SECOND DIVISION
|
NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC., and/or
TADASHI OTA, HOROSHI TAKADA, YUSUHIRO KAWATA, MR. NOBOYUSHI and JOEL REYES Petitioners,
- versus - MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177816 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,* BRION, PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August
3, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review
on certiorari[1]
filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure is the 23 November 2006 Decision rendered by the
Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 84781,[2] the decretal portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is
GRANTED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The Facts
From
its original business of providing building maintenance, it appears that
petitioner Nippon Housing Philippines, Inc. (NHPI) ventured into building
management, providing such services as handling of the lease of condominium
units, collection of dues and compliance with government regulatory
requirements. Having gained the Bay
Gardens Condominium Project (the Project) of the Bay Gardens Condominium
Corporation (BGCC) as its first and only building maintenance client, NHPI
hired respondent Maiah Angela Leynes (Leynes) on 26 March 2001 for the position
of Property Manager, with a salary of P40,000.00 per month. Tasked with surveying the requirements of the
government and the client for said project, the formulation of house rules and
regulations and the preparation of the annual operating and capital expenditure
budget, Leynes was also responsible for the hiring and deployment of manpower,
salary and position determination as well as the assignment of the schedules
and responsibilities of employees.[4]
On
6 February 2002, Leynes had a misunderstanding with Engr. Honesto Cantuba
(Cantuba), the Building Engineer assigned at the Project, regarding the
extension of the latters working hours.
Aside from instructing the security guards to bar Engr. Cantuba from
entry into the Project and to tell him to report to the NHPIs main office in
Makati, Leynes also sent a letter dated 8 February 2002 by telefax to Joel
Reyes (Reyes), NHPIs Human Resources Department (HRD) Head, apprising the
latter of said Building Engineers supposed insubordination and disrespectful
conduct.[5] With Engr. Cantubas submission of a reply in
turn accusing Leynes of pride, conceit and poor managerial skills,[6]
Hiroshi Takada (Takada), NHPIs Vice President, went on to issue the 12
February 2002 memorandum, attributing the incident to simple personal
differences and directing Leynes to allow Engr. Cantuba to report back for
work.[7]
Disappointed
with the foregoing management decision, Leynes submitted to Tadashi Ota, NHPIs
President, a letter dated 12 February 2002, asking for an emergency leave of
absence for the supposed purpose of coordinating with her lawyer regarding her
resignation letter.[8] While NHPI offered the Property Manager
position to Engr. Carlos Jose on 13 February 2002[9] as
a consequence Leynes signification of her intention to resign, it also appears
that Leynes sent another letter to Reyes by telefax on the same day, expressing
her intention to return to work on 15 February 2002 and to call off her planned
resignation upon the advice of her lawyer.[10] Having subsequently reported back for work
and resumed performance of her assigned functions, Leynes was constrained to
send out a 20 February 2002 written protest regarding the verbal information
she supposedly received from Reyes that a substitute has already been hired for
her position.[11] On 22 February 2002, Leynes was further
served by petitioner Yasuhiro Kawata and Noboyushi Hisada, NHPIs Senior Manager
and Janitorial Manager,[12]
with a letter and memorandum from Reyes, relieving her from her position and
directing her to report to NHPIs main office while she was on floating status.[13]
Aggrieved,
Leynes lost no time in filing against NHPI and its above-named officers the 22
February 2002 complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries, benefits,
damages and attorneys fees docketed before the arbitral level of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as NLRC-NCR South Sector Case No. 30-02-01119-02.[14]
Against Leynes claim that her being relieved from her position without just
cause and replacement by one Carlos Jose amounted to an illegal dismissal from
employment,[15] NHPI
and its officers asserted that the managements exercise of the prerogative to
put an employee on floating status for a period not exceeding six months was
justified in view of her threatened resignation from her position and BGCCs
request for her replacement.[16] During the pendency of the case, however,
Reyes eventually served the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)[17]
and Leynes with the 8 August 2002 notice terminating her services effective 22
August 2002, on the ground of redundancy or lack of a posting commensurate to
her position at the Project.[18] Leynes was offered by NHPI the sum of P28,188.16
representing her unpaid wages, proportionate 13th month pay, tax
refund and service incentive leave pay (SILP).
On
14 January 2003, Labor Arbiter Manuel Manansala rendered a decision, finding
that NHPIs act of putting Leynes on floating status was equivalent to
termination from employment without just cause and compliance with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.
Likewise finding that NHPIs officers acted with bad faith in effecting
Leynes termination,[19]
the Labor Arbiter disposed of the case in the following wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring respondent Nippon Housing
Philippines, Inc. (NHPI) guilty of illegal dismissal for the reasons
above-discussed. Consequently, the
aforenamed respondent is hereby directed to reinstate complainant Maiah Angela
Leynes to her former position as Property Manager without loss of seniority
rights and with full backwages from the time of her unjust dismissal up to the
time of her actual reinstatement. The
backwages due to complainant Leynes is initially computed at P471,844.87
x x x subject to the finality of this Decision.
Be that as
it may, on account of strained relationship between the parties brought about
by the institution of the instant case/complaint plus the fact that complainant
Leynes occupied a managerial position, it is better for the parties to
be separated. Thus, in lieu of
reinstatement, respondent NHPI is hereby directed to pay complainant Leynes the
sum of P80,000.00 representing the latters initial separation
pay subject to the finality of this Decision x x x.
2. Declaring respondent NHPI and individual
respondents Tadashi Ota (President), Hirochi Takada (Vice President for
Finance), Yasuhiro Kawata (Senior Manager), Noboyushi [Hisada] (Janitorial Manager),
and Joel Reyes (HRD Manager) guilty of evident bad faith in effecting the
dismissal of complainant Leynes from the service. Consequently, the aforenamed respondents are
hereby directed to pay, jointly and severally, complainant Leynes the sum of P20,000.00
for moral damages and the sum of P20,000.00 for exemplary damages;
3.
Directing respondent NHPI to pay complainant Leynes the total sum of P56,888.44
representing her unpaid salary, proportionate 13th month pay, and
proportionate service incentive leave pay x x x
4. Directing the aforenamed respondent NHPI to pay complainant Leynes ten (10%) percent attorneys fees based on the total monetary award for having been forced to prosecute and/or litigate the instant case/complaint by hiring the services of legal counsel.
5. Dismissing the other mon[e]y claims and/or charges of complainant Leynes for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[20]
On
appeal, the foregoing decision was reversed and set aside in the 30 September
2003 decision rendered by the NLRC in NLRC NCR CA No. 035229. In ordering the dismissal of the complaint
for lack of merit, the NLRC ruled that NHPIs placement of Leynes on floating
status was necessitated by the clients contractually guaranteed right to
request for her relief.[21] With Leynes elevation of the case to the CA
on a Rule 65 petition for certiorari,[22]
the NLRCs decision was, however, reversed and set aside in the herein assailed
23 November 2006 decision, upon the following findings and conclusions: (a)
absent showing that there was a bona fide
suspension of NHPIs business operations, Leynes relief from her position
even though requested by the client was tantamount to a constructive
dismissal; (b) the bad faith of NHPI and its officers is evident from the
hiring of Engr. Jose as Leynes replacement on 13 February 2002 or prior to her
being relieved from her position on 22 February 2002; and, (c) the failure of
NHPI and its officers to prove a just cause for Leynes termination, the redundancy
of her services and their compliance with the requirements of due process
renders them liable for illegal dismissal.[23]
The
motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision filed by NHPI and its
officers[24] was
denied for lack of merit in the CAs 8 May 2007 resolution, hence, this
petition.[25]
The Issues
Petitioners
NHPI and Kawata urge the grant of their petition on the following grounds, to
wit:
I. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT PETITIONERS DECISION TO PLACE RESPONDENT
ON FLOATING STATUS IS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL IS CONTRARY TO LAW
AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE.
II. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECLARATION THAT NHPIS DECISION TO REDUNDATE
RESPONDENT IS UNJUSTIFIED, IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE.[26]
The Courts Ruling
We
find the petition impressed with merit.
Petitioners
argue that the CA erred in finding that Leynes was constructively dismissed
when she was placed on floating status prior to her termination from employment
on the ground of redundancy. Maintaining
that the employees right to security of tenure does not give him a vested
right thereto as would deprive the employer of its prerogative to change his
assignment or transfer him to where he will be most useful, petitioners call
our attention to the supposed fact that Leynes was unacceptable to BGCC which
had a contractually guaranteed right to ask for her relief. Rather than outrightly terminating Leynes
employment as a consequence of her threats to resign from her position,
moreover, petitioners claim that she was validly placed on floating status
pursuant to Article 286 of the Labor Code
of the Philippines which provides as follows:
Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.
Although the CA correctly found that
the record is bereft of any showing that Leynes was unacceptable to BGCC, the
evidence the parties adduced a quo
clearly indicates that petitioners were not in bad faith when they placed the
former under floating status. Disgruntled by NHPIs countermanding of her
decision to bar Engr. Cantuba from the Project, Leynes twice signified her
intention to resign from her position to Ota on 12 February 2002. Upon receiving the copy of the memorandum
issued for Engr. Cantubas return to work, Leynes inscribed thereon the
following handwritten note addressed to Ota, Good Morning! Im sorry but I would like to report to you my plan of
resigning as your Prop. Manager. Thank You.[27] In her application letter for an immediate
emergency leave,[28] Leynes
also distinctly expressed her dissatisfaction over NHPIs resolution of her
dispute with Engr. Cantuba and announced her plan of coordinating with her
lawyer regarding her resignation letter, to wit:
This is in line with
the Management decision re: Return to work order of Mr. Honesto Cantuba at
Mr. Ota, I have been
working with NHPI, as your Building Property Manager, for almost a year
now. I had exerted all my effort to
set-up the Property Management, experienced each and every pain and
sacrifice[d] everything before we were able to get the
Given your decision, I am respecting this. The most painful thing for me is that the management did not value my effort for what I have done to the Company.
I am therefore submitting my letter for emergency leave of absence starting today, while I am still coordinating with my Lawyer re: my resignation letter.
Thank you for your support.[29]
In view of
the sensitive nature of Leynes position and the critical stage of the
Projects business development, NHPI was constrained to relay the situation to
BGCC which, in turn, requested the immediate adoption of remedial measures from
Takada, including the appointment of a new Property Manager for the
Project. Upon BGCCs recommendation,[30]
NHPI consequently hired Engr. Jose on 13 February 2002 as Leynes replacement.[31] Far from being the indication of bad faith
the CA construed the same to be, these factual antecedents suggest that NHPIs
immediate hiring of Engr. Jose as the new Property Manager for the Project was
brought about by Leynes own rash announcement of her intention to resign from
her position. Although she subsequently
changed her mind and sent Reyes a letter by telefax on 13 February 2002
announcing the reconsideration of her planned resignation and her intention to
return to work on 15 February 2002,[32]
Leynes evidently had only herself to blame for precipitately setting in motion
the events which led to NHPIs hiring of her own replacement.
Acting on
Leynes 20 February 2002 letter protesting against the hiring of her
replacement and reiterating her lack of intention to resign from her position,[33]
the record, moreover, shows that NHPI simply placed her on floating status
until such time that another project could be secured for her.[34] Traditionally invoked by security agencies
when guards are temporarily sidelined from duty while waiting to be transferred
or assigned to a new post or client,[35]
Article 286 of the Labor Code has
been applied to other industries when, as a consequence of the bona fide suspension of the operation of
a business or undertaking, an employer is constrained to put employees on
floating status for a period not exceeding six months.[36] In brushing aside respondents reliance on
said provision to justify the act of putting Leynes on floating status, the CA
ruled that no evidence was adduced to show that there was a bona fide suspension of NHPIs
business. What said court clearly
overlooked, however, is the fact that NHPI had belatedly ventured into building
management and, with BGCC as its only client in said undertaking, had no other
Property Manager position available to Leynes.
Considering
that even labor laws discourage intrusion in the employers judgment concerning
the conduct of their business, courts often decline to interfere in their
legitimate business decisions,[37] absent
showing of illegality, bad faith or arbitrariness. Indeed, the right of employees to security of
tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of
depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer
them.[38] The record shows that Leynes filed the
complaint for actual illegal dismissal from which the case originated on 22
February 2002 or immediately upon being placed on floating status as a
consequence of NHPIs hiring of a new Property Manager for the Project. The
rule is settled, however, that "off-detailing" is not equivalent to
dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time
and that it is only when such a "floating status" lasts for more than
six months that the employee may be considered to have been constructively
dismissed.[39] A
complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-month
and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as
prematurely filed.[40]
Viewed in the
light of the foregoing factual antecedents, we find that the CA reversibly
erred in holding petitioners liable for constructively dismissing Leynes from
her employment. There is said to be constructive
dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the
part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no
choice but to forego continued employment.[41]
Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of
work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[42]
Stated otherwise, it is a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.[43] In constructive
dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of
proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for
valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.[44] To
our mind, respondents have more than amply discharged this burden with proof of
the circumstances surrounding Engr. Carlos employment as Property Manager for
the Project and the consequent unavailability of a similar position for Leynes.
With no other
client aside from BGCC for the building management side of its business, we
find that NHPI was acting well within its prerogatives when it eventually
terminated Leynes services on the ground of redundancy. One of the recognized authorized causes for
the termination of employment, redundancy exists when the service capability of
the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of
the business enterprise.[45]
A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such
as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a
particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out
of service activity priorly undertaken by the business.[46] It
has been held that the exercise of business judgment to characterize an
employees service as no longer necessary or sustainable is not subject to
discretionary review where, as here, it is exercised there is no showing of
violation of the law or arbitrariness or malice on the part of the employer.[47] An employer has no legal obligation to keep
more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[48]
Considering
that Leynes was terminated from service upon an authorized cause, we find that
the CA likewise erred in faulting NHPI for supposedly failing to notify said
employee of the particular act or omission leveled against her and the ground/s
for which she was dismissed from employment.
Where dismissal, however, is for an authorized cause like redundancy,
the employer is, instead, required to serve a written notice of termination on
the worker concerned and the DOLE, at least one month from the intended date
thereof.[49] Here, NHPI specifically made Leynes
termination from service effective 22 August 2002, but only informed said
employee of the same on 8 August 2002[50]
and filed with the DOLE the required Establishment Termination Report only on
16 August 2002.[51] For its failure to comply strictly with the
30-day minimum requirement for said notice and effectively violating Leynes
right to due process, NHPI should be held liable to pay nominal damages in the
sum of P50,000.00. The penalty
should understandably be stiffer because the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of its management
prerogative.[52]
Having been validly terminated on the ground
of redundancy, Leynes is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month
salary for every year of service but not to the backwages adjudicated in her
favor by the Labor Arbiter.[53] Hired by NHPI on 26 March 2001 and terminated
effective 22 August 2002, Leynes is entitled to a separation pay in the sum of P40,000.00,
in addition to her last pay which, taking into consideration her proportionate
13th month pay, tax refund and SILP, was computed by NHPI at P28,188.16.[54] For lack of showing of bad faith, malice or
arbitrariness on the part of NHPI, there is, however, no justifiable ground for
an award of moral and exemplary damages.[55] For lack of factual or legal bases, we find
no cause to award attorneys fees in favor of Leynes. In the absence of the same showing insofar as
NHPIs corporate officers are concerned, neither is there cause to hold them
jointly and severally liable for the above-discussed monetary awards.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed 23 November
2006 Decision is, accordingly, REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered
ordering NHPI to pay Leynes the following sums: (a) P40,000.00 as
separation pay; (b) P28,188.16 representing her unpaid wages,
proportionate 13th month pay, tax refund and SILP; and (c) P50,000.00
by way of nominal damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro is designated as Acting Member of the Second Division as per Special Order No. 1006 dated 10 June 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-34, Petition.
[2] CA
rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 84781, CAs 23
November 2006 Decision, pp. 283-295.
[3]
[4] Record, NLRC NCR (South) Case No. 30-02-01119-02, Leynes
Position Paper, pp. 9-10.
[5] Leynes
8 February 2002 Letter, id. at 31-33.
[6] Cantubas
8 February 2002 Letter, id. at 34-36.
[7] Takadas
12 February 2002 Memorandum, id. at 38.
[8] Leynes
12 February 2002 Letter and Application for Leave, id. at 39-40.
[9] Carlos Joses 10 June 2002
Affidavit, id. at 262.
[10] Leynes
13 February 2002 Letter, id. at 18.
[11] Leynes
20 February 2002 Letter, id. at 19.
[12] Marlette Lagradillas 20 April 2002
Affidavit, id. at 62.
[13] Reyes
22 February 2002 Letter and Memorandum, id. at 41-42.
[14] Leynes 22 February 2002 Complaint,
id. at 1-2.
[15] Leynes
20 March 2002 Position Paper, id. at. 7-14.
[16] NHPIs
18 March 2002 Position Paper, id. at 23-29.
[17] DOLE
Establishment Termination Report, id. at 269.
[18] Reyes
8 August 2002 Letter, id. at 266.
[19] Labor
Arbiters 14 January 2003 Decision, id. at 298-316.
[20]
[21] NLRCs
30 September 2003 Decision, id. at 472-484.
[22] CA
rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 84781, Leynes
Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari, pp.
2-33.
[23] CAs 23 November 2006 Decision, id. at 283-295.
[24] NHPIs 19 December 2006 Motion for Reconsideration,
id. at 299-314.
[25] CAs
8 May 2007 Resolution, id. at 320-321.
[26] Rollo, p. 19
[27] Records,
NLRC-NCR South Sector Case No. 30-02-01119-02, p. 38.
[28]
[29]
[30] Chan
Say Lims 19 April 2002 Affidavit;
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Nationwide
Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Ronald P. Valderama, G.R. 186614, 23 February 2011.
[36] JPL
Marketing Promotions v. Court of Appeals, 501 Phil. 440, 449 (2005).
[37] Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Del
Villar, G.R. No. 163091, 6
October 2010, 632 SCRA 293, 312.
[38]
[39] Megaforce
Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, 21 July 2008, 559 SCRA 110, 117.
[40] Sasan,
Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4th Division, G.R. No. 176240, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA
670, 696.
[41] Soliman
Security Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 902, 910 (2002).
[42] Endico
v.
[43] Uniwide
Sales Warehouse Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
154503, 29 February 2008, 547 SCRA 220, 236.
[44] Philippine
Veterans Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 188882, 30 March 2010, 617
SCRA 204, 212.
[45] Edge
Apparel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121314, 19
February 1998, 286 SCRA 302, 311.
[46]
[47] DOLE
Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 417 Phil. 428, 440 (2001).
[48] Almodiel v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 100641, 14 June
1993, 223 SCRA 341, 348.
[49] Serrano
v. National Labor Relations Commission,
380 Phil. 416, 439 (2000).
[50] Record,
NLRC NCR (South) Case No. 30-02-01119-02, pp. 266-268.
[51]
[52] Smart
Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, G.R. Nos. 148132, 151079, 151372, 28 January
2008, 542 SCRA 434, 452 citing Jaka Food
Processing Corporation v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005, 454 SCRA
119, 125-126.
[53] Lowe, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 164813 & 174590, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 140, 154.
[54] Record, NLRC NCR (South) Case No. 30-02-01119-02, p. 267.
[55] Lambert
Pawnbrokers & Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira, G.R. No. 170464, 12 July 2010, 624 SCRA, 705, 720-721.