January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 149536 : January 17, 2007] LINO L. GAYO AND BIENVENIDO GLEMANI, JR. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOHN HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION (PHILS.) INC., BRIAN FITZSIMONS, JIM SALMON AND JIMMY LORENZO :
[G.R. No. 149536 : January 17, 2007]
LINO L. GAYO AND BIENVENIDO GLEMANI, JR. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOHN HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION (PHILS.) INC., BRIAN FITZSIMONS, JIM SALMON AND JIMMY LORENZO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 17 JANUARY 2007
G.R. No. 149536 (Lino L. Gayo and Bienvenido Glemani, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc., Brian Fitzsimons, Jim Salmon and Jimmy Lorenzo) - Litigating as paupers,[1] petitioners Lino L. Gayo and Bienvenido Glemani, Jr., assisted by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed the instant petition for review on certiorari on September 14, 2001 assailing the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated October 19, 2000 and the Resolution dated July 12, 2001 denying the Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 53378.
In the Resolution[3] dated October 8, 2001, the respondents were required to comment on the petition. The resolutions of the Court addressed to respondent John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc. at 5th Floor, Electra House Bldg., 115-117 Esteban St., Legaspi Village, Makati City were returned to this Court with the notation "RTS Moved Out." Considering that the case awaits the filing of the comment from the respondents, the petitioners were required to submit the correct and present address of respondent corporation.[4] Thereafter, the petitioners were also required to furnish the Court the correct and present address of respondents' counsel, Atty. Vicente T. Verdadero.[5] The resolutions of the Court were still returned unserved. Diligent efforts were exerted to comply with the Court's directive but to this date, the respondents' addresses could not be determined where the resolutions of the Court could be served.[6]
Considering the foregoing, the respondents are deemed to have waived their right to comment, and the petition shall be resolved on the basis of the records before the Court.
In the instant petition, the petitioners alleged that they are construction workers and were hired by the respondent John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc., as Heavy Equipment/Mobile Plant Operators in 1994. Lino Gayo was paid P285.20 per day while Bienvenido Glemani, Jr. had a daily rate of P280.00. Their contract of employment provided among others, the payment of the costs of their mobilization/demobilization to and from the construction site, 13th month pay, and gratuity pay.
On September 23, 1997, they received identical letters of termination from their Senior Project Manager informing them that their services were no longer needed due to "PNR's inability to issue the requisite notice to proceed with the work on the Bongalon and Mape bridges located in Daraga, Albay."[7]
On October 1, 1997, the petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal. They alleged that: (1) they are regular employees of the construction firm; (2) the reason cited for their termination is not one of the just or authorized causes provided by the Labor Code; and (3) there was no observance of due process. They demanded payment of separation pay, backwages, and other monetary claims, i.e., mobilization/demobilization fee, accommodation and meal allowances, gratuity pay, 13th month pay, as well as moral and exemplary damages.
The respondents, on the other hand, averred that the supposed termination did not actually take place. The termination letters were recalled since the construction works at the Bongalon/Gapo Bridges in Albay would finally push through upon an assurance from the government. With this development, the petitioners were advised to report for work in a Memorandum dated October 3, 1997. The petitioners failed to do so. Subsequent notices and warnings were given but still, the petitioners failed to report for work. Thus, final termination letters dated October 31, 1997 were issued on the ground of absence without leave (AWOL) and lack of interest to work.
The petitioners pursued their complaint alleging that the recall order was merely an afterthought to cover up the illegality of their dismissal on September 23, 1997.
On August 31, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. It ruled that while the recall order may be questionable for being belatedly issued, the petitioners, however, dismally failed to dispute respondents' assertions which were found to be sufficiently supported by the documentary evidence presented by them. The respondents were able to discharge its burden of proving the validity of the petitioner's dismissal in this case. However, the respondents were found to be liable for the payment of the monetary benefits due to the petitioners when they were assigned at the Boracay Diamond Head Resort: P13,379.10 for Lino Gayo and P11,422.45 for Bienvenido Glemani, Jr.[8]
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision. It further added that the order of reinstatement was not merely an afterthought. Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, the termination letter was duly reconsidered as early as September 29, 1997, at a meeting held by both the petitioners and respondents which was only formalized in the Memorandum dated October 3, 1997. Further notices were sent to the petitioners urging them to report for work. The final notice of termination was issued on October 31, 1997. Therefore, it could not be claimed that no just or valid cause exists to justify the dismissal and that due process was not observed.[9]
On October 19, 2000, the CA, likewise, dismissed the petition before it, affirming in toto the assailed resolution of the NLRC.
Hence, the instant petition was filed alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for lack of merit and in affirming in toto the decision of the NLRC.[10]
We find no reversible error with the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners maintain that notwithstanding the notices of reinstatement, their dismissal on September 23, 1997 was illegal; thus, they are entitled to be paid their monetary claims.
We agree with the respondent court that if the petitioners' termination on September 23, 1997 was solely on the basis of lack of project as there was no notice to proceed thereof, then the termination was illegal considering that this is not one of the just or authorized causes for dismissal. However, it cannot be denied that said letters of termination dated September 23, 1997 originally sent to the petitioners were actually recalled since the commencement of the Bongalon/Gapo project was already forthcoming. As found by the NLRC and affirmed by the CA, said recall order was not an afterthought because the petitioners knew that they were being called back to work as early as September 29, 1997 or before the complaint was filed. This was merely formalized in the Memorandum dated October 3, 1997 addressed to the petitioners. Even if this was impugned, the petitioners cannot deny lack of awareness of such fact since in the minutes of the conference held before the Labor Arbiter on October 7, 1997, it was revealed that the representative from the respondent company manifested that the termination letter was recalled and that they were even willing to pay the petitioners' backwages from September 24 up to October 3, 1997.
Where an employee is illegally dismissed, the relief sought for is reinstatement with payment of backwages or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer feasible. In the instant case, the petitioners were called back to work to their former positions. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that this offer of reinstatement renders the petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal moot since they were not prevented from returning to their work. They were given considerable time to report back but their adamant refusal to heed the return-to-work order clearly militates against their cause of action.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the CA decisions. Factual issues as in the instant case cannot be raised as these are for the labor tribunals to resolve. The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect and finality, if supported by substantial evidence and upheld by the CA.[11] The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from this rule in the instant case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.
RESOLUTION
G.R. No. 149536 (Lino L. Gayo and Bienvenido Glemani, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc., Brian Fitzsimons, Jim Salmon and Jimmy Lorenzo) - Litigating as paupers,[1] petitioners Lino L. Gayo and Bienvenido Glemani, Jr., assisted by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed the instant petition for review on certiorari on September 14, 2001 assailing the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated October 19, 2000 and the Resolution dated July 12, 2001 denying the Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 53378.
In the Resolution[3] dated October 8, 2001, the respondents were required to comment on the petition. The resolutions of the Court addressed to respondent John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc. at 5th Floor, Electra House Bldg., 115-117 Esteban St., Legaspi Village, Makati City were returned to this Court with the notation "RTS Moved Out." Considering that the case awaits the filing of the comment from the respondents, the petitioners were required to submit the correct and present address of respondent corporation.[4] Thereafter, the petitioners were also required to furnish the Court the correct and present address of respondents' counsel, Atty. Vicente T. Verdadero.[5] The resolutions of the Court were still returned unserved. Diligent efforts were exerted to comply with the Court's directive but to this date, the respondents' addresses could not be determined where the resolutions of the Court could be served.[6]
Considering the foregoing, the respondents are deemed to have waived their right to comment, and the petition shall be resolved on the basis of the records before the Court.
In the instant petition, the petitioners alleged that they are construction workers and were hired by the respondent John Holland Construction (Phils.) Inc., as Heavy Equipment/Mobile Plant Operators in 1994. Lino Gayo was paid P285.20 per day while Bienvenido Glemani, Jr. had a daily rate of P280.00. Their contract of employment provided among others, the payment of the costs of their mobilization/demobilization to and from the construction site, 13th month pay, and gratuity pay.
On September 23, 1997, they received identical letters of termination from their Senior Project Manager informing them that their services were no longer needed due to "PNR's inability to issue the requisite notice to proceed with the work on the Bongalon and Mape bridges located in Daraga, Albay."[7]
On October 1, 1997, the petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal. They alleged that: (1) they are regular employees of the construction firm; (2) the reason cited for their termination is not one of the just or authorized causes provided by the Labor Code; and (3) there was no observance of due process. They demanded payment of separation pay, backwages, and other monetary claims, i.e., mobilization/demobilization fee, accommodation and meal allowances, gratuity pay, 13th month pay, as well as moral and exemplary damages.
The respondents, on the other hand, averred that the supposed termination did not actually take place. The termination letters were recalled since the construction works at the Bongalon/Gapo Bridges in Albay would finally push through upon an assurance from the government. With this development, the petitioners were advised to report for work in a Memorandum dated October 3, 1997. The petitioners failed to do so. Subsequent notices and warnings were given but still, the petitioners failed to report for work. Thus, final termination letters dated October 31, 1997 were issued on the ground of absence without leave (AWOL) and lack of interest to work.
The petitioners pursued their complaint alleging that the recall order was merely an afterthought to cover up the illegality of their dismissal on September 23, 1997.
On August 31, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. It ruled that while the recall order may be questionable for being belatedly issued, the petitioners, however, dismally failed to dispute respondents' assertions which were found to be sufficiently supported by the documentary evidence presented by them. The respondents were able to discharge its burden of proving the validity of the petitioner's dismissal in this case. However, the respondents were found to be liable for the payment of the monetary benefits due to the petitioners when they were assigned at the Boracay Diamond Head Resort: P13,379.10 for Lino Gayo and P11,422.45 for Bienvenido Glemani, Jr.[8]
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision. It further added that the order of reinstatement was not merely an afterthought. Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, the termination letter was duly reconsidered as early as September 29, 1997, at a meeting held by both the petitioners and respondents which was only formalized in the Memorandum dated October 3, 1997. Further notices were sent to the petitioners urging them to report for work. The final notice of termination was issued on October 31, 1997. Therefore, it could not be claimed that no just or valid cause exists to justify the dismissal and that due process was not observed.[9]
On October 19, 2000, the CA, likewise, dismissed the petition before it, affirming in toto the assailed resolution of the NLRC.
Hence, the instant petition was filed alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for lack of merit and in affirming in toto the decision of the NLRC.[10]
We find no reversible error with the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners maintain that notwithstanding the notices of reinstatement, their dismissal on September 23, 1997 was illegal; thus, they are entitled to be paid their monetary claims.
We agree with the respondent court that if the petitioners' termination on September 23, 1997 was solely on the basis of lack of project as there was no notice to proceed thereof, then the termination was illegal considering that this is not one of the just or authorized causes for dismissal. However, it cannot be denied that said letters of termination dated September 23, 1997 originally sent to the petitioners were actually recalled since the commencement of the Bongalon/Gapo project was already forthcoming. As found by the NLRC and affirmed by the CA, said recall order was not an afterthought because the petitioners knew that they were being called back to work as early as September 29, 1997 or before the complaint was filed. This was merely formalized in the Memorandum dated October 3, 1997 addressed to the petitioners. Even if this was impugned, the petitioners cannot deny lack of awareness of such fact since in the minutes of the conference held before the Labor Arbiter on October 7, 1997, it was revealed that the representative from the respondent company manifested that the termination letter was recalled and that they were even willing to pay the petitioners' backwages from September 24 up to October 3, 1997.
Where an employee is illegally dismissed, the relief sought for is reinstatement with payment of backwages or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer feasible. In the instant case, the petitioners were called back to work to their former positions. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that this offer of reinstatement renders the petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal moot since they were not prevented from returning to their work. They were given considerable time to report back but their adamant refusal to heed the return-to-work order clearly militates against their cause of action.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the CA decisions. Factual issues as in the instant case cannot be raised as these are for the labor tribunals to resolve. The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect and finality, if supported by substantial evidence and upheld by the CA.[11] The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from this rule in the instant case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Resolution dated September 5, 2001; rollo, p. 15.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. with Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., concurring; id. at 42-52.
[3] Rollo, p. 100.
[4] Resolution dated December 12, 2001; rollo, p. 104.
[5] Resolution dated April 1, 2002; id. at 108.
[6] See Compliance dated April 10, 2002; rollo, pp. 111-112; Compliance dated May 16, 2002; rollo,
pp. 119 -120; Compliance dated December 2, 2003; rollo, pp. 158-159.
[7] Rollo,p. 83.
[8] Id. at 82-85.
[9] Id. at 93-94.
[10] Id. at 27.
[11] Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147125, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 354, 362.
