Republic of the
Supreme Court
SENTINEL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.,
Petitioner, -
versus - Respondent. |
G.R. No. 188223
Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, *ABAD, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: July 5, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
Sentinel
Integrated Services, Inc. (Sentinel) challenges, in this petition for
review on certiorari,[1]
the decision[2]
and the resolution[3] of
February 12, 2009 and June 3, 2009, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99550.[4]
The
challenged CA rulings reversed and set aside the resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated January 31, 2007,[5]
that in turn affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision dated January 31, 2006.[6] The
labor arbiter’s decision upheld the dismissal of respondent
The CA Decision
The
CA ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding Remo’s
dismissal on the ground of retrenchment.
The appellate court found that Sentinel failed to discharge the burden
of proving that the losses it incurred warranted Remo’s dismissal. The CA rejected Sentinel’s financial
statements from 1995 to 2005 (which were submitted during the compulsory
arbitration) in the absence of evidence that these were “fully audited by an
independent external auditor.” Also, it
held that the NLRC should not have factored in the P5 million awarded by
this Court in another case[7] as
an actual loss because the award, although final, could still be the subject of
compromise. The CA considered the hiring
of a replacement (Marcelo Albay) for Remo, as an indication that Sentinel’s
financial distress was not as serious as it claimed, and that retrenchment was
not the actual reason for Remo’s dismissal.
Lastly, the CA pointed out that there was no showing that other less
drastic means had been tried and found insufficient or inadequate before Sentinel
resorted to retrenchment – a jurisprudential requisite in retrenchments.[8] It, therefore, opined that Sentinel did not
act in good faith in terminating Remo’s employment.
The Parties’ Position
Sentinel
mainly submits that it sufficiently proved that it was suffering from financial
losses to justify Remo’s retrenchment; thus, Remo’s dismissal from employment
was valid. It contends that the appellate court committed reversible error in:
(1) failing to consider its audited financial statements as basis for the
retrenchment; (2) ruling that the P5 million awarded by the Court in an
earlier case should not have been included in its losses; and (3) ruling that
the hiring of Marcelo Albay as a replacement for Remo was an indication that it
was not in serious financial distress.
In
his comment of December 15, 2009,[9]
Remo asks the Court to dismiss the petition “for utter lack of merit,” stating
that the CA committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed decision.
The Court’s Ruling
We resolve to deny the petition for lack of
merit.
We find, after considering the
records and the parties’ submissions, that although the CA focused more on the
retrenchment aspect of the disputed dismissal, it still committed no reversible
error in nullifying the NLRC resolution as it found grave abuse of discretion
in the labor tribunal’s gross misappreciation of the other adduced evidence.
Our examination of the records shows
that Sentinel terminated Remo’s employment not because it was suffering from
financial losses, but because “he had to be replaced as operations officer by
Marcelo Albay who has military training,” while Remo held an administrative
position that unfortunately was indispensable.[10] Sentinel concealed this real motive and
committed misrepresentation when, in its letter terminating Remo’s employment, it
stated that: “In view of the economic slump, it therefore necessitates the
downsizing of personnel to give way to a re-organization for a smaller staff. x x x Thank
you very much for giving your best service to the Agency for the past several
years.”[11]
The
labor tribunals glossed over this misrepresentation and failed to appreciate it
for what it was – an act of active bad faith that fatally tainted Remo’s
dismissal and rendered it illegal. We
note that the CA correctly noted this fatal flaw when it stated that, “If this was
so, then the termination of [Remo] should not have been attributed to
retrenchment.”[12] This finding totally renders any further
discussion of Sentinel’s submitted financial statements and its audit-related
issues unnecessary.
As
a rule, an illegal dismissal merits the penalty of reinstatement and the
payment of backwages from the time of dismissal up to actual reinstatement.[13]
Considering, however, the sensitive nature of Remo’s position, viewed in light
of what had transpired between the parties, we deem it appropriate to order the
payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, computed from the time of
Remo’s dismissal up to the time of finality of this Decision.[14] This is the same result that the CA decreed,
although not for the same reason and under a computation reckoned from the
finality of its own decision.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we AFFIRM the
challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
99550, with MODIFICATION with
respect to the exact basis for the finding of illegality and the computation of
separation pay of one month pay for
every year of service which should be from the date of the respondent’s
dismissal up to the finality of this Decision.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
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.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the retirement of former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 75-85; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican concurring.
[3]
[4]
[5] Rollo, pp. 299-304.
[6]
[7] G.R. No. 159966, entitled Sentinel
Integrated Services, Inc., et al. v. Efren Soliven, et al.
[8] Philippine
Carpet Association (PHILCA) v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 168719,
[9] Rollo, pp. 460-475.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Labor
Code, Article 279. Security of Tenure. –
x x
x An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.
[14] Esmalin
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67880,