Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > June 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 165381 : June 27, 2011] NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, V. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :




SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 165381 : June 27, 2011]

NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, V. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 June 2011 which reads as follows: 

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.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. 11-6-03-CTA : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF PRESIDING JUSTICE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE LOVELL R. BAUTISTA FOR PERMISSION TO ATTEND THE 2ND ANNUAL ASEAN TAX CONFERENCE 2011 AT PATTAYA, CHONBURI PROVINCE, BANGKOK, THAILAND FROM AUGUST 22-25, 2011

  • [A.M. No. 13974-Ret : June 28, 2011] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS, JUSTICE RODOLFO A. NOCON [NATIVIDAD G. NOCON]

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-130-MTC : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD SALARIES OF MR. MATURAN D. MAGDOBOY, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, MATI, DAVAO ORIENTAL

  • [A.M. No. 13973-Ret : June 28, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER A.M. NO. JBC-005 AND SURVIVORSHIP BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 8291, ATTY. J. CONRADO P. CASTRO, JBC, SUPREME COURT

  • [A.M. No. 13965-Ret. : June 28, 2011] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS, JUSTICE VICENTE G. ERICTA [MRS. LUCENA D. ERICTA]

  • [A.M. No. 13953-Ret. : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICE BEYOND COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 65 OR UNTIL AUGUST 12, 2012, MR. GEPTE M. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, RTC, BRANCH 116, PASAY CITY

  • [A.M. No. 11-5-47-MCTC : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF BENJAMIN O. QUINTO, JR., UTILITY WORKER 1, MCTC, JABONGA-KITCHARAO, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, FOR EXTENSION OF HIS SERVICE

  • [G.R. No. 196835 : June 28, 2011] TRIBAL COALITION OF MINDANAO (TRICOM), INC., DAGING MANOBO SECTORAL TRIBAL COUNCIL, ET AL. V. TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, ORIENTAL SYNERGY MINING CORP., ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 165381 : June 27, 2011] NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, V. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186394 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. REYNALDO GALVEZ Y PEÑAFLOR

  • [G.R. No. 177268 : June 22, 2011] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES V. MA. CRISTINA A. VISTAN

  • [G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011] ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC.

  • [A.M. No. 10-9-278-RTC : June 21, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO JR., RTC, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, TO BE TRANSFERRED TO REGION I, PREFERABLY IN PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. JBC-023 : June 21, 2011] RE: PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FROM MAY TO JULY 2011 AND SCHEDULE FOR THE PROCESSING OF EXISTING AND FORTHCOMING VACANCIES IN THE APPELLATE COURTS AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

  • [A.M. No. 11-5-91-RTC : June 21, 2011] RE: LETTER OF ATTY. PERCIVAL S. CAÑA DECLINING HIS APPOINTMENT AS JUDGE OF RTC, BR. 17, PALOMPON, LEYTE

  • [G.R. No. 156636 : June 15, 2011] LUTHER S. NERI AND REYNALDO B. TATOY, PETITIONERS, V. OLIVEROS DIGDIGAN JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186384 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DOLORES SAN AGUSTIN Y MANINGAS

  • [G.R. No. 185846 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO DE PEDRO Y TORRES

  • [G.R. No. 195778 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RUDY FLORES Y TOLENTINO

  • [G.R. No. 195529 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO QUISING ALIAS "INGGO"

  • [G.R. Nos. 193937-38 : June 15, 2011] STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EQUITABLE PCIBANK, INC. AND ATTY. SANTIAGO T. GABIONZA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195157 : June 15, 2011] OSCAR F. GABUYA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [A.M. No. OCA-IPI 08-125-CA-J : June 14, 2011] ABELARDO SILVERIO V. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RAMON BATO, JR., COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 183697 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANGELO MANIAGO

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2938 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3437-P] : June 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JESSICA O. ORBON, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2938 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3437-P] : June 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JESSICA O. ORBON, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY

  • [G.R. 175780 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RONALD RIVAS Y GARCIA

  • [G.R. No. 196209 : June 08, 2011] CARINA L. DACER, SABINA DACER-REYES, EMILY DACER-HUNGERFORD, AND AMPARO DACER-HENSON V. PANFILO M. LACSON

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2265 : June 08, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. LIEZEL L. BAUTISTA

  • [G.R. No. 195240 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMON ALBA Y BUROG

  • [G.R. No. 194837 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMON ESGUERRA Y SANTOS

  • [G.R. No. 186124 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. FIDEL REAL Y VILLENA

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2897 : June 08, 2011] LOLITA RAYALA-VELASCO V. MA. CONSUELO JOIE A. FAJARDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA

  • [G.R. No. 191238 : June 08, 2011] ADERITO Z. YUJUICO, BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, AND DOLNEY S. SUMBILLA V. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2786 : June 08, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 10-1-29-RTC - RE: ALLEGED TAMPERING OF DAILY TIME RECORDS BY MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA

  • [G.R. No. 179000 : June 08, 2011] THE MANILA SOUTHWOODS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. V. ROBERTO MANABAT

  • [G.R. Nos. 180880-81 : June 07, 2011] KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, INC. V. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION) [G.R. NOS. 180896-97 : JUNE 7, 2011] PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION V. KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, INC.

  • [A.M. No. 09-11-187-MTC : June 07, 2011] REQUEST OF JUDGE MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, MTC-SAN MATEO, RIZAL FOR RELIEF FROM PROPERTY AND RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITIES WHICH WERE TOTALLY DESTROYED BY TYPHOON "ONDOY"

  • [A.M. No. 13950-Ret. : June 07, 2011] SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 9946 OF JUSTICE LINO M. PATAJO, SUPREME COURT [MRS. CRISTETA T. PATAJO]

  • [A.M. No. 13955-Ret. : June 07, 2011] SURVIVORS PENSION BENEFITS, HON. ANTONIO P. BARREDO [MRS. TERESITA A. BARREDO]

  • [A.M. No. 13872-Ret. : June 07, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP BENEFITS UNDER RA 9946 OF MRS. LOURDES C. SUNDIAM, WIDOW OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE EDGARDO F. SUNDIAM

  • [A.M. No. 13944-Ret. : June 07, 2011] OPTIONAL RETIREMENT UNDER R.A. 7699, VICENTA N. GUMIA, OFFICE OF DCA VILLASOR, OCA-SC

  • [A.M. No. 13963-Ret. : June 07, 2011] APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 9946 OF MRS. MINERVA B. REYES, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. ANDRES C. REYES, SR., FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 179811 : June 06, 2011] FAMA REALTY, INC. AND FELIX ASSAD V. SPS. GERARDO & CORAZON TRINIDAD

  • [G.R. No. 181484 : June 06, 2011] RUBEN DE LOS RIOS V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 195306 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARILYN ISIP Y BIE, JOEL ISIP Y VITE, AND ISABEL APOLONIO Y PACULDAR

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2933 : June 06, 2011] JUDGE CELSO BAGUIO V. JOCELYN P. LACUÑA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA

  • [G.R. No. 185556 : June 06, 2011] SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPORATION V. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION

  • [G.R. No. 195237 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. AMALIA REGATSUELO

  • [G.R. No. 194609 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NYMPHA HUELAR Y FRINCELLO AND SONNY SANTILLAN Y DE ASIS

  • [G.R. No. 194722 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE MINA

  • [G.R. No. 195195 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDGAR SAGORIO Y BABISTA

  • [G.R. No. 195305 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CLEOTILDO CALUCAG

  • [G.R. No. 187079 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SALVADOR BON Y AGSANGRE

  • [G.R. No. 188121 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ABDULBASIT BERIN Y ABDULBAKI A.K.A. "BASHID BERIN" A.K.A. "BAS"

  • [G.R. No. 188572 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DATUNOT UNTONG Y ABAS

  • [G.R. No. 184052 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO MASCARIÑA Y LEAL

  • [G.R. No. 181825 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RASOL MATAS Y SAMAMA

  • [A.C. No. 8529 : June 01, 2011] RENATO P. DRAGON V. ATTYS. ROMULUS S. PROTACIO, ANGELITA ALBERTO-GACUTAN, RAUL T. AQUINO, AND VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY

  • [G.R. No. 185630 : June 01, 2011] ERICH PITELAN, PETITIONER V. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION AND THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (MAB-DENR), RESPONDENTS.