Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
THIRD DIVISION
|
ARMANDO ALILING, Petitioner, -
versus - JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL BERSAMIN,
JJ. F. LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE Promulgated: WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 185829 Present: VELASCO,
JR., J., Chairperson PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: April
25, 2012 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I
S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
The
Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 assails and seeks to set aside the July 3, 2008 Decision[1] and
December 15, 2008 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 101309, entitled Armando Aliling v. National Labor Relations
Commission, Wide Wide World Express Corporation, Jose B. Feliciano, Manuel F.
San Mateo III and Joseph R. Lariosa. The assailed issuances modified the Resolutions
dated May 31, 2007[3] and
August 31, 2007[4] rendered
by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No.
00-10-11166-2004, affirming the Decision dated April 25, 2006[5] of
the Labor Arbiter.
The Facts
Via
a letter dated June 2, 2004,[6] respondent
Wide Wide World Express Corporation (WWWEC) offered to employ petitioner Armando
Aliling (Aliling) as Account Executive
(Seafreight Sales), with the following compensation package: a monthly salary
of PhP 13,000, transportation allowance of PhP 3,000, clothing allowance of PhP 800, cost of
living allowance of PhP 500, each payable on a per month basis and a 14th
month pay depending on the profitability and availability of financial
resources of the company. The offer came with a six (6)-month probation period condition
with this express caveat: Performance
during [sic] probationary period shall be made as basis for confirmation to
Regular or Permanent Status.
On
June 11, 2004, Aliling and WWWEC inked an Employment
Contract[7] under the
following terms, among others:
Conversion to
regular status shall be determined on the basis of work performance; and
Employment
services may, at any time, be terminated for just cause or in accordance with
the standards defined at the time of engagement.[8]
Training then started. However, instead
of a Seafreight Sale assignment, WWWEC asked Aliling to handle Ground Express
(GX), a new company product launched on June 18, 2004 involving domestic cargo forwarding
service for
Barely a month after, Manuel F. San
Mateo III (
Armand,
My expectations is [sic] that GX Shuttles
should be 80% full by the 3rd week (August 5) after launch (July 15).
Pls. make that happen. It has been more than a month since you came in. I am
expecting sales to be pumping in by now. Thanks.
Nonong
Thereafter,
in a letter of September 25, 2004,[10] Joseph
R. Lariosa (Lariosa), Human Resources Manager of WWWEC, asked Aliling to report
to the Human Resources Department to explain his absence taken without leave
from September 20, 2004.
Aliling
responded two days later. He denied being absent on the days in question,
attaching to his reply-letter[11] a
copy of his timesheet[12] which
showed that he worked from September 20 to 24, 2004. Alilings explanation came
with a query regarding the withholding of his salary corresponding to September
11 to 25, 2004.
In
a separate letter dated September 27, 2004,[13] Aliling
wrote
Lariosas
response-letter of October 1, 2004,[15]
informed Aliling that his case was still
in the process of being evaluated. On October 6, 2004,[16]
Lariosa again wrote, this time to advise Aliling of the termination of his
services effective as of that date owing to his non-satisfactory performance during his probationary period. Records
show that Aliling, for the period indicated, was paid his outstanding salary
which consisted of:
PhP 4,988.18 (salary for the September 25,
2004 payroll)
1,987.28 (salary for 4 days in October 2004)
-------------
PhP 6,975.46 Total
Earlier,
however, or on October 4, 2004, Aliling filed a Complaint[17] for
illegal dismissal due to forced resignation, nonpayment of salaries as well as
damages with the NLRC against WWWEC. Appended to the complaint was Alilings
Affidavit dated November 12, 2004,[18] in
which he stated: 5. At the time of my
engagement, respondents did not make known to me the standards under which I
will qualify as a regular employee.
Refuting Alilings basic posture, WWWEC
stated in its Position Paper dated November 22, 2004[19]
that, in addition to the letter-offer and employment contract adverted to, WWWEC
and Aliling have signed a letter of appointment[20] on
June 11, 2004 containing the following terms of engagement:
Additionally, upon the effectivity of your probation, you and your immediate superior
are required to jointly define your objectives compared with the job
requirements of the position. Based on the pre-agreed objectives, your performance shall be reviewed on the
3rd month to assess your competence and work attitude. The 5th
month Performance Appraisal shall be the basis in elevating or confirming your
employment status from Probationary to Regular.
Failure to meet the job requirements during
the probation stage means that your services may be terminated without prior
notice and without recourse to separation pay.
WWWEC
also attached to its Position Paper a memo dated September 20, 2004[21] in
which San Mateo asked Aliling to explain why he should not be terminated for
failure to meet the expected job performance, considering that the load factor
for the GX Shuttles for the period July to September was only 0.18% as opposed
to the allegedly agreed upon load of 80% targeted for August 5, 2004. According
to WWWEC, Aliling, instead of explaining himself, simply submitted a resignation
letter.
In
a Reply-Affidavit dated December 13, 2004,[22]
Aliling denied having received a copy of
Issues
having been joined, the Labor Arbiter issued on April 25, 2006[23] a
Decision declaring Alilings termination as unjustified. In its pertinent
parts, the decision reads:
The
grounds upon which complainants dismissal was based did not conform not only
the standard but also the compliance required under Article 281 of the Labor
Code, Necessarily, complainants termination is not justified for failure to
comply with the mandate the law requires. Respondents should be ordered to pay salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the contract of employment and all other benefits amounting
to a total of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN PESOS (P35,811.00)
covering the period from October 6 to December 7, 2004, computed as follows:
Unexpired
Portion of the Contract:
Basic Salary P13,000.00
Transportation 3,000.00
Clothing Allowance 800.00
ECOLA 500.00
--------------
P17,300.00
10/06/04 12/07/04
P17,300.00 x 2.7 mos. = P35,811.00
Complainants
13th month pay proportionately for 2004 was not shown to have been
paid to complainant, respondent be made liable to him therefore computed at SIX
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO PESOS AND 50/100 (P6,532.50).
For
engaging the services of counsel to protect his interest, complainant is
likewise entitled to a 10% attorneys fees of the judgment amount. Such other
claims for lack of basis sufficient to support for their grant are unwarranted.
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent company to pay complainant
Armando Aliling the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN PESOS
(P35,811.00) representing his salaries and other benefits as discussed above.
Respondent
company is likewise ordered to pay said complainant the amount of TEN THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY SIX PESOS AND 85/100 ONLY (10.766.85) representing his
proportionate 13th month pay for 2004 plus 10% of the total judgment
as and by way of attorneys fees.
Other
claims are hereby denied for lack of merit. (Emphasis supplied.)
The
labor arbiter gave credence to Alilings allegation about not receiving and,
therefore, not bound by,
Both
parties appealed the above decision to the NLRC, which affirmed the Decision in toto in its Resolution dated May 31,
2007. The separate motions for reconsideration were also denied by the NLRC in
its Resolution dated August 31, 2007.
Therefrom,
Aliling went on certiorari to the CA, which eventually rendered the assailed Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of respondent (Third Division) National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATION/CLARIFICATION: Respondents Wide Wide World Express Corp. and its officers, Jose B. Feliciano, Manuel F. San Mateo III and Joseph R. Lariosa, are jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner Armando Aliling: (A) the sum of Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three & 50/100 (P42,333.50) as the total money judgment, (B) the sum of Four Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Three & 35/100 (P4,233.35) as attorneys fees, and (C) the additional sum equivalent to one-half (1/2) month of petitioners salary as separation pay.
SO ORDERED.[24] (Emphasis supplied.)
The
CA anchored its assailed action on the strength of the following premises: (a) respondents
failed to prove that Alilings dismal performance constituted gross and
habitual neglect necessary to justify his dismissal; (b) not having been
informed at the time of his engagement of the reasonable standards under which
he will qualify as a regular employee, Aliling was deemed to have been hired
from day one as a regular employee; and (c) the strained relationship existing between
the parties argues against the propriety of reinstatement.
Alilings
motion for reconsideration was rejected by the CA through the assailed Resolution
dated December 15, 2008.
Hence,
the instant petition.
The Issues
Aliling
raises the following issues for consideration:
A. The failure of the Court of Appeals to order reinstatement (despite its finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment) is contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence.
B. The failure of the Court of Appeals to award backwages (even if it did not order reinstatement) is contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence.
C. The failure of the Court of Appeals to award moral and exemplary damages (despite its finding that petitioner was dismissed to prevent the acquisition of his regular status) is contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence.[25]
In their Comment,[26]
respondents reiterated their position that WWWEC hired petitioner on a
probationary basis and fired him before he became a regular employee.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
Petitioner is a regular employee
On a procedural matter, petitioner Aliling
argues that WWWEC, not having appealed from the judgment of CA which declared
Aliling as a regular employee from the time he signed the employment contract,
is now precluded from questioning the appellate courts determination as to the
nature of his employment.
Petitioner errs. The Court has, when a case is on appeal, the
authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error if
their consideration is necessary in reaching a just conclusion of the
case. We said as much in Sociedad Europea de Financiacion, SA v.
Court of Appeals,[27] It
is axiomatic that an appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the entire
case open to review, and that this Court has the authority to review matters
not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.
The issue of whether or not petitioner
was, during the period material, a probationary or regular employee is of pivotal
import. Its resolution is doubtless necessary at arriving at a fair and just
disposition of the controversy.
The Labor Arbiter cryptically held in
his decision dated April 25, 2006 that:
Be that as it may, there appears no showing
that indeed the said September 20, 2004 Memorandum addressed to complainant was
received by him. Moreover, complainants tasked where he was assigned was a new
developed service. In this regard, it is noted:
Due process dictates that an employee be
apprised beforehand of the conditions of his employment and of the terms of
advancement therein. Precisely, implicit in Article 281 of the Labor Code is
the requirement that reasonable standards be previously made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement (Ibid, citing Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 132564, October 20, 1999).[28]
From our review, it appears that the labor
arbiter, and later the NLRC, considered Aliling a probationary employee despite
finding that he was not informed of the reasonable standards by which his probationary
employment was to be judged.
The CA, on the other hand, citing Cielo v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] ruled that petitioner was a regular
employee from the outset inasmuch as he was not informed of the standards by
which his probationary employment would be measured. The CA wrote:
Petitioner was regularized from the time of
the execution of the employment contract on June 11, 2004, although respondent
company had arbitrarily shortened his tenure. As pointed out, respondent company did not make known the
reasonable standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the
time of his engagement. Hence, he was
deemed to have been hired from day one as a regular employee.[30]
(Emphasis supplied.)
WWWEC, however, excepts on the argument
that it put Aliling on notice that he would be evaluated on the 3rd
and 5th months of his probationary employment. To WWWEC, its efforts
translate to sufficient compliance with the requirement that a probationary
worker be apprised of the reasonable standards for his regularization. WWWEC invokes
the ensuing holding in Alcira v. National
Labor Relations Commission[31] to
support its case:
Conversely, an employer is deemed to
substantially comply with the rule on notification of standards if he apprises
the employee that he will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a
particular date after his hiring. We agree with the labor arbiter when he ruled
that:
In the instant case, petitioner cannot
successfully say that he was never informed by private respondent of the
standards that he must satisfy in order to be converted into regular status. This rans (sic) counter to the agreement between
the parties that after five months of service the petitioners performance
would be evaluated. It is only but natural that the evaluation should be
made vis--vis the performance standards for the job. Private respondent
Trifona Mamaradlo speaks of such standard in her affidavit referring to the
fact that petitioner did not perform well in his assigned work and his attitude
was below par compared to the companys standard required of him. (Emphasis
supplied.)
WWWECs contention is untenable.
Alcira
is cast under a different factual setting. There, the labor arbiter, the NLRC, the CA, and
even finally this Court were one in their findings that the employee concerned
knew, having been duly informed during his engagement, of the standards for
becoming a regular employee. This is in stark contrast to the instant case
where the element of being informed of the regularizing standards does not
obtain. As such, Alcira cannot be
made to apply to the instant case.
To note, the June 2, 2004 letter-offer
itself states that the regularization standards or the performance norms to be used
are still to be agreed upon by Aliling
and his supervisor. WWWEC has failed to prove that an agreement as regards
thereto has been reached. Clearly then, there were actually no performance standards
to speak of. And lest it be overlooked, Aliling was assigned to GX trucking
sales, an activity entirely different to the Seafreight Sales he was originally
hired and trained for. Thus, at the time of his engagement, the standards relative
to his assignment with GX sales could not have plausibly been communicated to
him as he was under Seafreight Sales. Even for this reason alone, the
conclusion reached in Alcira is of
little relevant to the instant case.
Based on the facts established in
this case in light of extant jurisprudence, the CAs holding as to the kind of
employment petitioner enjoyed is correct. So was the NLRC ruling, affirmatory
of that of the labor arbiter. In the final analysis, one common thread runs
through the holding of the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, i.e., petitioner
Aliling, albeit hired from managements standpoint as a probationary employee,
was deemed a regular employee by force of the following self-explanatory
provisions:
Article 281 of the Labor Code
ART. 281. Probationary
employment. - Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from
the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a
just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular
employee. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 6(d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the
Labor Code
Sec. 6. Probationary
employment. There is probationary employment where the employee, upon his
engagement, is made to undergo a trial period where the employee determines his
fitness to qualify for regular employment, based on reasonable standards made
known to him at the time of engagement.
Probationary employment shall be governed by
the following rules:
x x x x
(d)
In all cases of probationary
employment, the employer shall make
known to the employee the standards
under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his
engagement. Where no standards are made
known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. (Emphasis supplied.)
To repeat, the labor arbiter, NLRC
and the CA are agreed, on the basis of documentary evidence adduced, that respondent
WWWEC did not inform petitioner Aliling of the reasonable standards by which
his probation would be measured against at the time of his engagement. The
Court is loathed to interfere with this factual determination. As We have held:
Settled is the rule that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[32]
The more recent Peafrancia Tours and Travel Transport, Inc., v. Sarmiento[33] has
reaffirmed the above ruling, to wit:
Finally, the CA affirmed the ruling of the
NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long-established is
the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies x x x are accorded
respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon
and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon this Court and will
not normally be disturbed. Though
this doctrine is not without exceptions, the Court finds that none are
applicable to the present case.
WWWEC also cannot validly argue that
the factual findings being assailed are
not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts. Its very own letter-offer of employment argues
against its above posture. Excerpts of the letter-offer:
Additionally, upon the effectivity of your
probation, you and your immediate
superior are required to jointly define your objectives compared with the job
requirements of the position. Based on the pre-agreed objectives, your
performance shall be reviewed on the 3rd month to assess your competence and
work attitude. The 5th month Performance Appraisal shall be the basis in
elevating or confirming your employment status from Probationary to Regular.
Failure to meet the job requirements during
the probation stage means that your services may be terminated without prior
notice and without recourse to separation pay. (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondents further allege that
Petitioner was illegally dismissed
To justify fully the dismissal of an
employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just
cause and that the employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal. As a
complementary principle, the employer has the onus of proving with clear,
accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence the validity of the dismissal.[34]
WWWEC had failed to discharge its
twin burden in the instant case.
First off, the attendant
circumstances in the instant case aptly show that the issue of petitioners alleged
failure to achieve his quota, as a ground for terminating employment, strikes
the Court as a mere afterthought on the part of WWWEC. Consider: Lariosas
letter of September 25, 2004 already betrayed managements intention to dismiss
the petitioner for alleged unauthorized absences. Aliling was in fact made to
explain and he did so satisfactorily. But, lo and behold, WWWEC nonetheless
proceeded with its plan to dismiss the petitioner for non-satisfactory
performance, although the corresponding termination letter dated October 6,
2004 did not even specifically state Alilings non-satisfactory performance,
or that Alilings termination was by reason of his failure to achieve his set
quota.
What WWWEC considered as the evidence
purportedly showing it gave Aliling the chance to explain his inability to
reach his quota was a purported September 20, 2004 memo of
At any event, assuming for argument that
the petitioner indeed failed to achieve his sales quota, his termination from
employment on that ground would still be unjustified.
Article 282 of the Labor Code considers any of
the following acts or omission on the part of the employee as just cause or ground
for terminating employment:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;
(b)
Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee
of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e)
Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis supplied)
In Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35]
the Court considered inefficiency as an analogous just cause for termination of
employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code:
We
cannot but agree with PEPSI that gross inefficiency falls within the purview
of other causes analogous to the foregoing, this constitutes, therefore, just
cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. One is analogous to another if it is
susceptible of comparison with the latter either in general or in some specific
detail; or has a close relationship with the latter. Gross inefficiency is
closely related to gross neglect, for both involve specific acts of omission
on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his
business. In Buiser vs. Leogardo,
this Court ruled that failure to observed prescribed standards to inefficiency
may constitute just cause for dismissal. (Emphasis supplied.)
It did so anew in Leonardo v. National Labor Relations
Commission[36] on the following rationale:
An employer is entitled to impose
productivity standards for its workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be
visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. Thus,
[t]he
practice of a company in laying off workers because they failed to make the
work quota has been recognized in this jurisdiction. (Philippine American Embroideries vs.
Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634, 639). In the case at bar, the
petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them
constitute a just cause of their dismissal, regardless of the permanent or
probationary status of their employment. Failure
to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work
assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal.
Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work
quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so
long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employer's interest. (Emphasis supplied.)
In fine, an employees failure to
meet sales or work quotas falls under the concept of gross inefficiency, which
in turn is analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a just cause for
dismissal under Article 282 of the Code. However, in order for the quota
imposed to be considered a valid productivity standard and thereby validate a
dismissal, managements prerogative of fixing the quota must be exercised in
good faith for the advancement of its interest. The duty to prove good faith,
however, rests with WWWEC as part of its burden to show that the dismissal was for
a just cause. WWWEC must show that such quota was imposed in good faith. This
WWWEC failed to do, perceptibly because it could not. The fact of the matter is
that the alleged imposition of the quota was a desperate attempt to lend a semblance
of validity to Alilings illegal dismissal. It must be stressed that even WWWECs
sales manager, Eve Amador (Amador), in an internal e-mail to
Could not quantify level of performance as he
as was tasked to handle a new product (GX). Revenue report is not yet
administered by IT on a month-to-month basis. Moreover, this in a way is an
experimental activity. Practically you have a close monitoring with Armand with
regards to his performance. Your assessment of him would be more accurate.
Being an experimental activity and
having been launched for the first time, the sales of GX services could not be reasonably
quantified. This would explain why Amador implied in her email that other bases
besides sales figures will be used to determine Alilings performance. And yet,
despite such a neutral observation, Aliling was still dismissed for his dismal
sales of GX services. In any event, WWWEC failed to demonstrate the reasonableness
and the bona fides on the quota imposition.
Employees must be reminded that while
probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they enjoy the constitutional
protection of security of tenure. They can only be terminated for cause or when
they otherwise fail to meet the reasonable standards made known to them by the
employer at the time of their engagement.[37]
Respondent WWWEC miserably failed to prove the termination of petitioner was
for a just cause nor was there substantial evidence to demonstrate the
standards were made known to the latter at the time of his engagement. Hence,
petitioners right to security of tenure was breached.
Alilings right to procedural due process was violated
As earlier stated, to effect a legal dismissal,
the employer must show not only a valid ground therefor, but also that procedural
due process has properly been observed. When the Labor Code speaks of
procedural due process, the reference is usually to the two (2)-written notice
rule envisaged in Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, which provides:
Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of
termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed.
(a) 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;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires,
is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut
the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice [of] termination served
on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstance,
grounds have been established to justify his termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices
shall be served on the employees last known address.
MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC[38] tersely
described the mechanics of what may be considered a two-part due process requirement which includes the
two-notice rule, x x x one, of the intention to dismiss, indicating therein
his acts or omissions complained against, and two, notice of the decision to
dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the charges against him, in
between such notices.
King of
Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac[39] expounded
on this procedural requirement in this manner:
(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. Reasonable opportunity under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five calendar days from receipt of the notice xxxx Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 288 [of the Labor Code] is being charged against the employees
(2) After serving the first notice, the employees should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice x x x.
(3) After determining that termination is justified, the employer shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all the circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment. (Emphasis in the original.)
Here, the first and second notice requirements
have not been properly observed, thus tainting petitioners dismissal with
illegality.
The adverted memo dated September 20,
2004 of WWWEC supposedly informing Aliling of the likelihood of his termination
and directing him to account for his failure to meet the expected job
performance would have had constituted the charge sheet, sufficient to answer
for the first notice requirement, but for the fact that there is no proof such
letter had been sent to and received by him. In fact, in his December 13, 2004 Complainants
Reply Affidavit, Aliling goes on to tag such letter/memorandum as
fabrication. WWWEC did not adduce proof to show that a copy of the letter was
duly served upon Aliling. Clearly enough, WWWEC did not comply with the first
notice requirement.
Neither was there compliance with the
imperatives of a hearing or conference. The Court need not dwell at length on
this particular breach of the due procedural requirement. Suffice it to point
out that the record is devoid of any showing of a hearing or conference having
been conducted. On the contrary, in its October 1, 2004 letter to Aliling, or
barely five (5) days after it served the notice of termination, WWWEC acknowledged
that it was still evaluating his case. And the written notice of termination
itself did not indicate all the circumstances involving the charge to justify
severance of employment.
Aliling is entitled to backwages
and separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement
As may be noted, the CA found Alilings
dismissal as having been illegally effected, but nonetheless concluded that his
employment ceased at the end of the probationary period. Thus, the appellate
court merely affirmed the monetary award made by the NLRC, which consisted of
the payment of that amount corresponding to the unserved portion of the
contract of employment.
The case disposition on the award is erroneous.
As earlier explained, Aliling cannot
be rightfully considered as a mere probationary employee. Accordingly, the
probationary period set in the contract of employment dated June 11, 2004 was
of no moment. In net effect, as of that
date June 11, 2004, Aliling became part of the WWWEC organization as a regular
employee of the company without a fixed term of employment. Thus, he is
entitled to backwages reckoned from the time he was illegally dismissed on
October 6, 2004, with a PhP 17,300.00 monthly salary, until the finality of
this Decision. This disposition hews with the Courts ensuing holding in Javellana v. Belen:[40]
Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic Act 6715 instructs:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly,
the law intends the award of backwages and similar benefits to accumulate past
the date of the Labor Arbiters decision until the dismissed employee is
actually reinstated. But if, as in this case, reinstatement is no longer
possible, this Court has consistently
ruled that backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until
the date the decision becomes final. (Emphasis supplied.)
Additionally, Aliling is entitled to separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement on the ground of strained relationship.
In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] the
Court ruled:
The basis for the payment of backwages is
different from that for the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted
where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations
between the employee and the employer. Backwages represent compensation that
should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal.
The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the employee's
service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee
was unlawfully prevented from working.
As to how both awards should be computed, Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases
Philippines instructs:
[T]he award of separation pay is inconsistent
with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal, for under Article 279 of
the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, an employee who is dismissed
without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and
reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof:
Thus,
an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and
reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and
distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of
strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is
granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either
reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer
viable, and backwages.
The normal consequences of respondents
illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights,
and payment of backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld up to
the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an
option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of
service should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of separation pay is
in addition to payment of backwages. x x x
Velasco
v. National Labor Relations Commission emphasizes:
The accepted doctrine is that separation pay
may avail in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer practical or
in the best interest of the parties. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
may likewise be awarded if the employee decides not to be reinstated. (emphasis
in the original; italics supplied)
Under
the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered
an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer
desirable or viable. On one
hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly
oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from
the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it
could no longer trust.
Strained
relations must be demonstrated as a fact, however, to be adequately supported by evidence substantial evidence
to show that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed
strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.
In
the present case, the Labor Arbiter found that actual animosity existed between
petitioner Azul and respondent as a result of the filing of the illegal
dismissal case. Such finding, especially when affirmed by the appellate court
as in the case at bar, is binding upon the Court, consistent with the
prevailing rules that this Court will not try facts anew and that findings of
facts of quasi-judicial bodies are accorded great respect, even finality. (Emphasis supplied.)
As the CA correctly observed, To
reinstate petitioner [Aliling] would only create an atmosphere of antagonism
and distrust, more so that he had only a short stint with respondent company.[42] The
Court need not belabor the fact that the patent animosity that had developed
between employer and employee generated what may be considered as the arbitrary
dismissal of the petitioner.
Following the pronouncements of this
Court Sagales v. Rustans Commercial
Corporation,[43] the
computation of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement includes the period for
which backwages were awarded:
Thus, in lieu of reinstatement, it is but
proper to award petitioner separation
pay computed at one-month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months
considered as one whole year. In the computation of separation pay, the period
where backwages are awarded must be included. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, Aliling is entitled to both
backwages and separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement) in the amount of one
(1) months salary for every year of service, that is, from June 11, 2004 (date
of employment contract) until the finality of this decision with a fraction of
a year of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year. As
determined by the labor arbiter, the basis for the computation of backwages and
separation pay will be Alilings monthly salary at PhP 17,300.
Finally, Aliling is entitled to an
award of PhP 30,000 as nominal damages in consonance with prevailing
jurisprudence[44] for
violation of due process.
Petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages
In Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete,[45]
the Court expounded on the requisite elements for a litigants entitlement to
moral damages, thus:
Moral damages are awarded if the following
elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant;
(2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or
omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. In addition, the person claiming moral damages
must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the
law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered
sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the
actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have
been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive. Bad faith, under the law, does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or
interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In alleging that WWWEC acted in bad
faith, Aliling has the burden of proof to present evidence in support of his
claim, as ruled in Culili v. Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.:[46]
According to jurisprudence, basic is the
principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty
to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of ETPI, Culili has
the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation
of unfair labor practice. Culili failed to discharge this burden and his bare
allegations deserve no credit.
This was reiterated in United Claimants Association of NEA (UNICAN)
v. National Electrification Administration (NEA),[47]
in this wise:
It must be noted that the burden of proving
bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As the Court ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc.,
According to jurisprudence, basic is the principle that good faith is
presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.
Moreover, in Spouses Palada v. Solidbank
Corporation, the Court stated, Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Similarly, Aliling has failed to
overcome such burden to prove bad faith on the part of WWWEC. Aliling has not
presented any clear and convincing evidence to show bad faith. The fact that he
was illegally dismissed is insufficient to prove bad faith. Thus, the CA
correctly ruled that [t]here was no sufficient showing of bad faith or abuse
of management prerogatives in the personal action taken against petitioner.[48]
In Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry
Corporation v. Binamira,[49]
the Court ruled:
A dismissal may be contrary to law but by
itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee
to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified
solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without
authorized cause and due process.
The officers of WWWEC cannot be held
jointly and severally liable with the
company
The CA held the president of WWWEC,
Jose B. Feliciano,
Such ruling has been reversed by the
Court in Alba v. Yupangco,[52]
where the Court ruled:
By Order of September 5, 2007, the Labor
Arbiter denied respondents motion to quash the 3rd alias writ. Brushing aside
respondents contention that his liability is merely joint, the Labor Arbiter
ruled:
Such issue regarding the personal liability
of the officers of a corporation for the payment of wages and money claims to
its employees, as in the instant case, has long been resolved by the Supreme
Court in a long list of cases [A.C.
Ransom Labor Union-CLU vs. NLRC (142 SCRA 269) and reiterated in the cases
of Chua vs. NLRC (182 SCRA 353), Gudez vs. NLRC (183 SCRA 644)]. In the
aforementioned cases, the Supreme Court has expressly held that the
irresponsible officer of the corporation (e.g. President) is liable for the
corporations obligations to its workers. Thus, respondent Yupangco, being the
president of the respondent YL Land and Ultra Motors Corp., is properly jointly
and severally liable with the defendant corporations for the labor claims of
Complainants Alba and De Guzman. x x x
x x x x
As reflected above, the Labor Arbiter held
that respondents liability is solidary.
There is solidary liability when the
obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of
the obligation so requires. MAM Realty
Development Corporation v. NLRC, on solidary liability of corporate
officers in labor disputes, enlightens:
x x x A corporation being a juridical entity,
may act only through its directors, officers and employees. Obligations
incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents are not theirs but the direct
accountabilities of the corporation they represent. True solidary liabilities
may at times be incurred but only when exceptional circumstances warrant such
as, generally, in the following cases:
1. When directors and trustees or, in
appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation:
(a) vote for or assent to patently unlawful
acts of the corporation;
(b) act in bad faith or with gross negligence
in directing the corporate affairs;
x x x x
In labor cases, for instance, the Court has
held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation
for the termination of employment of employees done with malice or in bad
faith.
A review of the facts of the case
does not reveal ample and satisfactory proof that respondent officers of WWEC
acted in bad faith or with malice in effecting the termination of petitioner
Aliling. Even assuming arguendo that
the actions of WWWEC are ill-conceived and erroneous, respondent officers
cannot be held jointly and solidarily with it. Hence, the ruling on the joint and solidary
liability of individual respondents must be recalled.
Aliling is entitled to Attorneys Fees and Legal Interest
Petitioner Aliling is also entitled to
attorneys fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award,
having been forced to litigate in order to seek redress of his grievances,
pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code and following our ruling in Exodus
International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho,[53] to wit:
In Rutaquio
v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court held that:
It is settled that in actions for recovery of
wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to
protect his rights and interest, the award of attorneys fees is legally and
morally justifiable.
In Producers
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals this Court ruled that:
Attorneys fees may be awarded when a party
is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason
of an unjustified act of the other party.
While in Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation,[54]
the Court specifically ruled:
However, the award of attorneys fee is
warranted pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. Ten (10%) percent of the
total award is usually the reasonable amount of attorneys fees awarded. It is
settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses
to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorneys fees is legally and
morally justifiable.
Finally, legal interest shall be
imposed on the monetary awards herein granted at the rate of 6% per annum from October
6, 2004 (date of termination) until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The July
3, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101309 is hereby MODIFIED to read:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of respondent (Third Division) National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATION/CLARIFICATION: Respondent Wide Wide World Express Corp. is liable to pay Armando Aliling the following: (a) backwages reckoned from October 6, 2004 up to the finality of this Decision based on a salary of PhP 17,300 a month, with interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount from October 6, 2004 until fully paid; (b) the additional sum equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year based on the period from June 11, 2004 (date of employment contract) until the finality of this Decision, as separation pay; (c) PhP 30,000 as nominal damages; and (d) Attorneys Fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
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
Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 22-31. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Normandie B. Pizarro.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 38-48.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Letter dated Sept. 27, 2004; id. at 75.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[25]
[26]
[27] G.R. No. 75787, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 105, 114; citing Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Brion, G.R. No. 157696-97, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 87, 99; Miguel v. Court of Appeals, No. L-20274, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 760, 767-768; Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. v. Philippine International Co., Inc., No. L-151, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 143, 148.
[28] CA rollo, p. 142.
[29] G.R. No. 78693, January 28, 1991, 193 SCRA 410.
[30] Rollo, p. 28.
[31] G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 508, 514.
[32] German Machineries Corporation v. Endaya, G.R. No. 156810, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 329, 340.
[33] G.R. No. 178397, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 279, 289-290.
[34] Dacuital v. L. M. Camus Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 702, 715.
[35] G.R. No. 118434, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 485, 496-497.
[36] G.R. No. 125303 June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 589, 598-599.
[37] Agoy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112096, January 30, 1996, 252 SCRA 588, 595.
[38]
G.R. No. 114313, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA 664, 677.
[39]
G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116, 125-26.
[40] G.R. No. 181913, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 342, 350-351.
[41] G.R. No. 187200, May 05, 2010, 620 SCRA 283, 288-290.
[42] CA rollo, p. 248.
[43] G.R. No. 166554, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 89, 106; citing Farrol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133259, February 10, 2000, 325 SCRA 331, citing in turn Jardine Davies, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 76272, July 28, 1999, 311 SCRA 289, Guatson International Travel and Tours, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 100322, March 9, 1994, 230 SCRA 815.
[44] Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 164860, February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 329, 339.
[45] G.R.
No. 177795,
[46] G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 338, 361.
[47] G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012.
[48] Rollo, p. 29.
[49] G.R. No. 170464, July 12, 2010, 624 SCRA 705, 720.
[50] G.R. No. 146267, February 17, 2003, 397 SCRA 607.
[51] G.R. No. 69494, June 10, 1986, 142 SCRA 269.
[52] G.R. No. 188233, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 503, 506-508.
[53] G.R. No. 166109, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 76, 91.
[54] Supra note 49, at 721.