|
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 164267
|
|
- versus - HEIRS OF
BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA,* Respondents. |
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
Carpio
Morales, Tinga, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x |
|
|
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, FRANCISCO X. YNGENTE IV, PAG-ASA
C. RAMOS, JESUS FEDERICO V. VIRAY, RICARDO D. ABUYUAN, Petitioners, - versus - BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 166996 Promulgated: ________________________ |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before this Court are two petitions, now consolidated. The first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 164267, filed by Philippine
Airlines, Inc., assails the Decision[1] dated
The second petition, docketed as G.R. No. 166996, filed by Philippine Airlines, Inc., Francisco X.
Yngente IV, Pag-asa C. Ramos, Jesus Federico V. Viray, and Ricardo D. Abuyuan,
assails the Decision[3] dated
The records
reveal the following antecedent proceedings:[5]
Bernardin J. Zamora was
a cargo representative assigned at the International Cargo Operations-Import
Operations Division (ICO-IOD) of petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He alleged that sometime in December 1993, his
immediate supervisor, petitioner Ricardo D. Abuyuan, instructed him to alter
some entries in the Customs Boatnote and Inbound Handling Report to conceal Abuyuan’s
smuggling and pilferage activities. When
he refused to follow this order, Abuyuan concocted charges of insubordination
and neglect of customers against him.
On
Meantime,
For its part, PAL claimed that
sometime in October 1995,
To diffuse the tension between the parties, the management
decided to temporarily transfer
Meanwhile, the management acted on
On
On
On
On
WHEREFORE,
in the light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The
assailed Decision dated
Moreover, respondents are hereby
ordered to immediately reinstate complainant Bernardin J. Zamora to his former
position as Cargo Representative at the Import Operations Division of
respondent PAL without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay
him back salaries and backwages beginning
All
other reliefs herein sought and prayed for are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Thereafter,
PAL filed a motion to be furnished with a copy of the
NLRC decision.
PAL opposed the motion
for partial entry of judgment and moved for reconsideration of the NLRC
decision.
The NLRC denied
reconsideration of its decision. Undeterred,
PAL filed a petition for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56428 before the
Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile,
On
WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be well taken and in order,
the same is granted and respondents are hereby cited for indirect contempt for
their failure to comply with the order of the Hon. Commission. They are
directed anew to reinstate complainant immediately to his former position as
Cargo Representative, physically or in the payroll, and fined an amount of
P100.00 per day from
Further,
let a writ of execution be issued.
SO
ORDERED.
PAL appealed to the
NLRC praying for the reversal of the Order and the suspension of the
proceedings due to PAL’s rehabilitation.
On
WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE.
The Labor Arbiter is hereby advised to forthwith issue a
Writ of Execution which, due to a supervening event, the abolition of PAL’s
Import Operations Division − must vary the terms of the final judgment to
the extent that: (1) the complainant must be awarded, in lieu of reinstatement,
separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service from
February 9, 1981 to June 30, 2000; and (2) the award of backwages must be
computed from December 15, 1995 to June 30, 2000.
SO ORDERED.
Both parties moved
for reconsideration.
On
WHEREFORE, complainant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
is DENIED for lack of merit. Respondent’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration is
GRANTED. The instant case is hereby referred to the permanent rehabilitation
receiver and the proceedings hereon are deemed SUSPENDED while respondent
Philippine Airlines, Inc. is under rehabilitation receivership.
SO ORDERED.[11]
On
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On
On
PAL moved for
reconsideration and manifested that
WHEREFORE, this Court’s
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the petition is GRANTED. The NLRC
resolution dated
“SO ORDERED.”
Considering that PAL is still under receivership, the
monetary claims of petitioner
SO ORDERED.[13]
From the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 56428,
PAL filed a petition with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 164267 raising the following procedural and substantive
issues.
THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES:
I.
Whether
or not the Court of Appeals seriously erred in holding that the 26 July 1999
NLRC decision became final and executory based solely on the certifications
issued by the Deputy Executive Clerk of the NLRC.
II.
Whether
or not the NLRC may take cognizance of a seasonably filed motion for
reconsideration from a decision a copy of which was previously stamped “moved”
and “return to sender” but was thereafter officially served and officially
received by the party seeking reconsideration.
III.
MAY a
counsel for justifiable reason defer the filing of a notice of change of
address.
THE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES[:]
I.
MAY an
employer be required to state in writing the reason for transferring an
employee despite the absence of such requirement in the CBA.
II.
MAY an
employer be required to observe a 15-day prior notice before effecting an
employee transfer notwithstanding the fact that under the CBA said notice is
required only in case the transfer involves a change in domicile.
III.
MAY an
employer seeking to transfer an employee for the purpose of diffusing
escalating hostility between an employee and his supervisor be required to wait
for fifteen (15) days before effecting the employee transfer.
IV.
MAY a
court validly order the reinstatement of an employee as well as grant monetary
award notwithstanding the absence of factual finding as to the legality or illegality
of the dismissal in the decision itself.[14]
On the other hand, from the Court of Appeals’ amended
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 68795, PAL, et al., filed a petition, which this Court docketed as
G.R. No. 166996,
raising the following issues:
I.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND GRAVE ERROR AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DECLARING ILLEGAL THE DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT
II.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A PALPABLE ERROR IN ORDERING PAL TO PAY RESPONDENT
ZAMORA HIS “SEPARATION PAY, IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT, TO BE COMPUTED AT ONE
MONTH SALARY FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1981 AND BACKWAGES TO
BE COMPUTED FROM DECEMBER 15, 1995, BOTH UP TO OCTOBER 12 (sic), 2000, THE DATE
OF HIS INCARCERATION.”
III.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND GRAVE ERROR IN ORDERING THAT
RESPONDENT
In our Resolutions dated
Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Decision dated
The consolidated petitions have no merit.
Anent the first and
second issues, PAL contends that
other than the Certification[18] issued by the NLRC Deputy Executive
Clerk, there was no evidence that service of the NLRC decision
via registered mail was deemed
completed as of
PAL also avers that when it received a
copy of the NLRC resolution denying
The rule on service
by registered mail contemplates two situations:
(1) actual service, the completeness of which is determined upon receipt
by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service, the
completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date
the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. A party who relies on constructive service or
who contends that his adversary has received a copy of a final order or
judgment upon the expiration of five days from the date the addressee received
the first notice sent by the postmaster must prove that the first notice was
actually received by the addressee. Such
proof requires a certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster
to the addressee.[20]
In the instant
case, there is no postmaster’s certification to the effect that the registered
mail containing the NLRC decision was unclaimed by the addressee and thus
returned to sender, after first notice was sent to and received by the
addressee on a specified date. All that
appears from the records are the envelopes containing the NLRC decision with
the stamped markings and notation on the face and dorsal sides thereof showing
“RTS” (meaning, “Return To Sender”) and “MOVED.” Still, we must rule that service upon PAL and
the other petitioners was complete.
First, the NLRC Deputy Executive Clerk
issued a Certification that
the envelopes containing the NLRC decision addressed to Mr. Jose Pepiton Garcia
and Atty. Bienvenido T. Jamoralin, Jr. were returned to the NLRC with the
notation “RTS” and “MOVED.” Yet, they
and the other petitioners, including PAL, have not filed any notice of change
of address at any time prior to the issuance of the NLRC decision up to the
date when the Certification was issued on
Second, the non-receipt by PAL and
the other petitioners of the copies of the NLRC decision was due to their own
failure to immediately file a notice of change of address with the NLRC, which
they expressly admitted. It is settled
that where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of
record, all notices or orders required to be given therein must be given to the
attorney of record. Accordingly, notices
to counsel should be properly sent to his address of record, and, unless the
counsel files a notice of change of address, his official address remains to be
that of his address of record.[21]
PAL’s argument that
its chaotic situation due to its rehabilitation rendered the filing of a notice
of change of address impractical does not merit consideration. Since moving out from its office at Allied
Bank Center, where the NLRC decision was sent, PAL occupied four different
office addresses. Yet these office
addresses could be found in the same building, the
Resultantly, service of the NLRC
decision via registered mail was
deemed completed as of
With this conclusion, it is no longer necessary to dwell on
the other issues raised.
One final note. In CA-G.R. SP No. 68795, PAL conceded that
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The Amended Decision dated
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
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 |
* Rollo
(G.R. No.
164267), pp. 691-692. Bernardin J. Zamora died on
[1]
[2]
[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 166996), pp. 78-89. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos, with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court) concurring.
[4]
[5] See Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Heirs of Bernardin J. Zamora, G.R. No. 164267, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 456; Philippine Airlines, Incorporated v. Zamora, G.R. No. 166996, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 584.
[6] Rollo (G.R. No. 164267), pp. 184-185.
[7]
[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 166996), pp. 213-214.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Rollo (G.R. No. 164267), p. 23.
[13] Rollo (G.R. No. 166996), pp. 93-94.
[14] Rollo (G.R. No. 164267), pp. 716-717.
[15] Rollo (G.R. No. 166996), p. 58.
[16] Dated
[17] Rollo (G.R. No. 164267), pp. 833-838; Rollo (G.R. No. 166996), pp. 903-908.
[18]
[19]
[20] Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 152616, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 302, 321-322; Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128061, September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 147, 153-154.
[21] National
Power Corporation v. Tac-an, G.R. No. 155172,
[22] Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120972, July 19, 1999, 310 SCRA 393, 402; NIAConsult, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 108278, January 2, 1997, 266 SCRA 17, 22.