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 119.
[4] G.R. No. 174084, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 261.
[5] G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573.
[6] G.R. No. 179702, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 651.
[7] 494 Phil. 114 (2005).
[8] G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011.