AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL G.R. No. 177970
SUPPLIES
CORPORATION, DAILY
HARVEST
MERCANTILE, INC.,
JOSEPH
C. SIA HETIONG and
REYNALDO
M. RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
JUEBER P. SIAZAR and THE
HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR Promulgated:
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
Respondents.
August 25, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case dwells on
circumstances that spell dismissal from work although the company insists that
such circumstances indicate abandonment of work.
The Facts and the Case
On July 3, 1997
respondent Jueber P. Siazar (Siazar) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and unfair labor practice against petitioner Agricultural and Industrial
Supplies Corporation (AISC) and others before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR Case 00-07-04689-97.
Siazar claimed that he first
worked for the Daily Harvest Mercantile, Inc. (DHMI) on April 12, 1993 but was
transferred after three years in June 1996 to AISC[1]
as product designer, mold maker, and CNC programmer with a monthly salary of P25,000.00.[2]
In early 1997, Siazar
discovered that his company was not remitting much of his SSS premiums although
the computations appeared on his pay slips. When he told his co-employees about it, they made
their own inquiries, too.[3]
On Siazar’s arrival at work on June
17, 1997, the company guard refused him entry and handed him two notes from the
management: one said that he was not to report for work;[4]
the other said that he was to report after two days on June 19, 1997 to Atty.
Rodriguez at his office in Binondo.[5]
Too anxious over the
matter, Siazar did not wait for June 19 and went straightaway to see Atty. Rodriguez. The latter told Siazar that the company had
decided to abolish his department because of redundancy and he could no longer
work. Atty. Rodriguez asked Siazar to make
a computation of what amount he expected from the company and return to the
lawyer with such computation on the following day and the company would immediately
pay him.[6]
When Siazar told his
co-employees about this development, they thought that the company removed him
from work because of fear that he would agitate them into forming a union,
given the non-remittance of the correct amounts of their SSS contributions.[7]
When Siazar and his wife
saw Atty. Rodriguez again at his office on June 19, 1997, the latter insisted on
getting Siazar to do the computation he asked.
Because of the lawyer’s insistence, Siazar finally gave him a
computation of his claims against the company on June 23, 1997. As Siazar was unsure of his situation, however,
he consulted a lawyer on that same day.
This lawyer went with him back to Atty. Rodriguez who confirmed that
Siazar had indeed been dismissed because his department was no longer earning
money. This surprised Siazar because his
department did not generate income on its own, being a mere support unit of the
company.[8]
Since all attempts at negotiation proved
futile, Siazar filed his complaint.
AISC had a
different version. It claimed the
company thought of closing down Siazar’s department where he worked solo since it
was no longer making money. Thus, they wrote
him the two notes on June 17, 1997.[9]
Atty. Rodriguez did not say, however that
the company was already dismissing Siazar.[10] The latter simply decided on his own to drop
out of work after learning of the company’s plan regarding his department.[11] What Atty. Rodriguez and Siazar discussed was
how the latter might be compensated if the company’s plan went through. In response, Siazar even submitted a proposal
that the company found excessive.[12]
On December 14, 1998 the
Labor Arbiter found that the company did not yet dismiss Siazar from work[13]
since they were still negotiating for a financial package for him. He rather stopped reporting for work of his
own accord after learning of the plan to retrench him. Indeed, the company gave Siazar no letter of dismissal
or retrenchment.[14] Consequently, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint but ordered the company to give Siazar separation pay, his unpaid
salary, and a proportionate 13th month pay for 1997.[15]
Siazar appealed to the
NLRC, which ruled[16]
on June 3, 1999 to uphold the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the company did not
dismiss him from work and that, misunderstanding its action, he ceased to
report for work. It was all a misunderstanding,
said the NLRC, and each party must bear his own loss to place them on equal
footing.[17]
The NLRC sustained the award of
separation pay, to be reckoned from June 1996 to June 1997, the time Siazar worked
for AISC. The NLRC also affirmed the grant
to him of his unpaid salary and proportionate 13th month pay.[18] Siazar asked for reconsideration but the NLRC
denied it.[19]
Not dissuaded, Siazar went
up to the Court of Appeals (CA)[20]
but on December 21, 2005[21]
the latter court affirmed the NLRC decision.
On motion for reconsideration, however, the CA rendered an Amended
Decision[22]
on December 13, 2006, finding sufficient evidence that the company indeed illegally
dismissed Siazar from work. The CA based
its finding on the following: (a) Rodriguez told Siazar that he had been terminated;
(b) the company did not allow Siazar to enter its premises; (c) it wanted to
close his department and retrench him from work; (d) Rodriguez asked Siazar to
compute what he expected was to be his separation pay; (e) the company neither
gave Siazar notice nor informed him of the reason for his dismissal; and (f) it
showed no valid or just cause for the dismissal.
The CA thus ordered the
company to reinstate Siazar and pay him full backwages, inclusive of allowances
and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time of his
dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[23] The company filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the CA denied the same on May 22, 2007,[24] hence the present petition for review
on certiorari.
Issues Presented
Two
issues are presented:
1. Whether or not the company dismissed
Siazar from work; and
2. In the affirmative, whether or not his dismissal
was valid.
Court’s Ruling
The
company insists that the Court should reinstate the original
CA decision, given the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that it had
not dismissed Siazar.[25] Ordinarily, the Court will not, on petition
for review on certiorari, reexamine
the facts of the case. Here, however, since
the CA overturned its earlier ruling and its factual findings now differ from
those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Court is making an exception.[26]
From an examination of the record,
the Court has ascertained that the evidence supports the CA’s finding that the
company dismissed Siazar from work. This
is evident from the following:
One. On company’s orders, the guard prevented Siazar
from entering its premises to work. The
company even gave him notice not to report for work and instead told him to see
the company’s external counsel after two days.
If the company had not yet decided to close down Siazar’s department and
wanted merely to explore that possibility with him,[27]
it had no reason to require him to stay away from work in the meantime. Barring him from work simply meant that the
company had taken away his right to continue working for it.
Two. It is simply preposterous for Siazar or any
employee like him to just give up a job that paid P25,000.00 a month when,
according to the company, it had not yet decided to carry out its plan and fire
him.
Three. That Siazar lost
no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal negates the notion that he
voluntarily left or abandoned his job.[28] An employee who files a suit to claim his job
back raises serious doubts that he even entertained the idea of leaving it in
the first place.
Four. Despite Siazar’s failure to show up for work,
the company did not summon him back or ask him to explain his long
absence. Normally, an employer would not
stand by when an employee just stops coming to work as this would affect its
business. That the company just sat by
when Siazar did not come to work strengthens his contention that it had dismissed
him. Further, the company failed to
substantiate its claim that it reported Siazar’s irregular behavior to the
Department of Labor and Employment.[29] The Court cannot consider allegations that have
not been proved.[30]
All
these show that the company indeed terminated the services of Siazar. The question now is this: was his termination
valid?
Here, the company did not adduce any
evidence to prove that Siazar’s dismissal had been for a just or authorized
cause as in fact it had been its consistent stand that it did not terminate him
and that he quit on his own. But given
that the company dismissed Siazar and that such dismissal had remained unexplained,
there can be no other conclusion but that his dismissal was illegal.[31]
The Court has held that,
under Article 279 of the Labor Code, separation pay may be awarded to an
illegally dismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement when continued employment
is no longer possible where, as in this case, the continued relationship
between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to strained
relations between them[32]
and reinstatement appears no longer practical due to the length of time that
had since passed.[33]
In awarding separation
pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to
be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service[34]
reckoned from the first day of employment until the finality of the decision.[35] Payment of separation pay is in addition to
payment of backwages.[36]
And if separation pay is awarded instead of reinstatement, backwages shall be
computed from the time of illegal termination up to the finality of the
decision.[37]
The separation pay in
this case shall be reckoned from the time Siazar worked for AISC, from June
1996 until the finality of this decision.
The Court could not hold AISC liable for his work with DHMI for lack of
evidence that the latter was simply an alter ego of AISC and had been
established to evade an existing obligation, justify a wrong, or protect a fraud.[38]
WHEREFORE,
the Court AFFIRMS the Court of
Appeals’ Amended Decision dated December 13, 2006 and Resolution dated May 22,
2007 in CA-G.R. SP 56228 subject to the MODIFICATION
that the liability for respondent Jueber P. Siazar’s illegal dismissal shall be
the sole liability of petitioner Agricultural and Industrial Supplies
Corporation and that, in lieu of reinstatement with backwages, the latter shall
pay Siazar (a) separation pay in the amount equivalent to one month pay for
every year of service computed from June 1996 up to the
finality of this decision; and (b) full backwages computed from the date of his
illegal dismissal on June 17, 1997 up to the
finality of the decision.
Let the records of this case be REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the
proper computation of the awards.
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 265.
[2] Records, p. 137; rollo, pp. 247-248.
[3] Rollo, p. 248.
[4] Records, p. 51.
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 248-249.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Records, p. 54.
[11]
[12] Rollo, p. 219.
[13] Records, pp. 198-208.
[14]
[15]
[16] Docketed as
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 56228.
[21] Rollo,
pp. 180-186. Penned by Associate Justice
Danilo B. Pine, with Associate Justices
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Aklan College, Inc. v. Enero, G.R. No. 178309, January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 64, 77-78. Factual findings are not reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion: (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts: (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court: (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
[27] Rollo, p. 219.
[28] L.C. Ordoñez Construction v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 149669, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 745, 758; Harborview Restaurant v. Labro, G.R. No. 168273, April 30, 2009, 587 SCRA 277, 282.
[29] Records, p. 55.
[30] Cabalen Management Co., Inc. v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 169494, March 14, 2007, 518 SCRA 342, 357.
[31] See: EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 145587, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409, 430-432; Seven Star Textile Company v. Dy, G.R. No. 166846, January 24, 2007, 512 SCRA 486, 498.
[32] Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172149, February 8, 2010.
[33] Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 500, 507, citing Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 161694, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 686, 699.
[34] Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, supra note 33; Pangilinan v. Wellmade Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 149552, March 10, 2010.
[35] Henlin Panay Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 180718, October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 362, 371.
[36] Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, supra note 33.
[37] RBC Cable Master System v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 172670, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 668, 679; General Milling Corporation v. Casio, G.R. No. 149552, March 10, 2010.
[38] Velarde
v. Lopez, Inc., 464 Phil. 525, 537 (2004); Pantranco Employees
Association (PEA-PTGWO) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos.
170689 & 170705, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 598, 616.