Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > July 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. 75380 July 31, 1987 - VICTORIA M. TOLENTINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75380. July 31, 1987.]

VICTORIA M. TOLENTINO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BF LIFEMAN INSURANCE CORP. and/or ENRIQUE M. ZALAMEA, JR., President, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR CODE; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE NATIONAL RELATIONS COMMISSION GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL; CASE AT BAR, AN EXCEPTION. — Public respondent NLRC found that petitioner was dismissed without sufficient cause but nonetheless denied her reinstatement to her former position. Hence this appeal by petitioner. Petitioner’s contentions deserve credence. The records of the case reveal that it is not true as found by the public respondent NLRC that petitioner and Ms. Villadelgado belonged to the same department during the period material to this case. While petitioner, since March 16, 1984 and until her illegal dismissal on October 15, 1984, was admittedly a supervisor in the Auditing Department, Ms. Teofista Villadelgado, on the other hand, was the Department Head of the Agents Account Control Department. However prior to March 16, 1984, Ms. Villadelgado was the petitioner’s superior officer in the Accounting Services Department. During the relevant periods, petitioner’s superior was Mr. Eladio T. Bolos, Assistant Vice-President and their Auditing Department was under the office of the President. Mrs. Villadelgado was in another department, the agents Control Department (as Manager thereof) which was under the Sales Division. It is clear therefore that the ruling of respondent NLRC against reinstatement is anchored on a false premise and contrary to the evidence on record.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside 1) the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for short) promulgated on April 16, 1986 which modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter and 2) its resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondents with the Arbitration Branch of public respondent NLRC docketed as NLRC/NCR Case No. 10-38-3884 which rendered a judgment, its dispositive portion reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. declaring complainant as suspended from work for the period of October 15 to 26, 1984; and

"b. ordering respondent to reinstate complainant to her position, without loss of seniority, with backwages from October 27, 1984 up to the date of actual reinstatement." (pp. 32-33, Rollo)

On appeal to the NLRC by respondent company, a decision was rendered modifying the decision of the Labor Arbiter: the decretal portion of the NLRC decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Decision appealed from is modified by deleting the award of reinstatement and its consequences and instead, ordering respondent to pay complainant six (6) months back wages plus separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year." (Rollo, p. 64)

Hence this appeal, petitioner relying on the following arguments:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES" INVOKED IN NLRC DECISION WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS AND, IN ANY EVENT, NOT RELEVANT TO ISSUE OF REINSTATEMENT.

II


MODIFICATION OF ARBITER’S AWARD TO LIMITED BACKWAGES UNJUSTIFIED AND WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS.

III


SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SACRIFICED TO TECHNICALITY.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner was the Audit Supervisor in respondent-company with a monthly pay of P2,015.00 until she received an Inter Office Memo, signed by the Personnel Manager and in the following tenor:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"We regret to inform you that after a thorough investigation of the case filed against you regarding the incident of September 5, 1984, we have to terminate your employment effective Monday, October 15, 1984." (Rollo, p. 25)

It appears that the incident referred to in the memo was a slapping incident wherein petitioner was admittedly the aggressor of the Manager in the Accounting Services Department, a certain Mrs. Teofista Villadelgado, allegedly because she (petitioner) could no longer "repress her feeling of being unjustly aggrieved by the baseless and vindictive merit ratings which the latter official gave the complainant and the subsequent false rationalizations she forwarded to justify her actions, which adversely affected her official record and position in the company and that she was forced to do so to relieve her of some of the pain she has been suffering."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner on October 15, 1984, sought reconsideration of the decision of management to terminate her services. Management in denying the request of petitioner filed a report of termination dated October 16, 1984 on the further ground of "grave misconduct and falsification of documents."cralaw virtua1aw library

In rendering favorable judgment for petitioner-complainant the Labor Arbiter found that there was an absence of a valid cause for dismissal, declaring as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We are, therefore, inclined to agree with complainant’s contention, thus—

‘There is no question that the complainant’s offense during that September 5, 1984 incident was her first. It is not denied that Mrs. Villadelgado suffered no physical injury. Had the matter been clear that the incident was not attended by any qualifying factor or circumstance that would warrant the imposition of the applicable penalty in its maximum range. This would have been different if complainant continued attacking the victim in such vicious and violent manner which necessarily resulted in physical injuries. Even in the extreme case the maximum penalty which may be imposed for the first offense is ‘suspension of 12 days.’

‘Respondent should have considered, on the other hand the prejudice that complainant suffered due to Mrs. Villadelgado’s initial inaction and later her unjust and unfounded appraisal in the subject merit rating. Any derogatory rating adversely affects even the pay increase of the employee not to mention her company standing. The members of the Personnel Committee should have exercised fairness and understanding."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Concerning the falsification charge, the same is certainly not a ground cited by management in its October 10, 1984 memorandum terminating the services of complainant. We are inclined to agree, therefore, that the inclusion of this charge is a mere afterthought, apparently hatched up after realizing that the slapping incident might not suffice as a valid ground for complainant’s dismissal.

"The Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 further amending the Labor Code, Rule XIV thereof, provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 6. Decision to Dismiss. — The employer shall immediately notify a worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor." (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, the alleged falsification was done not ‘to obtain the release of the loan proceeds,’ as alleged, to show intent to gain, it appearing that said releases effected May 11, 17 and 30 took place prior to the Commission of the act in question." (p. 32, Rollo)

On appeal by private respondent, the NLRC, found no reversible error of the Labor Arbiter and modified the ruling by declaring that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Be that as it may, however, We strongly feel that, considering the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case, the award of reinstatement is no longer feasible. Firstly, unlike in the prior fighting incident where the protagonists belonged to different departments and were of practically the same rank, the persons involved in the 5 September 1984 incident belonged to the same department where one was the superior of the other. To order therefore the reinstatement of complainant to her former position will certainly not serve the interest of industrial peace in the company. Secondly. respondents have found as a fact that complainant Tolentino falsified the signature of her co-maker in two promissory notes forming part of her chattel mortgage loans with the company. While this evidentiary aspect was not considered in the resolution of the case, and rightly so, the fact remains that insofar as the management of the company are concerned, Tolentino as already breached their trust and confidence in her. This is another point that assails the propriety of reinstating Tolentino.

"It is therefore Our considered opinion and so hold, that it would be more reasonable and proper that instead of reinstatement, complainant Tolentino be awarded a limited backwages plus separation pay."cralaw virtua1aw library

In other words public respondent NLRC found that petitioner was dismissed without sufficient cause but nonetheless denied her reinstatement to her former position. Hence this appeal by petitioner.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Petitioner’s contentions deserve credence.

The records of the case reveal that it is not true as found by the public respondent NLRC that petitioner and Ms. Villadelgado belonged to the same department during the period material to this case. While petitioner, since March 16, 1984 and until her illegal dismissal on October 15, 1984, was admittedly a supervisor in the Auditing Department, Ms. Teofista Villadelgado, on the other hand, was the Department Head of the Agents Account Control Department. However prior to March 16, 1984, Ms. Villadelgado was the petitioner’s superior officer in the Accounting Services Department. During the relevant periods, petitioner’s superior was Mr. Eladio T. Bolos, Assistant Vice-President and their Auditing Department was under the office of the President. Mrs. Villadelgado was in another department, the agents Control Department (as Manager thereof) which was under the Sales Division. It is clear therefore that the ruling of respondent NLRC against reinstatement is anchored on a false premise and contrary to the evidence on record.

There is also no showing that the position previously held by the petitioner no longer exists or that should the petitioner be reinstated to her former position, industrial unrest in the company would result. To follow respondent NLRC’s reasoning, every fight or quarrel between employees which is punishable by suspension and not dismissal, will prevent the reinstatement of an otherwise unjustly dismissed employee upon the pretext or excuse of an industrial unrest.

Reinstatement of the petitioner is mandated by law. Thus rt. 280 of the Labor Code provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 280. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his reinstatement." (Labor Code, emphasis given).

And to implement the foregoing rule, the Minister of Labor and Employment promulgated the following rules:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 4. Reinstatement to former position. — (a) an employee who is separated from work without just cause shall be reinstated to his former position, unless such position no longer exists at the time of his reinstatement, in which case he shall be given a substantially equivalent position in the same establishment without loss of seniority rights.

(b) In case the establishment where the employee is to be reinstated has closed or ceased operations or where his former position no longer exists at the time of reinstatement for reasons not attributable to the fault of the employer, the employee shall be entitled to separation pay equivalent at least to one month salary or to one month salary for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Rule 1, Book IV, Rules to Implement the Labor Code).

Security of tenure is a right of paramount value as recognized and guaranteed under our new constitution. "The State shall afford full protection to labor, . . . and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to . . . security of tenure . . ." (Sec. 3, Art. XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.) Such constitutional right should not be denied on mere speculation of any similar unclear and nebulous basis.

Be it noted that the Office of the Solicitor General, recommends in its comment, for the setting aside of the assailed NLRC decision and for the reinstatement of petitioner with full backwages not exceeding 3 years, except for the period of her suspension from October 15 to 26, 1984 & with other employment benefits. If reinstatement to her former position is no longer possible, she should be reinstated to a substantially equivalent position (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Book IV, Implementing Rules; Labor Code).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Likewise We cannot sustain respondent NLRC in denying reinstatement to petitioner because of the alleged falsification of "signature of her co-maker in two promissory notes forming part of her chattel mortgage loans with the company," thereby creating a breach of trust and confidence of her employer and thereby rendering reinstatement unwarranted. Yet respondent NLRC admits that this evidentiary aspect of falsification was not considered in the resolution of the case. How then could the breach of trust and confidence of the company in petitioner arise? Furthermore, petitioner was not dismissed due to this falsification charge but because of the September 5, 1984 slapping incident as mentioned in the letter of dismissal. She should have been charged with the alleged falsification, given the opportunity to defend herself, and dismissed only after being proved guilty.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent BF Lifeman Insurance Corp. is hereby ordered to REINSTATE petitioner to her former position without loss of seniority and with full back wages from October 27, 1984 until the date of her actual reinstatement (but not exceeding three years).

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.




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






July-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47147 July 3, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENEN OLA

  • G.R. No. L-67472 July 3, 1987 - DARIO C. CABIGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48879-82 July 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LASANAS

  • A.C. No. 2655 July 9, 1987 - LEONARD W. RICHARDS v. PATRICIO A. ASOY

  • G.R. No. L-49728 July 15, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO F. AUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-63438 July 15, 1987 - MANUEL OLONDRIZ, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30637 July 16, 1987 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE

  • G.R. No. L-60328 July 16, 1987 - KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76639 July 16, 1987 - EMILIO SY v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987 - RAMON S. MILO v. ANGELITO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-69377 July 20, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER ALBOFERA

  • G.R. No. 71813 July 20, 1987 - ROSALINA P. ABELLA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-33050 July 23, 1987 - PABLO V. ZAGALA v. JOSE B. JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33654 July 23, 1987 - MEYNARDO Q. JAMILIANO v. SERAFIN B. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-35800 July 23, 1987 - ROSALINDA PA-AC v. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-41171 July 23, 1987 - PATROCINIO BORROMEO-HERRERA v. FORTUNATO BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-46010 July 23, 1987 - CANDIDA B. MUNEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46903 July 23, 1987 - BUHAY DE ROMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50383 July 23, 1987 - PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56398 July 23, 1987 - ASIA WORLD PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. v. BLAS OPLE

  • G.R. No. L-57338 July 23, 1987 - WILLIAM B. BORTHWICK v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-58292 July 23, 1987 - ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-69303 July 23, 1987 - HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73008 July 23, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. BOHOLST

  • G.R. No. 76872 July 23, 1987 - WILFREDO S. TORRES v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-78780 July 23, 1987 - DAVID G. NITAFAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.C. No. 1327 July 27, 1987 - RE: ATTY. OCTAVIO D. FULE

  • G.R. Nos. L-36906-07 July 27, 1987 - ISAAC O. TOLENTINO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 71131-32 July 27, 1987 - REPUBLIC SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 72316-17 July 27, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALMUDE LIZA

  • G.R. No. 76746 July 27, 1987 - DURABUILT RECAPPING PLANT & COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77918 July 27, 1987 - FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. JAIME N. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-46591 July 28, 1987 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. MIGUEL NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-49162 July 28, 1987 - JANICE MARIE JAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-54045 July 28, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EDUARDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. L-56614 July 28, 1987 - ROMAN SANTOS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-71768 July 28, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO TANAMAN

  • G.R. No. L-32621 July 29, 1987 - ASSOC. OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

  • G.R. No. L-51306 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CAMAY

  • G.R. No. L-51369 July 29, 1987 - MODESTA BADILLO v. CLARITA FERRER

  • G.R. No. 74041 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. LIGON

  • G.R. Nos. 77317-50 July 29, 1987 - MADID MACAGA-AN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-58651 July 30, 1987 - VIRGINIA T. VELASCO v. GRACIANO P. GAYAPA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-63132 July 30, 1987 - ELIAS S. MENDOZA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71907 July 30, 1987 - EDI-STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72727 July 30, 1987 - BENITO DILAG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74485-86 July 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN GARUFIL

  • G.R. No. 77353 July 30, 1987 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. ARSENIO M. GONONG

  • A.M. No. R-181-P July 31, 1987 - ADELIO C. CRUZ v. QUITERIO L. DALISAY

  • G.R. No. L-31681 July 31, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BR. XII

  • G.R. No. L-31974 July 31, 1987 - NICOLAS LEYTE v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47521 July 31, 1987 - CAROLINA CLEMENTE v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-46724 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO SERANTE

  • G.R. No. L-47661 July 31, 1987 - JUANITO CARIÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48672 July 31, 1987 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-49703 July 31, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO

  • G.R. No. L-58781 July 31, 1987 - TEOFILO MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58831 July 31, 1987 - ALFREDO R. CORNEJO, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-63862 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. L-65211 July 31, 1987 - EDGARDO P. TOLEDO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66186 July 31, 1987 - AMANCIO SESE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66419 July 31, 1987 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. IVAN MENDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-67583 July 31, 1987 - BASILISA S. ESCONDE v. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY

  • G.R. No. L-69542 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO AUDITOR

  • G.R. No. L-69901 July 31, 1987 - ANTONIO RAMON ONGSIAKO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 70287 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO B. RUALO

  • G.R. No. 70648 July 31, 1987 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-72301 July 31, 1987 - ROLANDO PONSICA, ET AL. v. EMILIO M. IGNALAGA

  • G.R. No. L-72555 July 31, 1987 - TABACALERA INSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74007 July 31, 1987 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. MINISTER OF LABOR.

  • G.R. No. 74289 July 31, 1987 - GOLDEN GATE REALTY CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74562 July 31, 1987 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74625 July 31, 1987 - MATEO P. FRANCISCO v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 75380 July 31, 1987 - VICTORIA M. TOLENTINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76273 July 31, 1987 - FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987 - TERESITA TABLARIN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ