FIRST DIVISION
LIGAYA R. MACHICA, G.R. No. 168664
ROSSINI D. LOSABE,
ANALYN V. BASAS,
HARRY G. FLORES,
CESAR M. LERO, NILO Present:
S.
VILLARMENTE,
ANNABELLA
E. FLORES
and RALPH O. TAPADO, PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
Chairperson,
Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
-
versus -
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
INC., and/or ODILON P.
DIZON,
substituted by LITO/ANGELITO
DIZON, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Assailed in the Petition for Review
on Certiorari is the Court of Appeals
(CA) Decision[1] in
CA-G.R. SP No. 88259 which dismissed herein petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
The controversy arose from the
following antecedents:
The Roosevelt Service Center, Inc.
(RSCI) employed thirty (30) persons at its gasoline station, including Ligaya
Machica, Rossini Losabe, Analyn Basas, Harry Flores, Cesar Lero, Nilo
Villarmente, Annabella Flores and Ralph Tapado.[2] RSCI sold gasoline and other oil products to
its customers, one of whom was the San Francisco Mirror Corporation (SFMC).
Sometime in April 1999, RSCI received
a complaint from
In the meantime, SFMC received
statements of crude and gasoline purchased from RSCI from October 16 to P47,991.15, along with a request to pay the amount.[4]
SFMC found the billings exorbitant and conducted an investigation of its
personnel. In the process, some SFMC personnel
admitted in writing to having conspired with some RSCI employees in inflating the
purchases of SFMC.
In a Letter[5] addressed
to RSCI, dated
RSCI required
SFMC to conduct its analysis on the alleged irregularities and submit its
findings thereon. SFMC complied and
transmitted its analysis of the situation to RSCI on
1. There was a very large discrepancy in consumption
of gasoline per comparison with previous gasoline station retained. Based on
the comparative Gasoline Consumption Analysis (Exh. 1), the increase is
1,279.63 liters or 46% while there is a decrease in the number of trips average
per month. The basis of comparison is on the same number of trucks and truck
type and plate number.
2. Based on the
Consumption analysis per truck on a per transaction basis, there were several
inconsistencies on unit cost/per liter used purchased on the same date by
different trucks (Exh. B).
3. A major difference in unit cost purchased on the
same day of 10/19 is on TTG-299 having P/13.9335/liter whereas the other
averages P/14.3420, WGG-442 purchased 59.09 liters in the total amount of P/860.30
with unit cost of P/14.5591, while other purchased on the same date (10/18)
averages unit cost of P/14.3413 (Exh. B--**).
4. As compared with the gasoline consumption in
November 2000 with the previously retained gasoline (Petron), majority of the
trucks have lower consumption as compared with the June to October consumption.
(see Exh. A).
5. There appeared to be an excess in the fuel tank
capacity as loaded against the number of liters loaded in the station (see Exh.
C).[6]
In view of the findings of SFMC, RSCI
confronted its employees who denied any involvement in the anomalies unearthed
by SFMC. RSCI was impelled to give a 50%
discount to SFMC. Thus, SFMC paid only P23,995.58 of the total
billing.
On
To: ALL PERSONNEL CONCERNED
Subject: San
Francisco Mirror Corp.
Ang dating
customer na ito ay hindi na bumibili ng mga fuels (Diesel at Gasolina) mula pa
noong OCTOBER 2000. Ang dahilan ay nagkaroon ng PANDARAYA sa mga transactions.
(Tingnan at basahin ang nakalakip na letter ng San Francisco Mirror Corp.) Ang PANDARAYA
at SABWATAN ay pinatunayan ng San Francisco Mirror Corp. sa mga sulat na
pag-amin ng kanilang empleyado.
Dahil sa
nangyaring ito, ang naging resulta ay ang mga sumusunod:
1) Umalis ang San Francisco sa atin,
nawalan ng “good customer” ang istasyon
2) Inalis/tinanggal
ang mga empleyadong kasama sa pandaraya at sabwatan
3) Sinabihan ang ibang customers tungkol
sa sabwatan sa pandaraya at nasira ang “Goodwill” ng istasyon
4) Ang utang nila P47,991.15 naiwan
noong October 2000 pa ay nitong P23,995.58 ang ibinayad
5) Dahil sa wala namang aamin sa
pandarayang ito, ang mga may kaugnayan o nakakaalam sa nangyari ay mag-share
sa hindi binayaran ng customer
Sana ay huwag
nang gagawin uli ito sa ibang customers at tigilan na ang ganitong masamang
gawain. Siguradong hindi mabuti ang mangyayari sa mga gawaing ito!
______________________
Roosevelt
Servicenter Inc.
Nabasa ko at
naintindihan ang memo tungkol sa SAN FRANCISCO MIRROR CORP. na kasama sa pahina
1.[8]
However, Ligaya Machica, Rossini
Losabe, Analyn Basas, Harry Flores, Cesar Lero, Nilo Villarmente, Annabella
Flores and Ralph Tapado refused to sign the Memorandum. Instead, they wrote “ayaw” on the spaces where they were supposed to acknowledge having
read and understood the same.[9]
On March 26, 2001, the following
Monday, Ligaya Machica filed a Complaint[10]
for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, holiday pay, service incentive
leave, 13th month pay, separation pay and attorney’s fees against
RSCI and its President, Odilon Dizon. It was docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No.
00-03-01864-2001. On
When the RSCI employees later
received their pay for March, there was already a P500.00 deduction.
In the Joint Affidavit which was appended
to their Position Paper,[12]
complainants alleged that, because of their refusal to sign the Memorandum,
their employment was terminated and they were told not to report for work
anymore. The complainants claimed that
their dismissal was without just or valid cause; worse, they were deprived of
their right to due process. They prayed, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered declaring that complainants were
illegally dismissed, and ordering respondents to solidarily pay complainants
full backwages, underpayment, illegally deducted amounts, service incentive
leave pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees as discussed above.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed
for.[13]
For their part, RSCI and Dizon
asserted that the complainants were not dismissed from their employment, but
were merely told to take three to seven days off to decide whether to agree to share
in the loss sustained by RSCI. They
investigated the reported anomalous transactions and confirmed that, indeed,
employees of SFMC and the complainants had, for six months, conspired to commit
the acts complained of.[14] They even sought the help of the Barangay Lupon so that the contents of
the Memorandum could be explained to the complainants, but the scheduled
conference had to be cancelled due to the filing of the complaints for illegal
dismissal. They claimed that the complainants were never dismissed but stopped
reporting for work and had, thus, abandoned their posts.[15]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring that complainants were illegally dismissed, and ordering
respondents to reinstate complainants to their former positions, and to pay
them (for purposes of appeal, backwages is tentatively computed):
a. LIGAYA MACHICA:
1. Backwages
from
P218.00 x 26 days x 17 mos) P96,356.00
2. 13th
month pay (96,356/12 mos.) 8,029.66
3. Illegal
deduction 500.00
4. Moral
damages 10,000.00
5. Exemplary
damages 5,000.00
b. Rossini
Losabe, Analyn V. BasaR, Harry G. Flores, CeAsar M. Lero, Nilo S. Villarmente,
Annabella E. Flores and Ralph Q.
Tapado, (For each of them):
1. Backwages
from
(P218.00 x 26 days x 17
mos. x 7 complainants)...P674,492.00
2. 13th
month pay (P8,029.66 x 7 complainants)……
56,207.62
3. Illegal
deduction (P500.00 x 7 complainants)……
3,500.00
4. Moral
Damages (P10,000 x 7 complainants)….
70,000.00
5. Exemplary
damages (P5,000.00 x 7 complainants)
35,000.00
P959,085.28 plus ten percent (10%) of the total award as attorney’s
fees.
SO ORDERED.[18]
On appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) by the respondents, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated
that the complainants were not dismissed but were merely given a period of three to seven days within which to decide whether they would agree to share in the loss incurred by RSCI. It also declared that complainants did not abandon their employment, and that they misinterpreted Dizon’s Memorandum as well as the events surrounding its issuance. The fallo of its Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
finding of illegal dismissal by the Labor Arbiter is SET ASIDE.
The complainants are hereby ordered to report back for work within ten (10)
days from receipt of this resolution otherwise they shall be deemed to have
forfeited their jobs; and the respondents are also ordered to accept them to
their former or substantially equal positions, but without backwages.
The awards for moral and exemplary damages are DELETED for lack of factual and legal
bases.
However, the awards for the complainants-appellees’ propertionate (sic) 13th month pay for the period of 01 January
2001 up to 24 March 2001, and for the refund
of the PhP500.00 deduction made from their March 2001 salary, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[19]
The complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which the NLRC denied for lack of merit.[20]
The employees assailed the ruling in the CA, asserting that they were
dismissed from their employment on account of their refusal to share in the P23,997.58
loss of RSCI. Petitioners averred that respondents’
claim that they were merely given three to seven days within which to decide
whether to agree to share in the loss of RSCI, had no factual basis. Rather
than agree to a conference with respondents before the Lupon, they resolved to file their complaints for illegal
dismissal.
On
The employees then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which the appellate court denied; hence, the instant petition.
Petitioners allege that the CA erred
in ruling that they were not dismissed from employment following their refusal
to agree to share in the loss of respondent corporation and in not affirming the decision of the LA.
The petition has no merit.
In ruling for the respondents, the CA
declared:
Nonetheless, despite petitioners’ refusal to sign said
memorandum, Odilon Dizon gave petitioners ample time to study the memorandum
and if necessary to take a 3 to 7 days leave and thereafter to inform said
Odilon Dizon of their reservations or their need for further clarification
regarding the memorandum.
Said memorandum was issued on
Considering the foregoing circumstances, Labor Arbiter
Nambi erred in making the unfounded conclusion, not supported by substantial
evidence, that “it is more in consonance with logic and
ordinary human experience to accept complainants’ claim that they were
dismissed by Dizon.” We are not
convinced by the bare claim of petitioners that they were illegally dismissed
by Odilon Dizon for not signing the memorandum.
We take serious note that this is not the first time that a customer of
private respondent RSCI was cheated by the latter’s employees. In a handwritten memorandum of management
dated 17 April 1999, addressed to all its personnel, it appears that Hebron,
another customer of private respondent RSCI, complained that it was also
victimized by the dishonest acts of RCSI’s employees (the liters of gasoline
indicated in the withdrawal slips were altered), which set off the issuance of
a similar memorandum from management to protect the customers, as well as its
business interests. Said earlier
memorandum was signed by the employees, including six (6) of the petitioners,
as patunay na naintindihan ang memong
ito.” If said memorandum dated
It is undisputed that the matter was brought to the
attention of the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of
Barangay San Francisco del Monte to
defuse the situation. The proceedings
before the Lupon are non-adversarial
in nature. If indeed private respondents
were bent on terminating the petitioners from their jobs for not signing the
questioned memorandum or constructively dismissing petitioners by asking them
to take a short leave, there would have been no necessity for private
respondent to refer the matter to a disinterested party to help explain the
memorandum to petitioners. It appears
from the record that it was petitioners’ immediate filing of their complaints
with the NLRC which cancelled the conference before the Lupon.[22]
Petitioners, however, maintain that,
as ruled by the Labor Arbiter -
x x x [I]t is not true, contrary to records, that
petitioners were studying the memorandum when respondents went to the Barangay, for, as petitioners repeatedly
stressed, they were dismissed, not just asked to take a leave and study the
memorandum; and b) there is no proof that the purpose of respondents in going
to the Barangay is to explain the
memorandum. That is mere assertion without proof. There is really no sense for
respondents to go to the Barangay
only for the purpose of securing the Barangay
official’s services to clarify or explain the memorandum to petitioners, for
the memorandum is self-explanatory.
In any event, such Barangay conference cannot be used
as an evidence that petitioners were not dismissed. On the other hand, the fact
that petitioners immediately filed complaints for illegal dismissal with NLRC
only shows that they were indeed dismissed, not just asked to take a leave and
study the memorandum. Along this line,
the Labor Arbiter’s disposition has to be sustained, being in harmony with
reason.[23]
The rule is
that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to
prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment.[24] It must be stressed that the evidence to
prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.[25]
The rule that the
employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no
application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.
We have reviewed the Memorandum of
respondent Dizon and find nothing therein to indicate that any of the employees
of respondent corporation, including the petitioners, would be considered
terminated from employment if they refused to share in the P23,997.58
loss. Petitioners and other employees of respondent corporation were merely
required to affix their signatures in the Memorandum on the space opposite
their respective names, to confirm that they had read and understood the
same. As elucidated by the NLRC in the
assailed Resolution:
Read in its entirety, the Memorandum reflects the GOOD FAITH of the employer in resolving a
discovered anomaly. First, it is a
declaration of AMNESTY and FORGIVENESS; it did not name names; it did not state
that the guilty ones will be pursued and punished. Second,
it asked for SHARING among the employees for the loss due to the discovered
anomaly. Third, it indicated a POSITIVE BUSINESS DIRECTION as it exhorted
the employees from participating in similar anomalies henceforward.
Thus, given the true import of the subject Memorandum, it is easy to uphold the
respondents position that there is no illegal dismissal.
We fully agree with their argument, thus:
xxxx
4.03 The key
to the Labor Arbiter’s ruling of illegal dismissal appears to stem from the
memorandum issued by appellants dated
4.04 On
closer examination, there is nothing in said memorandum to support the Labor
Arbiter’s findings and ruling of illegal dismissal.
4.04.01 The
first paragraph is simply a prefatory statement stating facts and summarizing
the contents of the
4.04.02 The second paragraph likewise gives certain
facts. Subparagraphs 1 to 4 merely states facts. Subparagraph 5 merely states that those who
are involved or who knew about the anomaly will share in the portion of the billing
unpaid by the customer.
4.04.03
Finally, the third paragraph merely requests the employees in general
not to repeat the anomaly to other customers, and to stop the anomalous
acts. It closes with a reminder that the
anomalous acts would do no good. The
SFMC reaction stated in the memorandum is a case in point.
4.05 There is
nothing in the memorandum from which a conclusion of termination may be
inferred. There is also nothing in the
memorandum that determines guilt in anybody.
In fact, the memorandum is addressed to all employees in general.
4.06 Contrary
to the Labor Arbiter’s finding about the supposed oral dismissal, indications
of the facts of the case point to the truth that there was no such oral
dismissal, and the claim is just a ruse of the complainant-appellees to prop a
cause of action against appellants.
4.07 There is
no reason why appellants should have issued the memorandum if it intended to
orally dismiss appellees. In fact, none of those who signed the memorandum were
dismissed by appellants.
4.08 The
words of the memorandum clearly point to the fact that there will be no
termination of services, as the memorandum even requests that the anomalous
transactions be discontinued.
4.09 The
suggestion of a leave of absence which in no case was imposed upon any of the
employees, and which fact the Labor Arbiter adverts in his decision, also shows
that there is no termination. There is
no reason why appellants will even suggest a leave when appellants had
supposedly “orally dismissed” appellees.
4.10 Finally,
the recourse to the Lupon is a further attempt by appellants to come to an
understanding with the employees regarding the memorandum. There is no reason
why appellants had to request the intervention of the Lupon when it had
supposedly “orally dismissed” appellees.
4.11 Taking
al of these in stride, it is clear that contrary to the Labor Arbiter’s finding
that there was a supposed oral dismissal, there was none. The existence of the
memorandum, the nature of its contents, the continuation of the employment of
all those who signed the memorandum, the suggestion of a leave of absence, and
the recourse to the Lupon, all indicate that there was no intention of
appellants to dismiss appellees.
4.12 On the
contrary, it is now clear that the claim of an oral dismissal by appellees is a
ruse to excuse the fact that they jumped the gun on appellants. Fearing, maybe out of guilt, that an investigation
may be forthcoming to determine who were involved, but only for the purpose of
sharing the unpaid portion of the bill AND NOT A TERMINATION, the appellees
posthaste ran to the NLRC and because they outran the law, lied [or] fabricated
a story that appellants had supposedly “orally dismissed” them.[26]
The NLRC can hardly be faulted for
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in its
analysis of the Memorandum of respondent Dizon, and in concluding that,
indeed, petitioners were not dismissed
from their employment. After all, grave
abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility; and it must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. It is not
sufficient that a tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency of the government, in the
exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.[27]
In sum, the NLRC and the CA were
correct in finding that petitioners were not dismissed from employment; there
was no intent on the part of respondents, as employers, to dismiss petitioners;
and there was, likewise, no intention on the part of petitioners to abandon
their work.
Under these circumstances, it is but
fair to state that each party must bear his or her own loss, thus placing them
on equal footing.[28]
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, premises considered, the present petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Justices Amelita G. Tolentino (Acting Chairman) and Lucas P. Bersamin, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-58.
[2] Rollo, p. 120.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] See
Affidavit, rollo, p. 106.
[10] Rollo, p. 179.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Penned
by Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi.
[17] Rollo, p. 139.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Asia Traders Insurance Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 152537, February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 114, 120 citing R.F. Navarro & Co. v. Vailoces, 361
SCRA 139 (2001).
[26] Rollo, pp. 92-94.
[27] Punzalan v. De la Peña, G.R. No. 158543, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 601, 609.
[28] Chong Guan Trading v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81471, April 26, 1989, 172 SCRA 831, 844,
citing Pan American World Airways, Inc.
v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G. R No. L-20434,