Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
CARLOS DE CASTRO,
Petitioner, -
versus - LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. and EDGARDO
QUIOGUE,
Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 165153
Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Acting Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., BRION,
*ABAD,
and **PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
R E S
O L U T I O N
|
|
BRION,
J.:
The respondent, Liberty
Broadcasting Network, Inc. (LBNI), filed the present Motion for Reconsideration
with Motion to Suspend Proceedings, asking us, first, to set aside our Decision[1]
and, second, to suspend the court proceedings
in view of the Stay Order issued on August 19, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati, Branch 138, in
relation to the corporate rehabilitation proceedings that LBNI initiated.
The dispositive part of
our Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, we hereby GRANT the
petition. Accordingly, we REVERSE
and SET ASIDE the Decision and
Resolution of the CA promulgated on May 25, 2004 and August 30, 2004,
respectively, and REINSTATE in all
respects the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated
September 20, 2002. Costs against the respondents.
SO
ORDERED.[2]
The facts, as recited
in our Decision, are summarized below:
The petitioner, Carlos
C. de Castro, worked as a chief building administrator at LBNI. On May 31, 1996, LBNI dismissed de Castro on
the grounds of serious misconduct, fraud, and willful breach of the trust reposed
in him as a managerial employee. Allegedly,
de Castro committed the following acts:
1.
Soliciting
and/or receiving money for his own benefit from suppliers/dealers/traders [Cristino
Samarita and Jose Aying], representing “commissions” for job contracts
involving the repair, reconditioning and replacement of parts of the airconditioning
units at the company’s Antipolo Station, as well as the installation of fire
exits at the [LBNI’s] Technology Centre;
2.
Diversion
of company funds by soliciting and receiving on different occasions a total of P14,000.00
in “commissions” from Aying for a job contract in the company’s Antipolo Station;
3.
Theft
of company property involving the unauthorized removal of one gallon of Delo
oil from the company storage room;
4.
Disrespect/discourtesy
towards a co-employee, for using
offensive language against [Vicente Niguidula, the company’s supply manager];
5.
Disorderly
behavior, for challenging Niguidula to a fight during working hours within the
company premises, thereby creating a disturbance that interrupted the normal
flow of activities in the company;
6.
Threat
and coercion, for threatening to inflict bodily harm on the person of Niguidula
and for coercing [Gil Balais], a subordinate, into soliciting money in [de
Castro’s] behalf from suppliers/contractors;
7.
Abuse
of authority, for instructing Balais to collect commissions from Aying and
Samarita, and for requiring Raul Pacaldo (Pacaldo)
to exact 2% - 5% of the price of the contracts awarded to suppliers; and
8.
Slander,
for uttering libelous statements against Niguidula.[3]
Aggrieved, de Castro
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against LBNI with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, praying for
reinstatement, payment of backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.[4]
He maintained that he could not have solicited commissions from suppliers
considering that he was new in the company.[5]
Moreover, the accusations were belatedly filed as the imputed acts happened in
1995. He explained that the one gallon of Delo oil he allegedly took was
actually found in Gil Balais’ room.[6]
He denied threatening Vicente Niguidula, whom he claimed verbally assaulted him
and challenged him to a fight, an incident which he reported to respondent
Edgardo Quiogue, LBNI’s executive vice president, and to the Makati police.[7]
De Castro alleged that prior to executing affidavits against him, Niguidula and
Balais had serious clashes with him.[8]
On April 30, 1999, the
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision[9]
in de Castro’s favor, holding LBNI
liable for illegal dismissal.[10]
The Labor Arbiter found the affidavits of LBNI’s witnesses to be devoid of merit,
noting that (1) witnesses Niguidula and Balais had altercations with de Castro
prior to the execution of their respective affidavits; (2) the affidavit of Cristino
Samarita, one of the suppliers from whom de Castro allegedly asked for commissions,
stated that it was not de Castro, but Balais, who personally asked for money; and
(3) Jose Aying, another supplier, recanted his earlier affidavit.[11]
LBNI appealed the Labor
Arbiter’s ruling to the NLRC. Initially, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s
decision but on de Castro’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.[12]
It ruled that the charges against de Castro “were never really substantiated
other than by ‘bare allegations’ in the witnesses’ affidavits who were the
company’s employees and who had altercations with De Castro prior to the
execution of their affidavits.”[13]
LBNI again appealed the
NLRC’s adverse decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). On May 25, 2004, the CA
reversed the NLRC’s decision and
held that de Castro’s dismissal was based on valid grounds. It ruled too that the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion when it disregarded the affidavits of all of LBNI’s witnesses.[14]
In our September 23,
2008 Decision, we found that de Castro’s dismissal was based on unsubstantiated
charges. Aying, a contractor, earlier executed an affidavit stating that de
Castro asked him for commission, but in his second affidavit, he recanted his
statement and exonerated de Castro.[15]
The other witnesses, Niguidula and Balais, were LBNI employees who resented de
Castro.[16]
We noted that de Castro had not stayed
long in the company and had not even passed his probationary period when the
acts charged allegedly took place. We found this situation contrary to common
experience, since new employees have a natural motivation to make a positive
first impression on the employer, if only to ensure that they are regularized.[17]
Thus, we ruled that the
grounds that LBNI invoked for de Castro’s dismissal were, at best, doubtful,
based on the evidence presented. These doubts should be interpreted in de
Castro’s favor, pursuant to Article 4 of the Labor Code.[18]
Between a laborer and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence
or interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former’s
favor.[19]
The Motion for Reconsideration
LBNI now moves for a reconsideration of our September 23, 2008 Decision based on the following arguments: (1) LBNI had valid legal grounds to terminate de Castro’s employment for loss of trust and confidence;[20] (2) the affidavits of LBNI’s witnesses should not have been totally disregarded;[21] and (3) LBNI is currently under rehabilitation, hence, the proceedings in this case must be suspended.[22] LBNI points out that it filed, with the RTC of Makati, a petition for Corporate Rehabilitation with Prayer for Suspension of Payments (docketed as S.P. Proc. Case No. M-6126), and on August 19, 2005, the RTC issued a Stay Order directing, among others, that the –
enforcement of all claims against Liberty
Telecoms, Liberty Broadcasting and Skyphone,
whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by Court
action or otherwise x x x be forthwith stayed.[23]
Comment on the Motion for
Reconsideration
In his comment, de
Castro contends that LBNI’s motion for reconsideration contains a rehash of
LBNI’s earlier arguments. He avers that despite the RTC’s Stay Order, it is
premature for this Court to suspend the proceedings. If a suspension of the proceedings is
necessary, the proper venue to file the motion is with the Office of the Labor
Arbiter. [24] De
Castro further posits that LBNI should have informed this Court of the status
of its Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation.[25]
THE
COURT’S RULING
Except for the prayer to suspend the execution of our September 23, 2008
Decision, we do not find LBNI’s Motion for Reconsideration meritorious.
Although we reject, for lack of merit, LBNI’s arguments regarding the legality
of de Castro’s dismissal, we suspend the execution of our Decision in deference
to the Stay Order issued by the rehabilitation court.
The issue of illegal dismissal has already been
resolved in the Court’s September 23, 2008 Decision
LBNI’s motion for reconsideration merely reiterates its earlier arguments,
which we have already addressed in our September 23, 2008 Decision. LBNI has
failed to offer any substantive argument that would convince us to reverse our
earlier ruling.
LBNI argues that there is no logic for it to illegally
dismiss de Castro because being on
probationary employment – a fact which this Court had stated in its decision –
all that the company had to do was not to re-hire him.[26] By this claim, LBNI has misread the import of
our ruling. The September 23, 2008 Decision declared that de Castro “had not
stayed long in the company and had not
even passed his probationary period when the acts charged allegedly took
place.”[27]
Properly read, we found that the acts charged against de Castro took place when
he was still under probationary employment – a finding completely different
from LBNI’s claim that de Castro was dismissed during his probationary
employment. On the contrary, de Castro was dismissed on the ninth month of his
employment with LBNI, and by then, he was already a regular employee by
operation of law. Article 281 of the Labor Code provides that “[p]robationary
employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started
working, x x x [a]n employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.” As a regular
employee, de Castro was entitled to security of tenure and his illegal
dismissal from LBNI justified the awards of separation pay, backwages, and
damages.
The pendency of
the rehabilitation proceedings does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to
resolve the case, but merely suspends the execution of the September 23, 2008
Decision
On October 18, 2005,
while de Castro’s petition was still pending before the Court, LBNI filed a
motion to suspend the proceedings, citing the Stay Order, dated August 19, 2005,
issued by the RTC of Makati, Branch 138 in S.P. Case No. M-6126.[28] The Stay Order read:
FOR
THE REASONS GIVEN and applying Section 6 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabilitation, x x x it is ordered that enforcement of all claims against [LBNI] whether for money
or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by Court action or otherwise, its
guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the petitioner, be forthwith
stayed.
x
x x x
SO
ORDERED.[29]
LBNI’s motion was denied in our
Resolution of December 12, 2005 for being premature, as de Castro then had yet
to file his reply to LBNI’s comment on the petition.[30] Thereafter, nothing was heard from LBNI regarding the Stay Order or the
rehabilitation proceedings it instituted before the RTC of Makati, Branch
138. Even the memorandum, dated May 4,
2006, that LBNI filed with the Court contained no reference to the
rehabilitation proceedings.[31]
The
filing of a memorandum before the Court is not an empty requirement, devoid of
legal significance. In A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC, the Court declared that issues raised in previous pleadings but not
included in the memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. Being a summation of the parties’ previous
pleadings, the memoranda alone may be considered by the Court in deciding or
resolving the petition. Thus, on account
of LBNI’s omission, only the issues raised in the parties’ memoranda –
principally, the validity of de Castro’s dismissal from LBNI – were considered
by the Court in resolving the case.
“The Court does not take judicial
notice of proceedings in the various courts of justice in the Philippines.”[32] At the time we decided the present case, we were
thus not bound to take note of and consider the pendency of the rehabilitation
proceedings, as the matter had not been properly brought to our attention. In Social
Justice Society v. Atienza,[33]
we said that:
In resolving
controversies, courts can only consider facts and issues pleaded by the
parties. Courts, as well as magistrates
presiding over them are not omniscient. They can only act on the facts and
issues presented before them in appropriate pleadings. They may not even
substitute their own personal knowledge for evidence. Nor may they take notice
of matters except those expressly provided as subjects of mandatory judicial
notice.
x x
x x
The party asking
the court to take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court with the
full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of.
Notably,
LBNI’s memorandum was filed on May 4, 2006, more than 180 days from the date of
the initial hearing on October 5, 2005 (as set in the Stay Order of August 19,
2005). Under Section 11, Rule 4 of the
Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Interim Rules), a petition for rehabilitation shall be dismissed if
no rehabilitation plan is approved by the court upon the lapse of 180 days from
the date of initial hearing. While the
Interim Rules grant extension beyond the 180-day period, no such extension was
alleged in this case; in fact, as we earlier pointed out, no mention at all was
made in LBNI’s memorandum of the rehabilitation proceedings. With the failure of LBNI to raise rehabilitation
proceedings in its memorandum, the Court had sufficient grounds to suppose that
the rehabilitation petition had been dismissed by the time the case was
submitted for decision.
Given
these circumstances, the existence of the Stay Order – which would generally
authorize the suspension of judicial proceedings, even those pending before the
Court – could not have affected the Court’s action on the present case. At any rate, a stay order simply suspends all
actions for claims against a corporation undergoing rehabilitation; it does not
work to oust a court of its jurisdiction over a case properly filed before it.[34] Our ruling on the principal issue of the case
– that de Castro had been illegally dismissed from his employment with LBNI –
thus stands.
Nevertheless,
with LBNI’s manifestation that it is still undergoing rehabilitation, the Court
resolves to suspend the execution of our September 23, 2008 Decision. The
suspension shall last up to the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings, as
provided in Section 11, in relation to Section 27, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules
–
Sec. 11. Period of the Stay Order. - The stay
order shall be effective from the date of its issuance until the dismissal of
the petition or the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings.
The petition
shall be dismissed if no rehabilitation plan is approved by the court upon the
lapse of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the initial hearing.
The court may grant an extension beyond this period only if it appears by
convincing and compelling evidence that the debtor may successfully be
rehabilitated. In no instance, however, shall the period for approving or
disapproving a rehabilitation plan exceed eighteen (18) months from the date of
filing of the petition.
x x x x
Sec. 27. Termination of
Proceedings. – In case of the failure of the debtor to submit the
rehabilitation plan, or the disapproval thereof by the court, or the failure of
the rehabilitation of the debtor because of failure to achieve the desired targets
or goals as set forth therein, or the failure of the said debtor to perform its
obligations under the said plan, or a determination that the rehabilitation
plan may no longer be implemented in accordance with its terms, conditions,
restrictions, or assumptions, the court shall upon motion, motu proprio, or upon the recommendation of the Rehabilitation
Receiver, terminate the proceedings. The proceedings shall also terminate upon
the successful implementation of the rehabilitation plan.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration;
accordingly, our Decision dated September 23, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.
The National Labor Relations Commission is, however, directed to suspend the execution of our
September 23, 2008 Decision until the Stay Order is lifted or the corporate rehabilitation
proceedings are terminated. Respondent Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc. is
hereby directed to submit quarterly reports to the National Labor Relations
Commission on the status of its rehabilitation, subject to the penalty of
contempt in case of noncompliance.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated additional member vice Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga
(ret.), pursuant to the Amended Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC.
**
Designated additional member vice Associate
Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (ret.), per Court En Banc Memorandum dated December 28, 2009, pursuant to the Amended
Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC.
[1]
De Castro v. Liberty Broadcasting
Network, Inc., G.R. No. 165153, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 238.
[2] Id.
at 251-252.
[3] Id.
at 241-242.
[4] Rollo,
p. 46.
[5] Id. at
48.
[6] Id.
at 49.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Id.
at 46-55.
[10] Id. at 54-55.
[11] Id. at 50-51.
[12] NLRC Resolution, id. at 73-85.
[13] Id. at 83.
[14] CA Decision, id. at 190-199.
[15] Supra note 1, at 249-250.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Id. at 248.
[18] Art. 4. Construction in favor of
Labor. – All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules
and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
[19] Supra note 1, at 251.
[20] Motion for Reconsideration; rollo, p. 309.
[21] Id. at 311.
[22] Id. at 314.
[23] Id. at 221.
[24] Comment to the Motion for
Reconsideration, id. at 341.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Supra note 20, at 309.
[27] Supra note 1, at 247.
[28] Rollo, pp. 218-220.
[29] Id. at 221-222.
[30] Id. at 228.
[31] Id. at 252-268.
[32] R. Francisco, Evidence, Rules of Court in the Philippines,
Rules 128-134 (1994 ed.), p. 24, citing Mortera
and Eceiza v. West of Scotland Insurance Office, 36 Phil. 994 (1917).
[33] G.R. No. 156052, February 13,
2008, 545 SCRA 92, 114-120.
[34] Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163156,
December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 434, 455.