FIRST DIVISION
|
MIGUEL RUBIA,
petitioner, -versus- national labor relations
commission, fourth division,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 178621 Present: Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari,
petitioner Miguel Rubia seeks to reverse the Decision[1]
and Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00165, which affirmed the ruling[3]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring petitionerÕs
dismissal as valid.
Petitioner
served as member of the Board of Community Water and Sanitation Cooperative
(COWASSCO), a cooperative primarily engaged in water and sanitation service for
the
On
Please be informed that during
the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors, held last August 26, 2000, which
was presided over by the outgoing Chairman, Engr. Jovencio S. Egos, it
deliberated the issue of MISMANAGEMENT IN YOUR OPERATION Ð the
non-monitoring/non-compliance on the application of the correct dosage of
Chlorine to the system. Not only
this month, August, that the Sangguniang Bayan called our attention to
explain in writing, but we were also called last year, when there was an
outbreak in dysentery wherein you made promises to them, that this will not
happen again, and this time, the issue is purely mismanagement.
To
this effect, you are hereby requested to submit your Letter [of] Explanation to
the Board within forty eight (48) hours after the receipt of this
Memorandum. Failure to the satisfaction
of the Board of Directors of your explanation and much so, if you will not
submit it, the Board will take a drastic action against you and this shall be
dealt with accordingly.[5]
Petitioner submitted his letter-explanation and
claimed that he complied with all the recommendations of the Sangguniang Bayan. He shifted the blame to the Chlorinator
and the Master Plumber who were directly responsible over the chlorination. He likewise asserted that the Board of
Directors was equally culpable and accountable to the lapses committed by the
Chlorinator and Master Plumber.[6]
On
Resolution
No. 09
Series
of 2000
A
RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF MR. MIGUEL S. RUBIA AS GENERAL MANAGER
OF THE COMMUNITY WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE COOPERATIVE (COWASSCO)
WHEREAS, the Community Water and
Sanitation Service Cooperative (COWASSCO) has started its operation as
cooperative effective
WHEREAS, Mr. Miguel S. Rubia was
appointed as General Manager by the Board of Directors on October 1, 1994,
until present;
WHEREAS, as General Manager, he
was tasked the general operation of the cooperative;
WHEREAS, on February 14, 1998,
the Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 02, Series of 1998 providing for
the retirement of employees of the cooperative who reached the compulsory age
of sixty give (65) but was declared illegal by Hon. Judge Efipanio Llanos,
Regional Trial Court, Region VII, Branch XXVI, Argao, Cebu;
WHEREAS, in October 1998, his
attention was called by the Sangguniang Bayan of Argao for no supply of
water in the Poblacion area, Lamacan and Canbanua during the eve of the town
fiesta, on September 28, 1998;
WHEREAS, in 1999, he was invited
by the Sangguniang Bayan on its Regular Session, to explain why the
water of the cooperative was contaminated resulting in the typhoid fever
epidemic in most barangays covered by COWASSCO, but he did not appear in
the investigation;
WHEREAS, on
WHEREAS, Mr. Miguel S. Rubia was
again invited by the Sangguniang Bayan in its regular session on August
21, 2000 to explain on the contamination of the water of the cooperative, but
again he failed to attend;
WHEREAS, in that meeting, the
members of the Sangguniang Bayan had recommended for the resignation or
termination of Mr. Rubia for his mismanagement of the water system;
WHEREAS, in its Memorandum No.
01-2000, dated August 28, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Cooperative, through
the Chairman, requested the General Manager to explain, why no disciplinary
action be taken against him for mismanagement of the operation of the water
system;
WHEREAS, finding the answer of
the General Manager unsatisfactory, the Board of Directors decided to create an
Investigation Committee tasked to investigate the performance of the General Manager
in performing his duties;
WHEREAS,
during the investigation, it was found out, that Mr. Rubia has not properly
safeguarded the safety of the water consumers as gleaned by the following:
1.
The water of COWASSCO was
contaminated in 1999 resulting in the
typhoid fever epidemic.
2.
It was again contaminated as per
report of the Municipal Health Officer dated
3.
He failed to fully implement a
Board Resolution directing him to fence and put open launders to all the spring
boxes in Sua so that flood water cannot penetrate inside the boxes;
4.
He failed to implement a Board
Resolution to install a water gauge in Sua reservoir;
5.
He failed to implement the
recommendation of the Sangguniang Bayan in 1999 to provide a logbook for
recording of daily chlorine reading and other activities of the cooperative;
6.
He relied on Òbula-bulaÓ
system in the application of chlorine in Sua reservoir;
7.
Submission of a fictitious daily
chlorine reading report to the Board of Directors; and
8.
Shows no concern to the water
users when he reacted, ÒWala pa man kahaÕy namatay!Ó after being
informed of the report of Dr. Mamac, Municipal Health Officer.
WHEREAS,
he has not implemented a Board Resolution providing for a Code of Ethical
Standard to employees of the cooperative which include the following
violations:
1.
That
vehicles of the cooperative are continuously used by employees and him even
after office hours without memorandums and trip ticket;
2.
Has
not called the attention of employees who frequently loaf during office hours
and comes late to work; and
3.
While
there were dialogues and investigations, no documentation were made.
WHEREAS,
in his response to the memorandum of the BOD, Mr. Miguel S. Rubia, did not
assume responsibility of the mistakes committed, instead, he passed the buck to
his men and accuse the BOD as equally culpable of the lapse of his men;
WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of COWASSCO, has totally lost its trust and confidence
with the General Manager, Mr. Miguel S. Rubia;
WHEREFORE,
on the mass motion of all the Directors present, duly seconded by the same;
BE
IT RESOLVED, AS IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors in the course
of their investigation of the case of Mr. Miguel S. Rubio, General Manager of
the cooperative found him guilty of mismanagement of the cooperative and is
hereby terminated with cause as General Manager of the cooperative effective
Monday, October 16, 2000;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that Mr. Miguel S. Rubia is directed to cease and desist from
reporting to duty, effective upon receipt of a Memorandum together with this
Resolution;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that he is also directed turn over all records of the cooperative to
the Chairman, Board of Directors;
RESOLVED
FURTHERMORE, to furnish a copy of this Resolution to Mr. Miguel S. Rubia,
General Manager of COWASSCO, Argao,
RESOLVED FINALLY, to furnish copies of the
Resolution to the Municipal Mayor, Argao, Cebu, the members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, Argao, Cebu, the Cooperative Development Authority Officer, Cebu
City Office, the Manager, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Cebu City,
the Manager, Rural Bank of Cebu South, Argao, Cebu and the Manager Cooperative
Bank, Cebu City for their information.[7]
On
Failing
to reach an amicable settlement, the parties were ordered to file their
position papers.
Petitioner
claimed that respondents wanted to oust him from his position as early as in
1998 when he received a notice from COWASSCO advising him that he was deemed
retired effective
Respondents
COWASSCO and its Board justified petitionerÕs dismissal as valid on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence after finding him guilty of mismanagement. Respondent also claimed to have observed
due process in terminating petitionerÕs employment.[11]
The
labor arbiter[12]
found petitionerÕs dismissal as illegal. The dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's
decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainant was illegally dismissed
thereby ordering respondents COMMUNITY WATER & SANITATION COOPERATIVE and
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS to pay complainant the amount of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P380,160.00) in the concept of separation
pay, backwages and attorneyÕs fees.[13]
The labor arbiter ruled that respondents failed to
prove that there was mismanagement of operations on the part of petitioner to
support the ground of loss of trust and confidence in dismissing the latterÕs employment. Moreover, the labor arbiter observed
that petitioner was not accorded due process when only one incident of
mismanagement was mentioned in the show-cause notice but petitioner was
dismissed on the ground of several other incidents.[14]
Aggrieved,
respondents appealed to the NLRC.
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby REVERSED, SET ASIDE and VACATED and
a new one entered DISMISSING the case of illegal dismissal. Respondent COWASSCO is however ordered
to pay complainant the sum of P14,400.00
by way of financial assistance.[15]
Notably,
the NLRC was mum on the issue of due process.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was
denied in a Resolution dated
Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Finding no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the NLRC, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on P30,000.00 for
failure to observe the due process requirement in the termination of an
employee.[18]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court
of AppealsÕ decision. Its denial
prompted petitioner to elevate the case to this Court via petition for
review on certiorari.
Petitioner insists that respondents failed to prove
that there was mismanagement on the part of petitioner resulting from the
alleged non-monitoring/non-compliance on the application of the correct dosage
of chlorine in the water system. Thus, petitioner argues that it was not
a sufficient basis for loss of trust and confidence, which is a cause for his
termination.[19]
Moreover, petitioner maintains that he was denied
due process because the first notice requirement for dismissing an employee was
not faithfully observed by respondents.
Petitioner elucidates that the show-cause notice mentioned only of one
incident, which respondents considered as constituting mismanagement, but in
the resolution terminating petitioner, there were other incidents cited which
petitioner was not previously informed.[20]
In fine, petitioner seeks to reinstate the labor
arbiterÕs decision.
Respondents allege that petitioner was validly
dismissed for his numerous infractions, which were all mentioned in the letter
dated
Respondents reiterate that petitioner was afforded
due process. Respondents explain
that they sent a memorandum to petitioner requiring him to explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him. Unsatisfied with this explanation,
respondents conducted a formal investigation wherein petitioner was given the
full opportunity to defend himself.[22]
Respondents assert that petitioner is not entitled
to his money claims because he was not illegally dismissed from service.[23]
The core issues to be resolved are: (1) whether
petitioner was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence;
and (2) whether the due process requirement for termination was observed.
The issues raised by petitioner are evidently
factual in nature. By giving due
course to his petition, this Court is not departing from the well-settled rule
that questions of facts are not reviewable.[24]
The discordant findings between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC however open the
door for review.[25]
Respondents invoked loss of trust and confidence as
a just cause for terminating petitioner from employment. Article 282(c) of the Labor Code allows
an employer to terminate the services of an employee for fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly
authorized representative.
For there to be a valid dismissal based on loss of
trust and confidence, the employee concerned must be holding a position of
trust and confidence and there must be an act that would justify the loss of
trust and confidence.[26]
Petitioner held the position of General Manager of
COWASSCO prior to his termination.
As General Manager, he was tasked the general operation of the
cooperative.[27] Undoubtedly, petitioner held a position
of trust and confidence. As
correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, Òthe nature of petitionerÕs work
as manager requires a substantial amount of trust and confidence reposed on him
by his employer. He occupies a
highly sensitive and critical position which involves a high degree of
responsibility.Ó[28]
Having established that petitioner is a managerial
employee, we shall proceed to determine whether the guidelines for the
application of loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal of an
employee from the service were complied with, i.e., 1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; 2) it should
not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified; 3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary; and 4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to
justify earlier action taken in bad faith.[29]
The notice of termination stated that petitioner was
terminated for loss of confidence premised on his alleged mismanagement
resulting in the contamination of the water system in the
As the general manager, petitioner is tasked to
perform key functions such as the monitoring of COWASSCOÕs day-to-day
operation. Therefore, any lapse
brought to the companyÕs attention must be directly addressed by the
manager. The NLRC aptly observed:
x x x That complainant holds a very
sensitive position cannot be over-emphasized. As General Manager, he is tasked with
the duty of delivering safe, clean and potable water to the consumers. In his hands therefore lies the health
and even lives of the people of the
For breach of trust to constitute a valid cause for
dismissal, it must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally,
knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[31]
Petitioner did not deny that he was remiss in his
duties, particularly in monitoring the application of the correct dosage of
chlorine in the water system. What
he did was to shift the blame to his subordinates -- the Chlorinator and Master
Plumber. During the investigation
however, it appears that petitioner did not even bother to impose disciplinary
action against these erring employees.
As manager, petitioner should have paid close attention to the
persistent problem of chlorination given the fact that the Sangguniang Bayan had repeatedly called his attention on the
matter.
PetitionerÕs failure to closely monitor the contamination
of water supply, his repeated failure to appear before the Sanggunaing Bayan
to explain his lapses, and his overall indifference in performing the task
assigned to him as general manager clearly demonstrate a willful breach of
trust.
Aside
from dismissal for a just cause, the other part of the two-tiered rule for a
valid dismissal is the observance of due process.
Article
277(b) of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 277.
Miscellaneous provisions. − x x x (b) Subject to the constitutional right of
workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal
except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement
of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker
whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a
statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor
and Employment x x x.
In
addition, Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor
Code, requires the employer to furnish the employee with two written notices. These are: (1) a written notice served
on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to
said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; and (2)
a written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to
justify his termination.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the elements of due process in cases of employee's dismissal. The requirement of notice is intended to
inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason
for the proposed dismissal. Upon the other hand the requirement of hearing
affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against
him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected.[32]
On these essentials of due process, we modify the findings of the Court of
Appeals.
The Court of Appeals observed that petitioner was
not afforded a hearing or conference before the termination was effected.[33]
This is however belied by the evidence presented by respondents. Petitioner was
in fact given the opportunity to defend himself in an investigation conducted
by the Board of Directors on
Petitioner also harps on the inclusion of several
other incidents in the notice of termination which were not mentioned in the
show cause notice. The simple fact that petitioner failed to closely monitor
the application of chlorine, resulting in the contamination of the water system
in Argao, Cebu, is a sufficient and valid ground for respondents to lose their
trust and confidence on the management skills of petitioner. The invocation of an additional ground in
the resolution terminating the services of petitioner, i.e., the failure to implement a Board Resolution providing for a
Code of Ethical Standard to employees of COWASSCO, does not by itself
constitute denial of due process. Petitioner was informed in the first memorandum
regarding the incorrect application of chlorine, which was the more important
ground by which his dismissal was premised. Petitioner did not make a categorical
denial of this allegation against him.
Instead of assuming responsibility over the lapses he committed,
petitioner resorted to finger pointing, blaming the Master Plumber and
Chlorinator for the incorrect dosage of chlorine. In the second notice, the issue of
incorrect chlorination was also discussed in detail. The Board of Directors cited instances
showing that petitioner had not properly safeguarded the well-being of the
water consumers.[35] Hence, it cannot be concluded that there
was denial of due process.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity
to be heard; it is the denial of this opportunity that constitutes violation of
due process of law.[36] As long as petitioner was given an
opportunity to explain his side, the requirements of due process have been
substantially complied with.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated P30,000.00
is, accordingly, DELETED.
|
SO ORDERED.
JOSE
Associate
Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C
A T I O N
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 CourtÕs Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justices Arsenio J.
Magpale and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring. Rollo, pp. 18-29.
[2]
[3] Penned
by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy with Commissioners Edgardo M. Enerlan and Gerardo
C. Nograles concurring. Records, pp. 162-176.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Said
notice was the effect of a resolution adopted by the Board providing for
policies for the retirement of COWASSCO employees who had reached 65 years of
age. Petitioner disregarded the
notice. Another resolution was
adopted directing petitioner to cease and desist from reporting for official
duties. Petitioner in fact filed an
action for injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin
respondents from enforcing the assailed resolutions. The trial court granted the prayer of
petitioner. Respondents sought
relief from the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, respectively. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed
with finality respondentsÕ petition and the resolution of the trial court
enjoining and prohibiting respondents from enforcing and implementing
COWASSCOÕs resolutions became final and executory.
[10]
[11] CA rollo, p. 63.
[12] Violeta Ortiz-Bantug, Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VII,
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] CA
rollo, pp. 181-182.
[18]
[19] Rollo,
p. 11.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Yokohama
Tire Philippines, Inc. v.
[25] Molina
v. Pacific Plans, G.R. No. 165476, 10 March 2006 citing Diamond Motors
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 452, 458 (2003).
[26] Benjamin
v. Amellar Corporation, G.R. No. 183383,
[27] Records,
p. 33.
[28] Rollo,
p. 22.
[29] Bibiana
Farms and Mills v. Lado, G.R. No. 157861, 2 February 2010; Ancheta v.
Destiny Financial Plans, G.R. No.
179702, 16 February 2010 citing Midas Touch Food Corp. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 111639, 29 July 1996, 259 SCRA 652,
659-660.
[30] CA rollo, p. 30.
[31] Baron
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 182299, 22 February 2010; St.
Lukes Medical Center v. Fadrigo, G.R. No. 185933, 25 November 2009; Norsk
Hydro Inc. v. Rosales, Jr., G.R. No. 162871, 31 January 2007, 513
SCRA 583, 590; Echeverria v.
Venutek Medika, Inc., G.R. No. 169231, 15 February 2007, 516 SCRA 72, 80.
[32] Maquiling
v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., G.R. No. 143384, 4 February 2005,
450 SCRA 465, 477 citing Century Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-77859,
[33] Rollo, p. 25.
[34] CA
rollo, pp. 145-147.
[35] Records,
pp. 33-35.
[36] Technol Eight Philippines Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 187605, 13 April 2010; Bibiana Farms and Mills, Inc. v. Lado,
G.R. No. 157861, 2 February 2010.