FIRST DIVISION
|
ANABEL
BENJAMIN and RENATO CONSOLACION, Petitioners, - versus - AMELLAR CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 183383 Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, VILLARAMA,
JR., and MENDOZA,* JJ. Promulgated: April 5, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Amellar Corporation (respondent) provides
information technology services to local government units (LGUs) including
computerizing their system and operations.
In October 1999, respondent hired petitioner Anabel
Benjamin (Anabel) who, since
The CBU Department of respondent collates and
cleanses all the paper data gathered from the LGU-client which are then encoded
and fed into the designed operating system.
As the most senior member of the department, Anabel
was its officer-in-charge. From 2002 to
2003, she administered the CBU functions of respondent’s projects in Imus,
By letter of
Melvin Tandoc (Tandoc), respondent’s Technology
Manager, thus sent Anabel a memorandum of
x x x x
This is the first written complaint of such
nature that we have received from our client. However, other complaints of the
same nature have been conveyed to our TTS and/or Marketing Departments orally by Nasugbu, Batangas;
Mariveles, Bataan; and
x x x x.
After several months of working in Imus, Cavite, [a] confidential assistant
informed me that the assigned SDC, Renato Consolacion, allegedly gave
specific oral instructions to some of our Data Controllers and subsequently our
Data Encoders on field not to
encode several decks of index cards of payments to ‘beat’ the deadline and pass on the job to our Training and
Technical Support (TTS) Department.
x x x x
You are hereby ordered to explain these
(Mabini, Batangas and Imus,
Anabel thereupon required Consolacion and Evangeline
to explain in writing the alleged incidents subject of Tandoc’s memorandum.[5] Complying, Consolacion gave the following
explanation:
x x x x.
If we are still going to accommodate the
latest payments and posted [sic] from
time to time posting of collection will never end. I have instructed the Land Tax Division, Treasurer[’]s Office to
separate those recently posted with new payments to update later in order to
have a systematic flow of mass updating of payments.
Furthermore, I have no instruction to our DC’s stating that we have to leave
several decks of indexes just to “beat” the deadline[.] I’m looking forward that our
DC’s will stand fairly and honest beyond their conscience attesting my good
intentions to keep the work within pace and credible.[6] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Tandoc, to whom Consolacion’s explanation was
transmitted, sent another memorandum to Anabel indicating that he was not
satisfied therewith and accordingly advising her that a formal investigation
would be conducted.[7] Anabel thereupon sent Consolacion a memorandum notifying him
that a formal investigation would be conducted on the “4th week of
April” without any mention therein of the actual date of the formal hearing.[8]
It was
only on
Respondent,
alleging that Anabel did not inform Consolacion of the hearing, preventively
suspended her for three days starting
Anabel
thereupon filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) against respondent and/or Tandoc.[11]
In the
meantime, respondent conducted hearings on Consolacion’s case on April 23 and
28, 2003 during which Consolacion purportedly admitted the following:
1.
Failure to provide written instructions for the
separation of currently transacted records to officials of the
2. Failure to advise or belatedly advising the supervising data controllers of the separation of the records; and
3. Failure to send some of the template letters and/or failure to follow the time frame for sending thereof.[12]
As for Evangeline,
respondent cleared her of any wrongdoing, it concluding that the written complaint
from the municipal assessor of Mabini was “more likely due to miscommunication.”
Respondent even commended Evangeline for her “care and diligence expected from
a responsible supervisor.”[13]
Tandoc later
sent Anabel a memorandum of
“appris[ing her of] the following acts or omissions for which [her] dismissal was [sought]”
Willful Breach of Trust Reposed in You
1. Reporting completion when there is no basis for such report;
2. Self-serving denials on the existence of verbally conveyed work or instructions and unwritten procedures;
3. Self-serving alibis on why certain work that can be delegated or sufficiently complied with on time in your capacity as supervisor and as senior officer in your department have not been accomplished or accomplished late only upon the prodding of a written memorandum; and
4. Attempting to obstruct the conduct of due process for your subordinates under investigation/hearing.
Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
1. Failure to institute existing standards and procedures both written and unwritten; and
2. Failure to monitor and correct the errors of your subordinates.
Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders in Connection with Work
1. Failure to comply with the lawful orders of your superior
You are hereby directed to submit within 72 hours your written answer on why you should not be dismissed on the said grounds. You are hereby given the opportunity to draft your written answer even outside of the office and still be paid your regular wages within said period.
x x x x.
Attached is the annex on the acts and omissions referred to by this notice.[14] (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
On
receipt of the memorandum, Anabel requested for a bill of particulars and for
additional time to respond to the charges.[15] Tandoc replied that the “annex”[16] to the memorandum was particular
enough. Nevertheless, he gave Anabel
until
On
The
following day or on
Anabel amended her Complaint, adding as causes
of action illegal dismissal,
damages, and attorney’s fees.[20] Consolacion also filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay and service incentive leave, damages,
and attorney’s fees.[21] Both cases were consolidated.
By
Decision[22] dated
WHEREFORE premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents jointly and severally liable to:
1. reinstate complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights;
2. pay complainants full backwages in the amount of:
a) Anabel Benjamin – P72,500.00
b) Renato Consolacion – P45,000.00
subject to adjustment upon actual reinstatement.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[23]
On
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision,[24]
prompting respondent to file a petition for certiorari[25] before
the Court of Appeals.
By
Decision[26] of
I.
x x x THERE [BEING] NO PROOF OF GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTIES OR LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.
II.
x x x SINCE [RESPONDENT’S] PETITION IS PATENTLY WITHOUT MERIT.
III.
x x x FOR THE COMMON AND UNANIMOUS FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IV.
x x x [FOR] MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE IS NOT ABSOLUTE.[27] (underscoring supplied)
Petitioners
contend that respondent failed to substantiate the grounds for their dismissal
from employment, maintaining that respondent merely relied on speculations and
unsubstantiated conclusions.[28]
Respondent,
in its Comment, preliminarily moves to have Consolacion dropped as petitioner
for failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping.
On the
merits, respondent underscores that Anabel falsely reported the completion of
work in the Imus project; that she failed to follow ordinary procedures and
instructions, to monitor and correct operational errors, and to comply with the
lawful orders of her superiors.[29]
As for
Consolacion, respondent asserts that he too misrepresented that the Imus
project had been completed; that he failed to follow procedures and
instructions, to provide written instructions for the separation of currently
transacted records to the officials of Imus, to advise or belatedly advise the
data controllers of the separation of the records, and to send the template
letter or follow the time frame for sending such letter.[30]
Finally,
respondent echoes the finding of the appellate court that it observed petitioners’
right to due process by complying with the mandated two-notice requirement following
an “extensive fact[-]finding process, culminated by scheduling and actual
hearings and investigations.”[31]
The
petition is impressed with merit.
On the procedural issue, the Court resolved to relax the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases to serve the demands of substantial justice, there being merit in Consolacion’s case.[32] His counsel, who claimed that Consolacion was in the province at the time of the filing of the petition, promptly submitted Consolacion’s verification and certification as directed by the Court.
Consolacion was terminated for “willful breach of trust reposed in
him and all related and applicable charges acceptable to the Philippine Labor
Code.”
To terminate the services of an employee for loss of
trust and confidence,[33] two
requisites must concur: (1) the employee
concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence[34] and
(2) there must be an act
that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[35]
Consolacion
occupied a position imbued with trust and confidence, he being a supervising
data controller. It was his primary duty to monitor and
report the performance of the data controllers in relation to the scope of work
contracted out to respondent. Respondent
thus banks heavily on the report of Consolacion to monitor the output quality
and quantity of its data controllers. On
the basis of this report, respondent assesses its employees and bills its clients
for work done.
Respondent, however, failed to justify
its loss of trust and confidence on Consolacion even as it imputed to
him, via Notice of Formal Investigation of
a) . . established non-written [sic] procedures and standards;
b) . . . established written procedures and standards, and
c) . . . …verbal orders and/or instructions.[36]
Evidently,
the immediately stated acts of non-compliance are too general and can encompass
just about any malfeasance. Nowhere in
the Notice was there a detailed
narration of the facts and circumstances that would serve as bases to terminate
Consolacion, thus leaving to surmise what those procedures, standards and
orders were.
King of
Kings Transport v. Mamac[37] explains the importance of the first written notice:
(1) The first written notice to be served on the
employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against
them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to
submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable
opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that
management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately
for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5)
calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity
to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer,
gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against
the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently
prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a
detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for
the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not
suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which
company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art.
282 is being charged against the employees.
(2) x x x x
(3) x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the “hearing” of
Respondent was itself not sure of
what to charge petitioner Consolacion.
It would appear that it was baiting him into admitting whatever malfeasance
may be uncovered during the process.[40]
Still, respondent used as its main basis for
termination the supposed claim of Consolacion that the Imus project had been
completed. Again, nothing is extant in the records to
show that Concolacion had in fact reported the completion of the Imus
project. It should be recalled that it
was another project—that one in Mabini,
Batangas—which was reported to have been completed. And it was not even by Consolacion but by Evangeline.
The
other ground cited in the dismissal notice (all related and applicable charges
acceptable to the Labor Code) evidently lacks particularity and does not clearly
state what those related and applicable charges were. Such omnibus ground does not suffice at
law.
Respecting Anabel who was
dismissed for willful
breach of trust, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and willful disobedience
to lawful orders, she, like Consolacion, occupied a position of trust and
confidence, she being the officer-in-charge of the CBU Department.
Respondent,
however, failed to prove even a single act ─ basis of its loss of trust
and confidence in Anabel. Apart from its self-serving assertions,
respondent had not offered any piece of documentary evidence to lend
truth to its allegations. It harps on
supposed “numerous” complaints it received on their projects, yet only one written
complaint on the Mabini project was presented. Note that the Mabini project had been
determined to be completed and the accountable data controller, Evangeline, had
been absolved from any liability.
Suffice it to state that respondent contented itself with conjectures
and surmises as proofs of its charges.
Respondent also faults Anabel for gross and
habitual neglect of duties for “failure to institute existing standards and
procedures both written and unwritten” and “failure to monitor and correct the
errors of [her] subordinates.”[41] Despite Anabel’s
It
bears stressing in dismissing an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties,
the negligence should not merely be gross.
It should also be habitual.[43] There being nothing in the records to
identify what specific duties Anabel violated and whether the violations were
gross and habitual, any discussion herein is an exercise in futility.
Respondent capitalizes on the alleged failure of Anabel to immediately
inform Consolacion of the
Respondent
further penalized Anabel with a three-day suspension, this time without pay,
for “obstructing the conduct of due process and possible obstruction of the
ongoing due process,”[46] also
on the basis of the same alleged failure to immediately notify Consolacion for
the
As did
the NLRC, the Court finds that respondent erred in preventively suspending
petitioner Anabel for lack of basis, there being no serious and imminent threat
to its life and property or to her co-workers.[47]
And so
does the Court find erroneous the suspension penalty imposed on Anabel for violating
her right to due process. Respondent
cannot suspend Anabel without hearing her side for her alleged disobedience
since suspension in this instance was a penalty. Respondent should thus be made to reimburse
Anabel for her suspension without pay covering three (3) working days.
Finally,
that respondent did not even bother to calendar a hearing on Anabel’s case
further betrays any constancy to due process.
Anabel’s failure to give a written answer to the first notice
notwithstanding, the same cannot be construed as a waiver of her right to a
hearing.[48]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent, Amellar
Corporation, is ORDERED to reinstate petitioners, Anabel Benjamin and Renato
Consolacion, to their former positions or their equivalent, without loss of
seniority rights and privileges, and to pay them full backwages inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, from the time of their
dismissal until actual reinstatement. If
reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondent is directed to give them
separation pay equivalent to at least one month salary for every year of
service, computed from the time of engagement of their services up to the
finality of this decision.
Respondent
is further DIRECTED to pay Anabel Benjamin her wages covering three working
days for her illegal suspension.
The records of this case are REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for computation of petitioners’ respective
monetary claims.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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
* Additional
member per Raffle dated
[1] NLRC records, p. 59.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Ibid.
[11] CA rollo, p. 67.
[12] NLRC records, p. 117.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] CA rollo, pp. 2-42.
[26]
[27] Rollo, p. 17.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] Casimiro v. Stern Real Estate, Inc., G.R. No. 162233, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 463, 479; Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 609, 628.
[33] ART. 282. Termination by employer. x x x
(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 by 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)
[34] Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 660, 668 (2000).
[35] Equitable Banking Corporation v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 102467,
[36] NLRC records, p. 94.
[37] G.R. No. 166208,
[38] NLRC records, pp. 110-111.
[39] Maneja v. NLRC, 353 Phil. 45, 66; 290 SCRA 603 (1998).
[40] In
its Memorandum of
5.0 After a series of written notices and written replies from the concerned personnel, one of which is Mr. Renato Consolacion, the written arguments of Mr. Consolacion deserved a proper hearing. This was to provide sufficient opportunity for him to expound on his answers, confront the contrary opinions of his subordinates and/or indirect superior, and answer all allegations properly so his side will be adequately heard. Two hearings have been conducted on two separate occasions to validate and verify all issues and concerns raised. x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
[41] Supra note 16.
[42] NLRC records, p. 130.
[43] Union Motor Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 159738, December 9, 2004, 445 SCRA 683, 694-695.
[44] Vide NLRC records, p. 94.
[45]
[46]
[47] Section 8, Book V, Rule XXIII, Rules Implementing Book V [of the Labor Code]: “The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life and property of the employer or of his co-workers.”
[48] Vide Hagonoy Rural Bank v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 220, 235 (1998).