THIRD DIVISION
|
CARLOS
V. VALENZUELA, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. Nos.
169965-66 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J.,
Chairperson, BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
CALTEX
PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. |
Promulgated: December
15, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari
assails the Decision[1] dated
The facts
follow.
Petitioner
was hired by respondent Caltex Philippines, Inc. sometime in March 1965 as
Laborer and assigned in the Lube Oil Section of its Pandacan Terminal in
Sometime in 1970, petitioner requested that he be transferred
to respondent’s main office.
Since the position available then was that of a messenger, he accepted the
same. One year later, petitioner was given a new assignment as Aviation
Attendant of respondent’s Manila Aviation Service.[5]
After twenty-two (22) years at the
Manila Aviation Service, petitioner was moved to respondent’s Lapu-Lapu
Terminal in
Petitioner
was initially designated as Gauger but he also handled Bulk Receiving, Tank
Truck Loading and Bunkering. In 1996, the Warehouseman retired and the
functions of the warehouseman were given to petitioner.[7]
As warehouseman, petitioner’s duties
included, among others, the maintenance of stock cards for storehouse materials
and supplies, the conduct of physical inventory of the company’s merchandise stocks and monitoring the movement
of said stocks.[8]
On P823,100.49 was discovered.[9]
Petitioner was required to explain within forty-eight (48)
hours such shortage and the other irregularities discovered during the spot
audit. He was further informed[10]
that an administrative investigation will be conducted on the matter and
because of the nature of his offense and his position in the Company, he was
preventively suspended to prevent further losses and/or possible tampering of
the documents and other evidence.[11]
The administrative investigation was conducted with two
hearings held on
Aggrieved by the respondent’s decision to terminate his
employment, petitioner filed a complaint[14]
for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII in
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the claim for illegal dismissal for lack of merit and the other monetary claims are referred to the grievance machinery and/or voluntary arbitrator as provided under the CBA.
So Ordered.[18]
On
appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and
declared that petitioner was illegally dimissed. The dispositive portion of the
NLRC decision states:
WHEREFORE, the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated
Salary
per month P 25,800.00
Number
of years in service x
38
Separation
Pay
P 980,400.00
Other benefits covered by the CBA may be claimed by the complainant in the Grievance Machinery in accordance with the CBA.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Both parties went to the CA by way of petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition in CA-G.R. SP NO. 80638 and DENYING the petition in CA-G.R. SP NO. 80494. The assailed decision of the NLRC, Fourth Division dated September 10, 2002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Decision dated May 19, 2000 rendered by Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon in RAB Case No. 7-01-0135-2000 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[21]
On
Petitioner argues that there were several procedural lapses in the Petition for Certiorari[22] respondent filed with the CA. In particular, petitioner points out that the petitioners therein were respondent and Leodegario Jacinto, but only the latter submitted a verification and certification against forum shopping. There was no board resolution from respondent authorizing Leodegario Jacinto to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping in its behalf, thereby making the petition ineffectual.
Further, petitioner mentions the failure of herein respondent
to accompany said petition with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant
and pertinent to the petition as required by Section 1 of Rule 65. This allegation is based on the Resolution[23]
dated February 26, 2004 of the CA directing respondent and Jacinto to submit a
copy of the May 19, 2000 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Motions for
Reconsideration dated November 7, 2002 and November 11, 2002 filed by the
parties and other pleadings and documents filed before the Labor Arbiter.
According to the petitioner, the CA would not have ordered respondent to submit
those documents if they were not relevant and pertinent to the case. Hence, failure to submit them together with
the Petition for Certiorari
was a violation of the Rules which warranted dismissal of the petition.
On the merits, petitioner argues that there was no basis in
law to support petitioner’s dismissal, contrary to the finding of the CA. Petitioner relies on the fact that he had
previously brought to respondent’s attention
that he was overworked and that his duties were too cumbersome for one
person.
Respondent for its part counters by first denying petitioner’s
claim that there was no certification and verification against forum shopping. Respondent
points out that there were two certifications and verifications against forum shopping:
one from Alejandro Rey C. Pardo, Jr. in behalf of respondent and one from
Leodegario Jacinto in behalf of himself. Records would also show that there was
a board resolution authorizing Alejandro Rey C. Pardo, Jr. to sign a certification
and verification against forum shopping in behalf of respondent.
As to the resolution of the CA requiring the submission of additional documents, respondent argues that the issuance of the resolution did not mean that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in eventually giving due course to the petition for certiorari. The Resolution simply meant that the appellate court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, wanted to review the documents. Such order to submit particular documents did not mean that the petition filed was procedurally defective.
On the merits, respondent argues that the termination of
petitioner’s employment was sufficiently supported by evidence and the law. The
CA categorically stated that petitioner was guilty of habitual and gross
neglect of his duties and performed various acts that directly caused the loss
of trust and confidence reposed by the company in him.
Respondent also argues that the present petition raises
questions of fact which are beyond the ambit of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45. Respondent
points out that unless for compelling reasons, which are absent in this case, a
review of the factual milieu of a case is not in order under Rule 45.
Essentially,
the two issues for our resolution are: (1) Whether the CA erred in giving due
course to the petition for certiorari
filed by herein respondent despite the alleged procedural defects; and (2) Whether
the CA correctly ruled that petitioner was validly dismissed.
We deny the
petition.
On the first issue, the claim of the petitioner that there
was only one certification and verification against forum shopping filed by the
respondents therein is utterly incorrect. Records show that there were two certifications
and verifications against forum shopping submitted together with the questioned
petition for certiorari: one signed
by Alejandro Rey C. Pardo, Jr.[24]
in behalf of therein petitioner Caltex Philippines, Inc., and another one
signed by Leodegario W. Jacinto in behalf of himself as petitioner, also in the
same petition for certiorari.
Records show that a Secretary’s Certificate[25]
dated October 9, 2003 was issued by then Corporate Secretary Ariel F. Abonal
certifying that a Board Resolution was duly passed on January 28, 2002
approving a Revised Approvals Manual, on the basis of which, Alejandro Rey C.
Pardo, Jr. was authorized to sign, verify and cause the filing of the petition
for certiorari before the CA in the case entitled “Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Carlos Valenzuela, et al.,” and to
sign, verify and cause the filing of other necessary pleadings. Thus, it is clear that the respondent
submitted a proper verification and certification against forum shopping.
Equally without merit is petitioner’s contention that the
failure of respondent to submit certain documents together with its petition
for certiorari warrants
the dismissal thereof. In Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] we held,
x x x The Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed resolution, judgment or orders; as such, the initial determination of which pleading, document or parts of the records are relevant to the assailed order, resolution, or judgment, falls upon the petitioner. The CA will ultimately determine if the supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case. If the CA was of the view that the petitioner should have submitted other pleadings, documents or portions of the records to enable it to determine whether the petition was sufficient in substance, it should have accorded the petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice, a chance to submit the same instead of dismissing the petition outright. Clearly, this is the better policy. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the failure to
submit certain documents, assuming there was such a failure on respondent’s
part, does not automatically warrant outright dismissal of its petition.
On
the merits, we likewise find that the petition fails. There is no compelling reason in this case
for us to reverse the ruling of the CA sustaining the finding of the Labor
Arbiter that petitioner’s dismissal was effected with just cause. The findings of
the Labor Arbiter are supported by more than substantial evidence and even
petitioner’s admissions during the administrative hearings.[27] As the CA correctly held,
Evidence overwhelmingly shows that petitioner Valenzuela was indeed guilty of habitual and gross neglect of his duties. It was not the first time that there occurred a shortage of the merchandise stocks but apparently petitioner Valenzuela did nothing about it and, instead, manipulated documents and records, i.e., stock cards, to create the illusion that all merchandise stocks were accounted for, when in fact a lot of these merchandise were already missing from petitioner Company’s Lapu-Lapu terminal. x x x[28]
x x x x
Furthermore, petitioner Valenzuela likewise committed fraud and willful breach of the trust reposed in him by petitioner Caltex. He was in-charge of the custody and monitoring of the merchandise stocks, and, as found by the Labor Arbiter, was entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, i.e., the handling and care and protection of the employer's property. Considering that the merchandise stocks are the lifeblood of petitioner Caltex, petitioner Valenzuela's act of allowing the loss of merchandise stocks and concealing these from the employer is reason enough for his termination from his employment.[29]
Under
Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, gross and habitual neglect by
the employee of his duties is a sufficient and legal ground to terminate
employment. Jurisprudence provides that serious misconduct and habitual
neglect of duties are among the just causes for terminating an employee. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the
performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to
perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[30]
Further,
Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, also provides fraud or
willful breach by employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer as a
just cause for termination. It is always a serious issue for the employer when
an employee performs acts which diminish or break the trust and confidence
reposed in him. The Labor Code, as
amended, although sympathetic to the working class, is aware of this scenario
and in pursuit of fairness, included fraud or willful breach of trust as a just
cause for termination of employment.
One last
point on the preventive suspension imposed by the respondents.
Sections
8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Implementing Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code provides:
SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. – The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.
SEC. 9. Period of suspension. – No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss the worker. (Emphasis supplied.)
In this
case, petitioner was preventively suspended from
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
MARIA 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.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES 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 1987 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 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
*
Designated additional member per
Special Order No. 921 dated
[1] Rollo,
pp. 27-38. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate
Justices Vicente L. Yap and Enrico A. Lanzanas, concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Docketed
as RAB Case No. 7-01-0135-2000.
[15] Rollo, pp. 98-120.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Rollo,
p. 483.
[25]
[26] G.R. No. 144517,
[27] Rollo, pp. 33-35.
[28]
[29]
[30] Valiao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146621,
[31] Rollo,
p. 142.
[32]