Republic of the
Supreme Court
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC.,
Petitioner, - versus - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN
and EDUARDO S. RIVERA,
Respondents. -- - |
G.R. No. 187120
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION, ABAD, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: February 16, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C
I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
We resolve in this Decision the petition for review
on certiorari[1]
filed by the Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI), assailing the decision[2]
dated February 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
98666.[3]
The Antecedents
The
facts, as set out in the assailed decision, are summarized below.
PJI
is a corporation engaged in the publication of People's Journal, People's
Journal Tonight, People's Journal International, People's Taliba, Women's
Journal, and Insider. In December 1978, it employed respondent Eduardo S.
Rivera (Rivera) as proof reader.
Rivera rose from the ranks over the years, becoming purchasing manager
in 1998. His primary duty involved the
canvassing and purchase of paper and other materials for PJI's day-to-day
operations. He received a monthly salary
of P25,000.00, exclusive of allowances and other benefits.
Sometime
in November 2002, Women's Journal implemented a calendar insertion project
requiring paper-coated materials. Rivera
canvassed and purchased 68,500 sheets of C25 120 coated paper, 170 gsm size 23”
x 27” from the Nation Paper Products Corporation (NAPPCO) at P6.50 a sheet for the total amount of P445,250.00.[4]
On
January 8, 2003, PJI's Corporate Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Ruby
Ruiz-Bruno (Ruiz-Bruno), issued a memorandum[5]
requiring Rivera to explain in writing why he “should not be terminated from
employment for defrauding or attempting to defraud the Company x x x” in
the canvassing and purchase of Women’s Journal’s paper requirements. The memo alluded to a “reliable quotation
from NAPPCO for 68,000 sheets of this kind of paper with exactly the same
specifications, shows a price of only P3.40/sheet.” Pending investigation of the matter, PJI
placed Rivera under preventive suspension.
On
January 10, 2003, PJI's Audit Supervisor, Nepthalie E. Hernandez (Hernandez), submitted a report[6]
to PJI President Bobby Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) about the canvass of the
price of the Women’s Journal paper requirements. The canvass showed: a price of P3.91/sheet
from Security Commercial although no quotation from the supplier was secured;
the lowest price with quotation was P4.12/sheet from Purity Enterprises
Co.; and, a telephone canvass with NAPPCO revealed an offer of P3.80/sheet.
On
January 13, 2003, Rivera submitted his written explanation,[7]
denying that he defrauded or attempted to defraud PJI. In support of his
position, he attached a letter dated January 9, 2003 from NAPPCO's
Vice-President Kenneth Chong (Chong) to Dela Cruz.[8] Chong denied in his letter giving a quotation
of P3.40/sheet for PJI's paper requirement.
He explained that NAPPCO quoted a price of P5.80 cash on delivery
(COD), but since PJI could not meet its terms, it quoted a price of P6.50
at 30-90 days credit.
Rivera, in a
letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to Dela Cruz, explained the details of
the purchase transaction with NAPPCO.[9] As a result of this letter-explanation,
Ruiz-Bruno issued a memorandum on the same day to Assistant Purchasing Manager
Jean Alvarado (Alvarado), requiring her to explain the difference in the
quotation of P6.50 from NAPPCO and P4.26/piece (23x27) and P4.68/piece
(25x27) from LAMCO, another supplier.[10]
On the same
day, Alvarado submitted her explanation,[11] stating that she signed the canvass sheet as
instructed by Rivera, but she was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO. She claimed that the canvass sheet (No.
20800)[12]
itself showed that the figures were written by Rivera himself.
In
a memorandum dated February 7, 2003,[13]
Ruiz-Bruno notified Rivera of the termination of his service effective February
8, 2003, “on the ground of loss of confidence” after finding Rivera's “acts
and omissions are indicative of fraud and a clear manifestation of your
inability as a Manager to protect the Company's interests.” The memo stated that: during the open
investigation, Rivera admitted the truth of Alvarado's statements; he also
admitted that the figures he wrote on the canvass sheet were fictitious because
no such figures were given by LAMCO; and he purposely made the insertions to
provide a comparative pricing and to facilitate the approval of the purchase
order. Ruiz-Bruno further stated in her
memorandum that: she interviewed NAPPCO officials who informed her that they had
the available stocks cut to give PJI the exact 23” x 27” size of paper it
needed, with the wastage to be passed on to PJI, thus, the price of P6.50/sheet;
Rivera failed to disclose this detail of NAPPCO’s offer, nor did he inform the
company if the waste materials were ever delivered to PJI for its disposition;
and that Rivera had been talking directly with NAPPCO, contrary to what he said
to Ruiz-Bruno that the purchase was based on Alvarado's canvass.
On
October 14, 2003, Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PJI,
Dela Cruz, Executive Vice-President Arnold Banares and Ruiz-Bruno.
The Compulsory
Arbitration Decisions
On
October 29, 2004, Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban found, in his decision of
October 29, 2004,[14]
that Rivera's dismissal was for cause on the ground that he “committed acts
of dishonesty, or has committed fraud.”
The labor arbiter observed that as purchasing manager – a position of
trust and confidence – Rivera had the duty to canvass and purchase PJI’s needed
materials in a manner most beneficial to the company. Rivera failed in this regard.
On
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the
labor arbiter's decision, ruling that Rivera's dismissal was illegal.[15] It opined that: Alvarado’s statements in her January 31, 2003
letter[16]
cannot prejudice Rivera as the “rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another,” citing the Rules of Court in
that regard;[17]
Rivera had not been involved in any work-related controversy; neither did he
commit any infraction of company rules and regulations, nor did he have any
derogatory record at PJI. Rivera cannot
be held liable for fraud because PJI did not present any record of investigation
showing the admissions Rivera allegedly made during the investigation.
The NLRC
awarded Rivera backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on the
finding that strained relations had resulted from the parties’ “respective
imputations of bad faith against each other.”
The
NLRC denied PJI’s motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2007.[18] PJI thus sought relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. PJI
prayed as well for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the
enforcement of the NLRC decision. The CA
issued the writ after PJI posted a bond equivalent to the P1,862,687.50
award.
The CA Decision
The
CA denied the petition for lack of merit.[19] It fully affirmed the assailed NLRC rulings and
lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it issued on July 24, 2007. The CA declared that “after a thorough
evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties, from the facts borne by
the records in this case, we are constrained to rule that the dismissal of
Rivera based on loss of confidence is not clearly established and supported by
substantial evidence.” PJI now seeks relief from the Court through a
petition for review on certiorari pursuant
to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[20]
The Petition
PJI
submits that the CA seriously erred in failing to recognize that the commission
of fraud by an employee is a ground under the law for termination of
employment. It insists that Rivera was
dismissed for cause; as manager of the Purchasing Department, tasked primarily
with the canvassing and purchase of supplies for the company's operations, he
handled the paper requirements of the Women's Journal project in a manner that
breached his employer’s trust and confidence in him.
Specifically,
PJI faults Rivera for his failure to make a thorough canvass of the price of
the project's paper requirement, as well as for dishonesty that resulted in a
transaction disadvantageous to the company.
PJI cites Rivera’s limited canvass, covering only NAPPCO and LAMCO,
where NAPPCO quoted the price of P6.50, while LAMCO's quotation was
reflected in the canvass sheet only to show that an actual canvass had been
made when in fact there was none. PJI insists that during the investigation,
Rivera admitted that he inserted a fictitious quotation from LAMCO to provide
the appearance of comparative pricing and that this was done after Alvarado had
prepared the canvass sheet.
While
PJI admits that no written report of the investigation was made, it claims that
Rivera never rebutted the findings made at the investigation. When he submitted his written explanation
dated January 13, 2003,[21]
he only referred to NAPPCO, not to LAMCO; he made no explanation on LAMCO's
pricing, a clear indication that no canvass was made on LAMCO. Further, PJI contends that Rivera only relied
on NAPPCO’s pricing which, at P6.50, was higher than the prices of other suppliers of
the same material. It points out that an
actual canvass of the unit price of the coated paper material showed that there
were other suppliers offering the same material at lower prices, yet Rivera
failed to canvass these other suppliers, to the company’s prejudice. PJI adds that Rivera did not only fail to
conduct a proper canvass; he also failed to disclose to the company NAPPCO's quotation
of P5.80 for a COD purchase.
PJI concludes
that Rivera had been remiss in the performance of his duty in relation with the
transaction, and had committed fraud and acts of dishonesty against the
company, to its prejudice and loss amounting to P200,000.00; Rivera had
as well breached the employer’s trust and confidence. All these, the company proved by substantial
evidence. It finally posits that for Rivera, a managerial employee, the mere
existence of a basis to believe that he had breached the employer’s trust is
sufficient cause for dismissal.
The Case for Rivera
In
his Comment[22]
filed on May 29, 2009, Rivera prays that the petition be dismissed for lack of
merit, for “it is very apparent that the malicious charges” brought
against him “had no leg to stand on and therefore had no basis but
speculation and conjectures.”
Rivera contends that PJI failed to prove how he committed the alleged
fraud; instead, the company simulated and fabricated findings that he did not
conduct a canvass before he made the purchase of the Women’s Journal’s paper
requirements.
To
prove his innocence, Rivera cites the January 9, 2003 letter of NAPPCO's vice
president, Chong,[23]
and the memorandum dated January 3, 2003 of Alvarado, to show that a canvass
may be done, not only in writing, but also by phone. Also, Rivera claims that
Chong denied the “reliable quotation” of P3.40 mentioned in
Ruiz-Bruno's memo to Rivera, which quotation was even contradicted by the
Report of Canvass[24]
submitted to PJI President Dela Cruz by Hernandez; Hernandez's report was
accompanied by a summary of canvass that showed a unit price of P6.00
for 25” x 38” coated paper required by PJI's project from both NAPPCO and
LAMCO. Rivera posits that the evidence proved that there was nothing irregular
with the price of P6.50; the verbal quotation by NAPPCO was for P5.80
not P3.40 and the P6.50 was anchored on credit purchase
conditions that took into account the cost of money, capacity to pay, the
ability to deliver, the availability of the seasonal supplies, and the texture
and grammage of the supplies required.
Additionally,
Rivera submits that the transaction involved the supply of paper materials for
a purpose different from the paper requirements of the company's day-to-day
operations. The calendar insertion
project was also certified as a “rush” job by PJI's advertising
department.
Rivera
disputes PJI's submission that he admitted the company's assertions during the
open investigation conducted by the investigating panel. He contends that PJI bears the burden of
proving its allegations; the company's assertions have no factual basis as it
failed to present an investigation report.
In particular, Rivera questions PJI's insinuation of his guilt when he did
not mention the LAMCO pricing (also P6.50) and referred only to NAPPCO
in his explanation letter dated January 13, 2003. He contends that these insinuations are
inappropriate and misleading as he was required to explain only the purchase
with NAPPCO; no mention of LAMCO was made at all in Ruiz-Bruno’s
memorandum. He denies that he inserted a
fictitious figure for LAMCO in the canvass sheet as implied in the Alvarado
memorandum because Alvarado was not aware that he included LAMCO in the
canvass; nowhere did Alvarado’s memo say that the figures were fictitious, nor
that he did not conduct a canvass. On
the contrary, he maintains, the Alvarado memo confirmed the practice of
conducting a canvass by phone and that suppliers at times do not give written
quotations.
On
PJI's contention that his failure to advise the company of his actions and the
developments is indicative of fraud, Rivera argues that as purchasing manager,
he is empowered to decide on behalf of the company purchase strategies and
procedures without compromising the integrity of the company, and that he
observed the standard procedures for rush transactions in the calendar
insertion project. He maintains that the
conduct of twenty or more canvasses would entail enormous time that could hinder
the implementation of the project. He
views the audit canvass the company presented in evidence as inconclusive and a
mere recitation of quoted prices without any indication of the conditionalities
involved. Rivera further submits that
there is no truth to PJI's claim that he failed to advise the company that
NAPPCO cut the available sheets that it had (25” x 38”) to the required 23” x
27” measurement. He argues that he
explained the matter to Dela Cruz in his letter dated January 31, 2003.[25]
Summing
up, Rivera insists that PJI failed to prove that he had been dismissed for a
just cause; even managerial employees like him enjoy security of tenure, among
other rights. Procedurally, Rivera
contends that PJI failed to submit any question of law to the Court; the core
issue of whether the company was prejudiced by the purchase of coated paper
material from NAPPCO is a factual matter appropriately ruled upon by the
NLRC. When subsequently sustained by the
CA, these factual findings can no longer be disturbed.
The Court's Ruling
We
first resolve whether the petition was properly filed in light of the private
respondent’s position that it solely raises questions of fact that are improper
for a Rule 45 petition.
While
as a rule,[26] a
petition for review on certiorari
shall raise only questions of law, we deem it appropriate to examine the facts
in this review, given the conflicting factual findings between the Labor
Arbiter, on the one hand and, the NLRC and the CA, on the other.[27] The Labor Arbiter sustained Rivera's
dismissal with the finding that he committed acts of dishonesty or fraud
against his employer. The NLRC and the
CA held that no substantial evidence existed to support Rivera’s dismissal.
The
CA declared in its assailed decision:
Verily, private respondent Rivera's explanation,
embodied in his letter dated January 13, 2003 addressed to Atty. Ruby
Ruiz-Bruno and his letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to PJI President
Bobby dela Cruz, supported by the letter dated January 9, 2003 of NAPPCO
Vice-President Kenneth Chong as well as the letter explanation dated January
31,2003 of PJI Assistant Manager Jean Alvarado, totally negated the presence of
substantial evidence that would justify the dismissal of Rivera based on loss
of trust and confidence. Ostensibly, as
purchasing manager, Rivera opted to purchase the subject coated paper materials
from NAPPCO simply because the calendar project was certified as “RUSH” by the
advertising department of PJI and NAPPCO could deliver it on time apart from
the unrefuted fact that PJI's term of payment is not COD but 30-90 days from
delivery.
We see the case differently.
Contrary
to the CA’s pronouncement, we find substantial evidence in the records to
justify Rivera's dismissal. As the company's purchasing manager, Rivera held a
position of trust and confidence; his role in the procurement of the company's
operational requirements is critical.
PJI is a publication company and is engaged in a highly competitive enterprise;
it is an active player in the print media industry. As in any other industry dependent on
externally-sourced materials for its operations, its continued viability rests
on the cost of production, a major part of which is the cost of the printing
materials on which news is written; the street selling prices of its newspapers
depend on these costs, and competitors can have a decided price advantage if
the cost of PJI’s printing materials is above those of the competition.
A
costing issue triggered PJI's action to terminate Rivera's employment; it found
the cost of the paper materials required in one of its special projects
questionable because it was higher than the price of a “reliable quotation.” The purchase covered 68,000 sheets of coated
paper, size 23” x 27” at P6.50/sheet or a total price of P445,250.00. The “reliable quotation” from NAPPCO, the
supplier, purportedly was at P3.40/sheet. It was Rivera who arranged the purchase, and
PJI charged him of fraud for this questionable transaction.[28] Rivera denied the charge.[29] To explain his denial, he attached the letter
of NAPPCO's vice president, Chong,[30]
denying that NAPPCO made a quotation at P3.40. Rivera also explained
that NAPPCO made a verbal quotation of P5.80/sheet COD and P6.50
at 30-90 days credit.
Had
the matter involved only the P6.50 pricing compared to the alleged “reliable
quotation” of P3.40, there is no question that Rivera could not be
found liable as NAPPCO denied having been made any quotation at P3.40. As the investigation of the transaction unraveled,
however, the company uncovered reasons to seriously doubt Rivera's integrity
and his reliability as a purchasing manager.
In the course of the investigation, PJI looked
into the files of the purchasing department and obtained a copy of canvass
sheet form no. 20800 dated November 27, 2002[31]
which Alvarado signed as the canvasser of prices from NAPPCO and LAMCO which
both showed the uniform quoted price of P6.50. On January 31, 2003,
LAMCO faxed a quotation showing a price of only P4.68 per piece of 25” x
27” material, and only P4.26/piece of 23” x 27” material (no rolls), for
the same kind of paper; neither price is near the P6.50 she wrote in the
canvass sheet according to Ruiz-Bruno's memo dated the same day.[32] Ruiz-Bruno thus asked Alvarado to explain the
disparity in pricing.
On
the same day, Alvarado submitted her explanation[33]
stating that she had just come from her maternity leave; she admitted having
written the canvass sheet as instructed by Rivera, but she did not bother to
check the official quotation from NAPPCO since Rivera informed her that he had
talked with Letty Torrevillas (Torrevillas)
of NAPPCO and she also knew Torrevillas from previous dealings with her. Alvarado claimed that figures in the canvass
sheet were written by Rivera himself and that she was not aware that Rivera
included LAMCO in the canvass sheet. She
also stated that the price difference with NAPPCO was attributable to PJI’s
past failure to comply with its credit line of COD-7 days. She explained that LAMCO's quotation
addressed to the audit department did not specify the payment terms, but she
was sure the prices were COD/CASH.
Earlier,
on January 10, 2003, audit supervisor Hernandez submitted a report[34]
to PJI President Dela Cruz regarding the audit department's own canvass of
coated paper materials from two sources: (1) NAPPCO and LAMCO, the company's
two suppliers,[35]
and (2) from other suppliers. Hernandez
reported that the lowest price that his department received was P3.91
from Security Commercial although it did not give a quotation, with the lowest
quoted price of P4.12 from Purity Enterprises Co. A telephone canvass with NAPPCO’s employee,
Torrevillas disclosed that the standard size available from NAPPCO was 25” x
38,” but NAPPCO could provide a special cut and at 3% discount; the resulting
price for the size 23” x 27” material was P3.80/sheet.
The
circumstances surrounding the purchase of the coated paper material for the
company's calendar insertion project, examined in their totality, convince us
that PJI had sufficient reason to terminate Rivera's employment for loss of
trust and confidence. Our reading of the
attendant facts shows that he arranged a purchase transaction markedly
disadvantageous to the company mainly due to: (1) his failure to conduct an
honest-to-goodness canvass of prices for the required paper material and (2)
his dishonesty, or at least his misrepresentations, in making it appear that he
canvassed two suppliers when he really dealt only with one of them.
Rivera's Failure to Conduct a Canvass
The canvass of prices of production supplies
is routine work for any purchasing department.
It was Rivera’s duty as purchasing manager, and that of his department,
to look for prices that would be most advantageous to the company. Rivera failed to perform this duty. He allowed the purchase of materials at a
price considerably higher than the quotations of other suppliers in the
market. For his own reasons, he settled
on one supplier on the pretext that the purchase was certified as a “rush
job” by the company's advertising department, and that the material was a
special kind of paper readily available from NAPPCO, the supplier of his
choice.
Granting
that the purchase was a “rush” request, a meaningful canvass could still have
been made, had Rivera and his department exerted genuine efforts to undertake
one, for even a phone canvass would do, as noted not only by Rivera, but also
by Alvarado, Hernandez and Ruiz-Bruno.
In fact, PJI's audit department conducted a canvass and, in no time,
came out with a pricing considerably lower than P6.50 even at credit
terms. He did not have to canvass twenty
(20) or so suppliers as Rivera put it, to make a real canvass. A representative sampling of the market
certainly would have served the purpose.
If
only for his failure to conduct a real canvass, PJI cannot be blamed for losing
its trust and confidence in Rivera.
Rivera's Misrepresentations
Rivera
did not only fail to canvass the market for the company's paper requirement.
Worse than this, he made it appear that he conducted a canvass, undoubtedly to
reflect on paper that a canvass had been made, to enable him to comply with a
basic purchase requirement and tie the company, for his own reasons, to a
higher purchase cost from his favored supplier.
We
find it significant that Rivera did not deny Alvarado's statement that she
prepared the canvass sheet pursuant to Rivera's instructions, and that she did
not bother to check the quotations from NAPPCO because Rivera told her he
already talked with NAPPCO’s employee, Torrevillas. Alvarado was not aware that Rivera included
LAMCO in the canvass sheet and that the numbers for LAMCO (P6.50 and P445,000.00) were written by Rivera
himself. To rebut Alvarado's statement,
Rivera later claimed that she did not see him insert the LAMCO entries; even if
the insertion was true, it did not prove that the entries referring to LAMCO
were fictitious or that he did not canvass LAMCO.[36]
We
consider Rivera's rebuttal to be lame excuses.
While he communicated NAPPCO's quotation to Alvarado so that the latter
made no further inquiries, yet, for reasons known only to Rivera, he failed to
tell Alvarado about LAMCO's quotation, if indeed there had been one. With the canvass limited to NAPPCO and LAMCO,
and with just the two of them involved in the preparation of the canvass sheet,
we find it indeed strange that Rivera did not tell Alvarado about LAMCO's
pricing.
Separately
from Rivera’s credibility gap on the matter of LAMCO’s insertion in the canvass
and Alvarado’s statement, we consider it significant that LAMCO subsequently
faxed PJI a quotation (on January 31, 2003)[37]
different from what Rivera stated in his canvass report. Apparently, LAMCO
itself did not know that a quotation for P6.50 under its name had been earlier submitted. This is another circumstance that counts
against Rivera’s story, separately still from Ruiz-Bruno’s assertion that
Rivera admitted during the investigation that the LAMCO canvass was fictitious.[38]
Other Acts Indicative of Dishonesty
Still
another occasion that smacks of dishonesty (or at least the failure to
communicate critical information to the employer) relates to the letter dated
January 9, 2003[39] of
Chong that Rivera himself attached to his letter- explanation of January 13,
2007.[40] The NAPPCO official mentioned in his letter
that the COD price of P5.80 was verbally made to PJI. This verbal quotation could have only been
made to Rivera as he was the only one who obtained the NAPPCO quotation
(through Torrevillas). Strangely, this P5.80 quotation never reached PJI
until it was mentioned by Chong long after the purchase order (P6.50 was made on November 27, 2002.[41] Stranger still, the PO itself and the canvass
sheet indicated a purchase on COD terms, although the unit price was P6.50
in both documents. While a typographical
error might have occurred, the lapse can hardly be excused since COD and credit
terms are very different, and at the same time very material and critical in
the business world. At the very least,
Rivera had been very sloppy in missing this lapse. But whatever the cause of the discrepancy
might have been, the reality is that PJI missed the price of P5.80 COD (already a high price
compared with the prices canvassed by the company's auditing department) and
settled for P6.50, still at COD. Thus, PJI was clearly placed at a disadvantage.
Again,
separately from all the above, is the matter of the waste paper material that, as
Rivera himself explained,[42]
resulted from trimming the available 25” x 38” material into the project's 23”
x 27” required size. The trimming resulted in waste paper of 2” x 11” that can
be retrieved from NAPPCO and resold or used for some other purposes. For PJI, this information again came too late
as Rivera gave it to PJI's President Dela Cruz only on January 31, 2003, or
long after the purchased materials had been ordered and delivered. Significantly, the records do not show that
this feature of the transaction was ever disclosed to the company before the
purchase; neither was it in the canvass sheet or in the PO, nor was it ever
mentioned to any company official. Had
the purchase not been investigated, PJI top management could not have learned
about the waste material. To be sure, this was a loss to the company and a gain
for whoever knew of this feature of the transaction and took advantage of it.
Our Conclusion
As
we look at the total picture, we are convinced that a pattern of concealment
and dishonesty marred the purchase of paper materials for the Women’s Journal’s
special project, with Rivera playing the principal and most active role. There is no question in our mind that he
failed to make a reasonable canvass of the prices of the paper materials
required by a company’s special project, resulting in substantial losses to the
company. As we previously stated, that a
rush job was involved, is no excuse as a canvass could be done even in a day's
time as shown by the audit department’s canvass. That Rivera was responsible for concealment
and omissions also appears clear to us; he failed to seasonably disclose to
PJI, under dubious circumstances, material information with financial impact on
the purchase transaction.
Thus, we
cannot but conclude that substantial evidence exists justifying Rivera’s
dismissal for a just cause – loss of trust and confidence. For loss of trust and confidence to be a
ground for dismissal, the law requires only that there be at least some basis
to justify the dismissal.[43]
Enough basis
exists, as detailed above, to support the PJI’s position that Rivera was
responsible for acts and omissions that made him unworthy of the trust and
confidence PJI reposed on him. To place
this conclusion in Rivera’s own terms, contrary to what he claimed, his
dismissal was not on the basis of “mere speculation and conjecture,” but
on the basis of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to
support a conclusion. In legal terms,
this is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings.[44] The fact that he had been with the company
for 25 years cannot erase the conclusion that he had become a liability to the
company whose interests he miserably failed to protect.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we GRANT the
petition, and accordingly SET ASIDE
the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98666 and DISMISS the complaint for illegal
dismissal.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL
PEREZ
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
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 43-64; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Id., at 9-31; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associates Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
[3] Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.
[4] Rollo, p. 105; PJI's Position Paper, Annex “B.”
[5] Id. at 106; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “C.”
[6] Id. at 107; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “D.”
[7] Id. at 109; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “E.”
[8] Id. at 131; Rivera's Position Paper, Annex “D.”
[9] Id. at 130; Rivera’s Position Paper, Annex “C.”
[10] Id. at 111; PJI's Position Paper, Annex “F.”
[11] Id. at 112; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “G,” p. 127.
[12] Id. at 104; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “A.”
[13] Id. at 113-115; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex “H.”
[14] Id. at 144-151; Petition, Annex “G.”
[15] Id. at 170-180; Petition, Annex “I.”
[16] Supra note 12.
[17] Rule 130, Section 128.
[18] Rollo, pp. 183-184; Petition, Annex “J.”
[19] Decision dated February 24, 2009; supra note 2.
[20] Supra note 1.
[21] Supra note 7.
[22] Rollo, pp. 233-269.
[23] Supra note 8.
[24] Supra note 6.
[25] Supra note 9.
[26] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.
[27] Cadiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153784, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 232; Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158232, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 732.
[28] Supra note 5.
[29] Supra note 7.
[30] Supra note 8.
[31] Supra note 12.
[32] Supra note 10.
[33] Supra note 11.
[34] Supra note 6.
[35] Based on canvass sheet no. 20800.
[36] Rollo, p. 262; Rivera's Comment.
[37] Supra note 10.
[38] Supra note 13.
[39] Supra note 8.
[40] Supra note 7.
[41] Rollo, p. 105.
[42] Supra note 9.
[43] Ramatek Philippines, Inc. v. De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 139526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 129.
[44] Gil A. Valera, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 167278, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 42.