ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 150092.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 150092 (Globe Telecom, Inc., Delfin Lazaro, Jr., and Roberto Galang vs. Joan Florendo-Flores.)
On
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is MODIFIED.The Decision of the Court of Appeals of 25
May 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 60284 affirming the Decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission of 28 January 2000 declaring that respondent Joan
Florendo-Flores had abandoned her work is SET ASIDE. Petitioners Globe Telecom,
Inc., Delfin Lazaro, Jr., and Roberto Galang are ordered to pay respondent Joan
Florendo-Flores full back wages from the time she was constructively dismissed
on
Petitioners now move for reconsideration alleging that: (a) the Court erred in re-opening the factual findings of the NLRC despite the absence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant a review of such factual findings; (b) the order to pay back wages is highly improper and unjust because it contravenes the doctrine laid down in Leonardo v. NLRC [1] cralaw and Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC [2] cralaw which states that "where the employee's failure to work was occasioned neither by dismissal nor abandonment of employment, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer - each party must bear his own loss;" and, (c) the questioned decision, if not reconsidered, will overturn long-established Supreme Court doctrines without complying with and in violation of the constitutional requirement of Sec. 4, par. (3), Art. VIII, of the Constitution.
On
On the first and third issues, we find petitioners' contentions unmeritorious.
Petitioners are reminded that this Court is empowered to review, revise, reverse, MODIFY, or affirm on APPEAL or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which an error or question of law is involved. [3] cralaw Thus, the modification of the judgment of the Court of Appeals was properly exercised within the Court's constitutional power of judicial review as justice and equity may require.
In any event, this Court upheld the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and rejected those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. We agree with the findings of fact and conclusions of law that warrant a finding for unlawful termination of employment due to constructive dismissal which is embodied in the dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's decision.
As stated, this is a case of constructive dismissal and not one of abandonment. This Court is not overturning any established doctrine. On the contrary, it is affirming the law on constructive dismissal, a well-settled rule in both Philippine and foreign jurisdictions.
On the second issue, the doctrine espoused by the Leonardo and Chong Guan cases is inapplicable and inappropriate in the present case; it is the principle of constructive dismissal that governs due to the nature and circumstances surrounding respondent's involuntary termination from her employment.
The legal basis is anchored on Art. 285 [4] cralaw of the Labor Code. Although an employee terminates the employment relationship with the employer, she does so not on her own volition. Constructive dismissal exists as an involuntary resignation on the part of the employee due to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. In other words, it is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. In fact, the employee who is constructively dismissed may be allowed to keep on coming to work. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. [5] cralaw
Verily, constructive dismissal is brought about where there is clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer and this becomes unbearable to the employee. [6] cralaw The law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer. Whereas valid termination by the employee under Art. 285 of the Labor Code contemplates such act to be voluntary, an employee who is forced to relinquish the position held through the employer's unfair or unreasonable acts is deemed to have been illegally terminated or discharged, as such the termination is implied to be involuntary.
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. Given the undisputed facts outlined above, respondent was provided with no other alternative than to stop reporting for work through no fault of her own due to the malicious acts of her immediate supervisor.
Although respondent continued to have the rank of supervisor, her functions were reduced to those of a mere house-to-house sales agent. This amounted to a demotion. She was deprived of bonuses, allowances and other benefits given to another of the same or similar rank and position, benefits that she used to receive. Despite her having complied with company policies, her immediate superior Luzon Head-Regional Sales Cacholo M. Santos never accomplished and submitted her performance evaluation report thereby depriving her of salary increases, bonuses and other incentives. [7] cralaw The intolerable, unreasonable and hostile conditions in the working environment set by Cacholo M. Santos, Globe Telecom manager, undoubtedly coerced respondent to relinquish her employment involuntarily, for which she sought redress through legal means. This is a clear-cut case of constructive dismissal.
Even as Santos was the principal actor in this workplace drama, the participation of petitioner Roberto Galang, Santos' direct supervisor, cannot be denied in forcing respondent to end her employment. Both Santos and Galang, using company time and resources, created a hostile environment for respondent's continued stay in the firm.
Liability must likewise be imputed to petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc. Given the modern day realities in the management of large corporations, the selection and supervision of employees are assigned to a company's human resources department (HRD) where corporate action (or inaction) is taken as reflective of company policy. Thus, failure to exercise proper diligence in the supervision of its employees, though initially ascribed to the HRD, is ultimately the responsibility of petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc.
Although the right to transfer employees has been recognized as the employer's prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees' qualifications, aptitudes and competence, this must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. [8] cralaw
Concededly, petitioner Delfin Lazaro, Jr., in his capacity as Globe Telecom President, must be absolved of any personal liability in this case. Mr. Lazaro was not responsible for the acts of Galang or Santos as he was never an active participant in the brewing conflict between respondent and Santos. Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code apply squarely to the corporation as employer, and to the employees as agents of the corporation who, acting within the scope of their authority, perpetrated the acts against respondent giving rise to the constructive dismissal. [9] cralaw Clearly, Mr. Lazaro was not involved in this localized conflict between first and second-level supervisors. Solidary liability in this instance is limited to those who condoned the acts of Santos: Galang as direct supervisor of Santos, and Globe Telecom, Inc. as employer.
As to respondent's Motion for Clarification of the meaning of the phrase "FULL BACK WAGES, WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND OTHER BENEFITS," this should be construed in light of Bustamante v. NLRC [10] cralaw where this Court ruled that back wages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The employee is entitled to his full back wages from the time his compensation was withheld, which is from the time of his illegal dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement. "Full back wages without deductions or qualifications" serve as part of the price or penalty the employer must pay for illegally dismissing the employee. This computation is in keeping with the spirit and legislative intent of RA 6715, which is inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. Thus gasoline, car and representation allowances .are included in the determination of back wages under Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended. [11] cralaw In line with Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc., an award of attorney's fees representing ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award is likewise proper. [12] cralaw
The basis for the computation of the back wages is the sum total of the monthly salary plus
allowances and benefits last received by the employee. In this case, the
computation is based on the P19,100.00 per month basic salary of respondent plus
her allowances and benefits of P7,650.00 per month, or a total of P26,750.00
per month, starting from
One final note. As a managerial employee who is entrusted with the duties of safeguarding corporate matters respondent is equally entitled to the protection of our laws on employment. Under Lawrence v. NLRC, we held that managerial employees, no less than rank-and-file laborers, are entitled to due process, security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws. [14] cralaw To do otherwise would run counter to the constitutional mandate in affording full protection to labor. In any event, ruling in favor of respondent crystallizes and affirms labor as a primary social and economic force whose contribution to the national economy cannot be gainsaid.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The judgment of this Court dated 27 September 2002 is AFFIRMED with the CLARIFICATION that the basis of the computation of full back wages without qualification or deduction in favor of respondent Joan Florendo-Flores is P26,750.00 per month from the time respondent was constructively dismissed on 15 May 1998 until the date of her effective reinstatement, and with the MODIFICATION that (a) petitioners Globe Telecom, Inc., and Roberto Galang are ORDERED to pay respondent attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award, and (b) petitioner Delfin Lazaro, Jr., is ABSOLVED from any personal liability for the total monetary award and attorney's fees granted to respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. Nos. 125303 and 126937, 16 June 2000, 333 SCRA 589.
[2] cralaw G.R. No. 81471, 26 April 1989, 172 SCRA 831.
[3] cralaw Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (2)(e).
[4] cralaw Art. 285 states: "TERMINATION BY EMPLOYEE. - x x x (b) An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:
1.���������� Serious Insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee;
2.���������� Inhuman and unbearable Treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative;
3.���������� Commission of a Crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and
4.���������� Other causes Analogous to any of the foregoing."
[5] cralaw Azucena, The Labor Code with comments and Cases, Vol. II (4th Ed., 1999) at 723.
[6] cralaw See Philippine Wireless, Inc. (Pocket bell) v. NLRC, 369 Phil. 907 (1999).
[7] cralaw Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[8] cralaw Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118045, 2 January 1997, 266 SCRA 97, 107.
[9] cralaw Art. 19 states: "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." Art. 21 states: "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
[10] cralaw 332 Phil. 833 (1996).
[11] cralaw Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123810, 20 January 1999, 301 SCRA 223.
[12] cralaw Ibid.
[13] cralaw This is due to a separate car plan constituting an agreement with Globe Telecom, Inc., that respondent pay P1,500.00 per month for sixty (60) months as payment for thirty percent (30%) of the total cost of the car, with forty-two (42) months still left unpaid.
[14] cralaw G.R. No. 87421, 4 February 1992, 205 SCRA 737.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
