THIRD DIVISION
|
UNIVERSAL STAFFING
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE M. MORALES,* Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 177576
Present: QUISUMBING, J. ** YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: July 21,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court filed by Universal Staffing Services, Inc. challenging the February 12,
2007 Decision[1] and the
May 3, 2007 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93352.
The facts.
Respondent Grace M. Morales (Morales) applied for and was hired
as receptionist by petitioner Universal Staffing Services, Inc. (USSI) in
behalf of its principal Jin Xiang International Labour Supply of United Arab
Emirates (U.A.E.). The contract duly
approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), provided
for an employment term of two (2) years with a monthly salary of Dhs1,100.00.[3]
On
Claiming that she was illegally terminated, Morales filed a
complaint[4]
for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime and vacation pay against USSI
and Al Sandos Hotel Management with the Labor Arbiter, docketed as OFW Case No.
03-04-0973-00.
Traversing the complaint, USSI asserted that Morales was
dismissed for just cause and with due process.
It averred that Morales’ performance as receptionist was unsatisfactory,
and that despite the chance given her, Morales’ job performance did not improve;
thus, Al Sandos was prompted to pre-terminate Morales’ employment contract upon
payment of all the benefits due her.
USSI prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
On
[W]e are not convinced that [Morales] was
illegally dismissed.
Firstly, [Morales] was informed that she
is being charged with poor performance and grave misconduct for leaking
passport copies of guests to competitors thereby greatly prejudicing the
profitability of the operation of the hotel which is here (sic) foreign
employer. While the charge of leaking
confidential information to competitors has not been established clearly,
[Morales’] foreign employer should be afforded a leeway to determine what acts
as (sic) detrimental to the sound operation of its business. To substantiate our judgment to the sound
discretion of the employer would be a transgression that the government should
allow a business to freely operate on its own in consonance with a domestic free
enterprise. Besides, [Al Sandos] has no
motive or malice to impute upon [Morales] the grievous act of revealing
confidential information if it did not have sufficient basis to support its
suspicion. If indeed [Morales] has served her foreign employer faithfully and
with utmost fidelity, her employer would [not have] decided to terminate her
services for grave misconduct and poor performance because by doing so, it
would entail additional expenses in looking for a replacement of [Morales].
Secondly, [the] letter of termination
(Annex C), certification letter of [Morales’] termination dated July 29, 2003
(Annex B), Final Settlement (Annex D), and exit clearance (Annex E) were all
authenticated and noted by the Labour Attaché of the Philippine Embassy in
Dubai, U.A.E. In other words, all the acts
of [Al Sandos] were transparent and made known to the Labour Attaché who has he
(sic) right to object to the dismissal if it were (sic) attended by malice or
fraud.
Finally, the Final Settlement and
Quitclaim and Release signed and executed by [Morales] should be given great
weight and probative value in the absence of showing that the same was executed
through threat and intimidation. While
[Morales] claims that the execution thereof was attended by duress, [Morales]
failed to specify the acts constitutive of duress.
With respect to the second issue, the
same is laid to rest with [Morales] executing a Final Settlement (Annex D) and
Bank Payment Voucher in the sum of 1,300 dinars to answer for the monetary
claims of [Morales]. It is worthy to
note that the aforementioned documents were authenticated and duly noted by the
Labour Attache. If, indeed, there was
deficiency, the same should have been received under protest or that deficiency
was made known to the Labour Attache who can demand from the foreign employer
that then deficiency should be paid.
Considering that the complaint for
illegal dismissal did not prosper, the claim for moral and exemplary damages
must perforce fail.[6]
On appeal by Morales, the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter. The
NLRC found that no substantial evidence supports a valid dismissal. Accordingly, it ordered USSI to pay Morales
Dhs3,300.00, or its peso equivalent, for the unexpired portion of her contract,
pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995. The NLRC, however, affirmed
the denial of Morales’ claim for overtime pay and holiday pay for lack of
basis.
Thus, the NLRC disposed:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby MODIFIED.
The finding that there was no illegal
dismissal is hereby REVERSED.
Consequently, [USSI] is hereby ordered to immediately pay [Morales] the
Philippine peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of DHS3,300
representing her salaries for three (3) months.
The finding that overtime pay and holiday
pay are not recoverable is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Only USSI went up to the Court of
Appeals via certiorari. On
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the assailed
Decision is MODIFIED in that [USSI]
is ordered to pay [Morales] her salaries equivalent to six (6) months, overtime
pay and holiday pay as well as ten [percent] (10%) of the total monetary award
as attorney’s fees. The rest of the
Decision is AFFIRMED.
Let the records of this case be REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the
computation of the said award.
SO
ORDERED.[9]
USSI filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied
it on
Hence, this appeal by USSI positing these:
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION BY RULING THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND BY AWARDING HER SALARIES EQUIVALENT TO
SIX (6) MONTHS SALARY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HER CONTRACT, OVERTIME PAY,
AND HOLIDAY PAY AND ATTORNEY’S FEE DESPITE EVIDENCE AND RULING TO THE CONTRARY
ADDUCED AND ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE LABOR ARBITER AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION.
2. WITH DUE RESPECT, REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE AWARD OF SALARIES TO PRIVATE
RESPONDENT CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042 OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS MIGRANT WORKERS ACT. THUS, A QUESTION
OF LAW IS INVOLVED.[11]
USSI insists that Morales’ dismissal was based on a valid
and legal ground. The Labor Arbiter lent credence to USSI’s posture and
dismissed Morales’ complaint, but the NLRC and the CA reversed the Arbiter’s
findings. Before us, USSI contends that
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and serious reversible error when it
adhered to the patently erroneous finding of illegal dismissal by the NLRC.
There is no denying that it is within the NLRC’s competence,
as an appellate administrative agency reviewing decisions of Labor Arbiters, to
disagree with and set aside the latter’s findings. But it stands to reason that
the NLRC should state an acceptable cause therefor; otherwise it would be a
whimsical, capricious, oppressive, illogical, and unreasonable exercise of
quasi-judicial prerogative. Thus,
the key issue for our resolution is whether the reversal by the NLRC of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision, as well as the affirmance by the CA of the NLRC
finding, was in order.
Morales was dismissed for her alleged
poor performance. As a general concept,
“poor performance” is equivalent to inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an
unsatisfactory rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to
gross and habitual neglect of duties. Thus, the fact that an employee's
performance is found to be poor or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean
that the employee is grossly and habitually negligent of his duties. Gross
negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[12]
We reviewed the records of the case
and we agree with the NLRC and the CA that no substantial evidence was presented
to substantiate the cause of Morales’ dismissal. First, USSI failed to cite particular acts or
instances that would validate its claim of Morales’ poor performance. Second,
no convincing proof was offered to substantiate Morales’ alleged poor performance.
As the NLRC had taken pains to
demonstrate:
[T]he notice of termination and the statement
dated July 29, 2002 purportedly executed by Sharath B. Rai, Al Sandos Human
Resource and Training Manager stating that Morales was dismissed due to her poor
performance and for revealing secret information of potential clients do not
constitute substantial evidence.
x x x
First, the notice of termination was, apparently never served upon [Morales],
since it does not bear her signature.
Second, the two pieces of evidence are inconsistent. Based on the notice of termination, which
bears an earlier date, [Morales] was dismissed due to poor performance. Third, there is no showing that [Morales] was
dismissed on the basis of established facts and not on the basis of a mere
suspicion. There is no mention of what
criteria were used in evaluating her performance. Fourth, and most important, the pieces of
evidence in question are not sworn to, and the persons who supposedly executed
them were not presented in the proceedings conducted by the Labor Arbiter. They, therefore, constitute mere hearsay
evidence, which means that they have no evidentiary value.[13]
Besides, even assuming that Morales’
performance was unsatisfactory, USSI failed to demonstrate that her alleged
poor performance amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duty, which would
justify her dismissal.
The principle echoed and reechoed in
jurisprudence is that the onus of
proving that the employee was dismissed for a just cause rests on the employer,[14]
and the latter’s failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding
that the dismissal is unjustified.[15]
Furthermore, Morales was not accorded
due process. Under Article 277(b)[16]
of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to be
terminated, a written notice stating the cause/s for termination and must give
the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. There was no
showing that Al Sandos warned Morales of her alleged poor performance. Likewise, Morales was not served the first
notice apprising her of the particular acts or omissions on which her dismissal
was based together with the opportunity to explain her side. The only notice given to Morales was the
letter[17] dated
Certainly, there can be no other
conclusion than that Morales was illegally dismissed and her employment
contract was illegally terminated. The
CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in sustaining the NLRC on this
point.
With this finding, it is imperative
that Morales be granted the monetary benefits due her. However, we rule that the CA erred in
modifying the amounts awarded by the NLRC.
As shown by the records, Morales did
not appeal from the said NLRC decision; hence, the same attained finality as to
Morales. The monetary awards, as well as
the denial of the holiday and overtime pay, had already been laid to rest. This is in accord with the doctrine that a
party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any
affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the appealed decision.[18]
As we explained in SMI Fish Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission:[19]
It is a well-settled procedural rule in this
jurisdiction, and we see no reason why it should not apply in this case, that
an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court
any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court
below. The appellee can only advance any argument that he may deem necessary to
defeat the appellant's claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed.
He can assign errors on appeal if such is required to strengthen the views
expressed by the court a quo. Such assigned errors, in turn, may be considered
by the appellate court solely to maintain the appealed decision on other
grounds, but not for the purpose of modifying the judgment in the appellee's
favor and giving him other affirmative reliefs.
Certainly, the CA can no longer
modify the awards by the NLRC. Thus, USSI
can only be held liable for the payment of the monetary award granted by the
NLRC, that is, the payment of Morales’ three (3) months' salary.
USSI cannot take refuge in the final settlement signed by Morales on
Unfortunately for USSI, it again
failed to discharge this burden. Other than its barefaced assertion, no
evidence was presented to establish that Morales voluntarily signed the final settlement. The mere fact that Morales was not physically
coerced or intimidated does not necessarily imply that she freely and
voluntarily consented to the terms of the final
settlement.
We also note that the payment of
Dhs1,300.00 is not a consideration for the execution of the quitclaim, but is actually
the payment for Morales’ salary as of
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Grace M. Morales is declared illegally
dismissed. Petitioner Universal Staffing
Services, Inc. is ordered to pay Morales’ three (3) months’ salary or
Dhs3,300.00, or its peso equivalent. The
awards of overtime and holiday pay, as well as attorney’s fees, are DELETED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice Chairperson |
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision 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
* The present petition impleaded the Court of Appeals, as respondent. However, Section 4, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the petition shall not implead the lower courts and judges thereof as petitioners or respondents. Hence, the deletion of the Court of Appeals from the title.
**
In lieu of Associate Justice
Minita V. Chico-Nazario, per Special Order No. 508 dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Ramon R.
Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp.
158-169.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc. v.
Bea, G.R. No. 143023, November 29,
2005, 476 SCRA 384, 393-394.
[13] Rollo, p. 94.
[14] See De Jesus v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 151158,
[15] Eastern
Overseas Employment Center v. Bea, supra note 11, at 394.
[16] ART. 277. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
x x x x
Subject to the constitutional right of the workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and valid and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the workers to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer.
[17] Rollo, p. 51.
[18] Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corporation
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115395, February 12, 1998,
286 SCRA 245, 256.
[19] G.R. No. 96952-56,
[20] Heirs of the Late Panfilo V. Pajarillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 155056-57, October 19, 2007, 137 SCRA 96, 408 Phil.
[21] EMCO Plywood Corporation v. Abelgas, G. R. No. 148532, April 14, 2001, 427 SCRA 496, 514.
[22] Rollo, p. 53.