THIRD
DIVISION
|
ALFREDO BARBA and RENATO GONZALES,
Petitioners, - versus
- HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC., Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 169731 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., CHICO-NAZARIO,
and NACHURA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision,[1]
dated
Petitioners
Alfredo Barba (Barba) and Renato Gonzales (Gonzales) were terminated from their
employment with respondent Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) under distinct
circumstances, which will be separately discussed.
ALFREDO BARBA
Petitioner
Barba worked as a Station Agent with PAL from 4 May
1992 to 9 March 1998. His duties
included weighing the baggage of PAL passengers, assessing excess baggage
charges, and recording on the tickets and the computer data system the correct
number of the pieces of baggage and the baggage weight carried by the passengers.[6]
On
6 July 1997, Barba attended to a passenger named Roderick
Nunez and recorded in the latter’s baggage tag that Nunez had checked-in four
pieces of baggage, with a total weight of 18 kilos. Upon arrival, Nunez’s
baggage was weighed again and it was discovered that it weighed 55 kilos, and
not 18 kilos as indicated in his baggage tag.
As a PAL economy class passenger in a domestic flight, he was allowed
only 18 kilos of baggage and should have been required to pay for his excess
baggage. However, he was unable to
produce an excess baggage receipt, and was thus required to pay the
corresponding charges.[7]
On
Fraud Against the Company, Article 57, Section 7, which provides that:
An employee who deliberately or negligently makes a
false representation of facts or any kind of deception or a false or fraudulent
claim against the Company or knowingly or with gross negligence, initiates or
takes part in any act intended to defraud the Company or to obtain payment,
benefit, or gain from the Company to which he or a third party is not entitled
shall suffer the penalty of dismissal.
Falsification, under Article 60, Section 7, which states that:
Falsification of a company document or the use of a
falsified document or false information is a serious misconduct. Any employee who shall falsify, conceal, or
fabricate Company documents or records or who enters false information on any
official Company documents shall suffer the penalty of dismissal.
The said notice allowed Barba to file an answer within ten days from receipt.
PAL
also conducted a clarificatory hearing in connection
with the incident. During the hearing, Barba explained that while the baggage was first weighed at
55 kilos, Nunez had voluntarily unloaded some of the contents of his bags, the
weight of which was then reduced to 18 kilos.
He also alleged that the discrepancy may have been caused by an error
committed by a PAL employee, who weighed the baggage, upon arrival.[9]
In
a letter dated
RENATO GONZALES
Petitioner
Gonzales was employed by PAL as Station Agent from 17 October 1994 to 11 May
2000. On 20 January 2000, while Gonzales was on duty at the check-in counter, a
passenger, Beth Wright, was carrying with her three pieces of baggage, the
total weight of which was beyond the free baggage allowance. The check-in clerk on duty, Dominique dela
Gonzales
accompanied Wright when she retrieved her excess baggage. Thereafter, she went to the Airport Ticket
Office to report a PAL employee who offered to have her excess baggage
accommodated for a fee of US$100, for which no receipt would be issued. When she was referred to the Supervisor,
Olive Fuentebella, Wright executed a written
statement relating the incident and identifying Gonzales as the PAL employee
involved. Dominique dela
On
16 February 2000, PAL served a “Notice of Administrative Charge for
Corruption/Extortion/Bribery” on Gonzales.
The said notice allowed him ten days to submit his Answer.[13]
Gonzales
also attended the clarificatory hearings held on 22
March 2000 and 29 March 2000. He denied
making Wright the offer of allowing her to bring excess baggage in exchange for
US$100. He also alleged that Wright may
have made the report due to an argument which ensued between him and Wright’s
companion, who felt disgruntled because of the inconvenience suffered by
Wright.[14]
On
The
Philippine Airlines Employee’s Association (PALEA), in behalf of Gonzales and Barba, filed a complaint against PAL for illegal dismissal
before the NLRC. During the proceedings
before the Labor Arbiter, Barba added in his defense
that it was a certain LCD Dycoco who advised him to
record the weight of Nunez’s baggage as 18 kilograms, instead of 55 kilograms,
since Dycoco was Nunez’s friend.[16] This assertion was inconsistent with his
earlier defense that after Nunez removed some of the contents of his baggage, Barba had correctly recorded its weight as 18 kilograms.
In
a Decision, dated
WHEREFORE, respondents are
hereby disputed to reinstate the complainant without backwages effective
PAL filed an appeal before the NLRC,
which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, dated
WHEREFORE, instant appeal is
hereby GRANTED for being meritorious.
Accordingly, the assailed decision of 16 March 2002 is SET ASIDE. Conformably thereto, the complaint for
illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Barba and Gonzales filed a joint Motion
for Reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated
Consequently, Barba
and Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari
to annul and set aside the NLRC Decision, dated
The Decision, dated
x x x
While this motion was prepared and ready to be filed on 10 May 2005, the same
was not filed because the undersigned counsel was informed by the Philippine
Airlines Employees Association (PALEA), the labor union assisting petitioners
in the appeal, that petitioners were no longer interested in filing a motion
for reconsideration because they have not responded to telephone call and
notices sent to them by text messages.
however (sic), sometime on May 26, 2005, the undersigned counsel was
informed that petitioners will pursue this case and requested the undersigned
counsel to file the motion for reconsideration.
In
addition, Gonzales executed an Affidavit[25]
on
3. That I was notified by PALEA that a Decision in our
case had been issued by the Court of Appeals and for me to report to the union
office but I was not able to respond to the notice because my wife and kid were
sick at that time and still under medication at present;
4. That when I reported to PALEA, I was informed that
PALEA already notified our counsel of record Atty. Adolpho
M. Guerzon and he was informed that there is no more
need to file a Motion for Reconsideration based on the information of my
co-petitioner Alfredo Barba who at that time imformed PALEA that he was no longer interested in pursuing
the case;
5. That I called up Atty. Adolpho
M. Guerzon and told him to file the Motion for
Reconsideration, even if the period for filing the same had expired, in the
interest of justice and that I also asked my co-petitioner Alfred Barba to reconsider his position and to join me in pursuing
the case which he later on agreed;
In
the aforementioned motion, Gonzales and Barba also sought
to have the 19 February 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstated, wherein
the penalty of suspension would be imposed on them, and, consequently, to set
aside the 15 April 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the validity
of their dismissal.[26] In a Resolution,[27]
dated
On
21 November 2005, Barba and Gonzales filed the
present petition to set aside the 15 April 2005 Decision of the Court of
Appeals and to reinstate the 19 February 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter
ordering their reinstatement on 16 March 2002, after having served their
three-year suspension, with full backwages.
They raised the following issues in this petition:[28]
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITED A GRAVE
AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC).
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITED GRAVE AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DENYING THE MOTION TO ADMIT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
This petition is devoid of merit.
The Court will initially resolve the
procedural issue of whether the Motion to Admit Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Gonzales and Barba on 3 June 2005, or 18 days
after the expiration of the reglementary period, may be given due course.
Section 1, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules
of Court prescribes a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the decision
within which to file a motion for reconsideration. In the case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge Japson,[29]
as reiterated in Amatorio v. People,[30]
the Court declared that there is a prohibition against the filing of a motion
for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration in all courts, except the Supreme Court. The same doctrine was applied in Heirs of Andrea Cristobal
v. Court of Appeals,[31] wherein this Court advocated the strict
adherence to this fifteen-day period and disregarded the Motion for Extension
of Time to File the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners therein. Although the petitioners in the aforecited case attached a medical certificate showing that
their counsel had been sick, the Court found that the illness of their counsel
did not justify their failure to comply with the fifteen-day reglementary
period.
When compared with the aforecited case, the circumstances that attend the present
case are even less likely to excuse their failure to comply with the reglementary
period. Gonzales and Barba
received the Decision of the Court of Appeals on
Public interest demands an end to
every litigation and a belated effort to re-open a case that has already
attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration
of justice.[33] In setting aside technical infirmities and
thereby giving due course to tardy appeals, this Court has clarified that it is
not “oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that merit
liberal application of the rules. In
those situations where technicalities were dispensed with, our decisions were
not meant to undermine the force and effectivity of
the periods set by law. But we hasten to
add that in those rare cases where procedural rules were not stringently
applied, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave
injustice.”[34]
There can hardly be no quibbling that
there should be a strict application of the rules, as there will be no manifest
injustice. Gonzales tried to justify the
delay by alleging that his wife and child were sick at the time he was notified
of the adverse decision, without even furnishing a copy of a medical
certificate. But even granting that this
were true, Gonzales’ lack of interest to pursue the case was clearly manifested
by his failure to even notify the
It was only after the case had become
final and executory that Barba
and Gonzales renewed any interest in the case. Given the foregoing circumstances, this Court
will not allow parties, in the guise of equity, to benefit from their own
negligence.[36] Nor should they be allowed unlimited time to
vacillate as to whether or not they would file the appropriate motions or
petitions, without regard for the periods which have already been set by the law.
Thus, the
Even granting that this Court may
still take cognizance of this petition and resolve the substantive issue of
whether a three-year suspension, instead of outright dismissal, should be
imposed on Barba and Gonzales, this petition would
still be dismissed.
The findings of the Labor Arbiter,
the NLRC and the Court of Appeals are unanimous: Barba is guilty of
incorrectly recording 55 kilograms of baggage as 18 kilograms, while Gonzales
was guilty of soliciting US$100 from a passenger in exchange for allowing her
to check-in US$200 worth of excess baggage.
The only issue for resolution is whether these offenses would merit
their dismissal.
Gonzales was found guilty of
soliciting US$100 from a passenger in exchange for allowing her to check-in US$200
worth of excess baggage. Beth Wright,
the passenger in question, filed a written statement to that effect, which was
corroborated by Gonzales’s co-employee, Dominique dela
In an analogous case, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
v. National Labor Relations Commission,[37]
this Court declared valid the dismissal of a telephone company employee who
offered to repair the telephone of one of the company’s customers in exchange
for P160.00 for his personal benefit.
The Court, in the aforecited case, pronounced
that, “the disciplinary action of dismissal against private respondent is
legally justified considering that his continuance in the service is patently
inimical to the interest of the petitioner.”[38] The acts of Gonzales in offering a passenger
the services of the airlines, without compensating for the same, while at the
same time exacting a fee for himself, are undoubtedly inimical to the interests
of his employer PAL. Moreover, his
reprehensible act badly reflects on the reputation of PAL and puts into
question the honesty and integrity of PAL’s
employees. Such act would obviously
merit the penalty of dismissal.
In the Decision dated
In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations
Commission,[39] the
Court disregarded the fact that it was the employee’s first offense, as well as
other mitigating circumstances, when it validated the dismissal of the
employee. It reiterated the ruling in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the
Philippines v. Lariosa[40] that,
“Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and
employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalty imposed on
them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property are a different
matter.” Thus, Gonzales’ attempt to make
a profit for himself out of cheating his employer cannot be mitigated by the
fact that it was his first offense, or even his six years of service. The case of International Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Philippines v. Leogardo,[41]
gives a good reason for the seemingly harsh rule:
The
dismissal of a dishonest employee is as much in the interests of labor as it is
of management. The labor force in any
company is protected and the workers’ security of tenure strengthened when
pilferage of equipment, goods, and products which endangers the viability of an
employer and, therefore, the workers’ continued employment is minimized or
eliminated and consequently labor-management relations based on mutual trust
and confidence are promoted.
Barba, on the other hand, was found guilty
of incorrectly recording 55 kilograms of baggage as 18 kilograms. The Labor Arbiter mitigated the penalty based
on the finding that Barba did not intentionally
record the incorrect weight of the passenger’s baggage since he did not gain
anything from this. This finding is
without factual basis.
In the “Complainants’ Consolidated
Position Paper,” Barba himself admits that he
knowingly recorded the incorrect weight of the baggage. He alleged that the passenger was a friend of
a certain LCD Dycoco, who ordered him to record the
weight as 18 kilograms. Thus, he admits
to complying with the order, knowing the correct weight to be 55 kilograms.[42] The mistake was clearly not out of
negligence, as supposed by the Labor Arbiter.
Moreover, the inconsistent statements made by Barba
shows him to be untruthful. In an
earlier statement made during the investigation conducted by PAL, Barba insisted that he reweighed the baggage and found its
correct weight to be 18 kilograms.[43] Like Gonzales’ offense, Barba’s
act in incorrectly recording the baggage weight, was clearly an act inimical to
the interests of their employer, and of manifest dishonesty and disregard of
his duties, which deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. Section 282(c) of the Labor Code, sanctions
the dismissal of employees for fraud or the willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
Lastly, the offenses of both Barba and Gonzales, in compromising the integrity of
company records for their personal reasons, are made more reprehensible because
of the danger their acts pose on the safety of the passengers and the
crew. The proper recording of the weight
of cargo is crucial in determining how the cargo would be distributed in each
aircraft. A resulting error could imperil
valuable equipment, even the lives of the passengers and crews. Furthermore, the blatant dishonesty of their
acts has tainted the reputations of the countless honest employees working in
our flagship airlines.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED. This Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of Court
of Appeals, promulgated on 15 April 2005, sustaining the validity of the
petitioners’ dismissal. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente,
concurring. Rollo, pp. 44-55.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] CA rollo, pp. 164-180.
[6] Rollo, pp. 18 and 44.
[7]
[8] CA rollo, pp. 137-138.
[9] Rollo, pp. 46-48.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Art. 282 Termination By Employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect of the employee of his duties;
(c)
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis supplied.)
[20] Rollo, pp. 84-89.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] CA rollo, p. 169.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Rollo, p. 25.
[29] 226 Phil. 144, 147 (1986).
[30] 445 Phil. 481, 490 (2003).
[31] 387 Phil. 729, 735 (2000).
[32] CA rollo, p. 167.
[33] Spouses Mesina v. Meer, 433 Phil. 124, 137 (2002).
[34] Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524,
[35] CA rollo, p. 165.
[36] Spouses
Mesina v. Meer, supra
note 33.
[37] G.R. No. L-74562,
[38]
[39] G.R. No. L-53552,
[40] G.R. No. 70479,
[41] 203 Phil. 324, 331 (1982).
[42] Rollo, p. 108.
[43] CA rollo, p. 142.