SECOND DIVISION
|
CABALEN
MANAGEMENT CO., INC., MA. ESTELA O. NIEVERA, IAN
TIONGSON, ADJI TIONGSON, ESTER O. NIEVERA and ANASTACIA NAVAL, ADRIANO JR. CORPORATION, LEDA A. PANGILINAN, EVA S. CANDELARIA,
ROSE MARIE MORALES, DANILO SUNUBA, LETECIA DAVID, MARLON BULANADI, MA. THERESA
L. GADDI and CONSUELO HALILI REYES, Petitioners, - versus - JESUS P. QUIAMBAO, GERALDINE M. PALERMO, RODEL B.
PANGILINAN, WILLIAM F. LACSON, ROCHELLE B. DE LEON, JOCELYN B. DEANG, EDGAR
E. DE GUZMAN, VIZIER INOCENCIO, VINCENT EDWARD C. MAPUA and JESSEBEL G.
OBIEN, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 169494 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR.,
JJ. PROMULGATED: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
From this Court’s Decision[1] of
In their petition for review on
certiorari before this Court, petitioners sought to set aside the April 29,
2005 Decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85159, which reversed the earlier
rulings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC); and its Resolution of August 25, 2005,[3]
which denied their motion for reconsideration.
The assailed CA Decision held that
except for respondents Vizier Inocencio and Vincent Edward Mapa whose petitions
were dismissed pursuant to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and Section
4 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, herein respondents were illegally
dismissed from their employment.
This Court, by Decision of
In pleading a reconsideration of the
Decision, petitioners invite attention to the fact that not one, but two
administrative bodies possessing specialized knowledge and expertise in their
respective fields, i.e, the office of
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, had previously ruled that the dismissal of
respondents from work was legal.
Petitioners claim that contrary to
the CA’s and this Court’s holdings, the affidavits of their witnesses, Henry
dela Vega Balen (Balen) and Roderick Malana (Malana), as well as the audit
report dated September 19, 2001, are
admissible and of rational probative value.
With respect to the statements
executed by Balen and Malana, petitioners manifest that the originals thereof
were submitted to the Labor Arbiter during the preliminary conference of the
case; and even respondents
have not objected to the submission of the statements, either on the ground
that they were photocopies or that they were altered or were not presented to
them at all.
Further,
petitioners contend that respondents did not contest the findings of the audit
report that the cancelled Order Slips (OS) and receipts, and the incidents of
swapping dining OS with bar OS were beyond the course of ordinary
business. Such finding should thus be
accorded credit, they urge, given the observations of the Labor Arbiter about a
“wholly credible scenario” of tip pocketing by respondents and the alleged
admission of respondent Jesus Quiambao in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14,
2002, of the existence of the anomalous activity.
Petitioners furthermore maintain that
the CA should have dismissed the petition with respect to respondents Geraldine
Palermo, Rochelle De Leon, and William Lacson.
For, so petitioners contend, respondents failed to sign the verification
of their appeal to the NLRC to thus render the decision of the Labor Arbiter final
as to them.
Finally,
petitioners posit that the Decision of this Court should not have passed upon
the legality of the dismissal of Quiambao because the same is subject of
another case, NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-06210-2003, which is still pending
consideration by Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin Reyes.
It
bears stressing that this Court thoroughly considered the rulings made by the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, which were pleaded by petitioners both in their
petition for certiorari before the CA and in their petition for review before this
Court. Then, as now, this Court appreciates
no error in the reversal by the CA of the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC.
With
respect to the statements of Balen and Malana and the audit report, petitioners
need only to be reminded that evidence, even if not objected to, may still
carry no probative value. For
admissibility, should not be equated with weight, of evidence.[4]
Moreover, as respondents correctly
point out in their Opposition, they have vehemently objected to the statements
of petitioners’ witnesses in their Reply[5]
for being self-serving, undated, wanting in material particulars and not
executed under oath. The same Reply
bears out the fact that respondents objected to the audit report for being
self-serving.[6]
Even assuming that the originals of
the statements of Balen and Malana were submitted to the Labor Arbiter, still
the copies extant in the records are lacking in material particulars,
specifically the dates of execution and the persons before whom they were
executed.
Notably, these particulars are
determinative of whether the statements as well as the audit report had indeed
precipitated the investigation of respondents as petitioners had claimed; or
were presented only after the cases for illegal dismissal were filed as
respondents had contended.
It may not be amiss to reiterate that
it is the employer’s burden to prove a valid dismissal. The case of the employer must stand
or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee/s’ defense.[7]
In discharging this bounden duty, it
is not enough that petitioners showed that Quiambao
had confirmed the occurrence of incidents of tip pocketing; they also had to
prove that he and the rest of the respondents were responsible for it. This duty is all the more pressing in the
case of Quiambao considering that it was he who called the management’s
attention to the incidents of tip pocketing among some of his co-employees,
only to be charged with the offense he had asked to be investigated.[8] Not only that. Petitioners also had to prove that due
process was observed in terminating the employment of respondents. As previously traversed in the Decision under
reconsideration, petitioners unfortunately failed in all respects.
As to the alleged error of the CA in
relaxing the verification requirement with respect to petitioners
Finally, regarding this Court’s
judgment on the legality of Quiambao’s dismissal, respondents’ Opposition
affirms that his case for illegal dismissal due to business losses, which is
docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-06210-2003, is still unresolved before
Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin Reyes. On this score, this Court sets aside the
judgment concerning the dismissal of respondent Quiambao.
WHEREFORE, the Motion
for Reconsideration is PARTLY GRANTED. The judgment pertaining to respondent Jesus
P. Quiambao is VACATED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Motion
for Reconsideration is, in all other respects, DENIED for lack of merit, and the DENIAL is FINAL.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate
Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 566-580.
[2]
[3]
[4] Rizal Workers Union v. Ferrer-Calleja,
G.R. No. 82759, June 8, 1990, 186 SCRA 431, 437; Cu Bie v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. L-63855,
[5] CA rollo, pp. 247-248; Annex J to Annex 1 of Respondents’ certioriari petition before the CA.
[6] Ibid.
[7] PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 153031, December 14, 2006, citing Philippine
Long Distance Telecommunication, Inc. v. Tiamson,
G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 761, 771.
[8] Sinumpaang Salaysay of
Quiambao dated
[9] CA rollo, pp. 487-494.