Aplicador v. Moriroku Philippines, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233133. October 17, 2018.]

JOSEPH H. APLICADOR, petitioner,vs. MORIROKU PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 October 2018 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233133 — JOSEPH H. APLICADOR, petitioner, versusMORIROKU PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 11, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated June 28, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139259 which affirmed the Decision 4 dated July 17, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 03-000839-14.

Facts

Joseph H. Aplicador (petitioner) was hired by Moriroku Philippines, Inc., (respondent) as Logistics Driver in August 2004. Petitioner alleges that he was illegally dismissed from work by respondent for being the president of the company union, Moriroku Philippines, Inc. Workers Union. 5 He was served three notices to explain (NTEs) leading to his termination, as summarized by the NLRC:

1. [NTE] dated 23 July 2013, for failure of complainant Aplicador to report the loss of the company-issued cellphone for which he was meted the 15-day suspension despite his explanation that he was willing to replace said cellphone which was damaged when his son "accidentally put it in the drum";

2. NTE, dated 23 August 2013, for his failure to finish the inventory of parts at the company's warehouse and for listening [to] music through his cellphone during work hours as reported by Mr. Antonio Mariano, the warehouse supervisor. In his reply, complainant explained that Mr. Reynante Dichoso, Sr., Lead Engineer, instructed him to prioritize the preparation for the delivery of parts while he denied that he was listening to the music [with] his cellphone as he used it only as a calculator; and

3. NTE, dated 03 September 2013, for "attempting to inflict bodily injury" and uttering "Putang ina mo, kita tayo sa labas mamaya" against Mr. Antonio Mariano while he was also overheard by Mr. Reynante Dichoso as saying: "napakademonyo si Tonyo," also referring to Mr. Mariano, and for illegal entry in the workplace while he was under suspension. In his explanation, complainant denied having challenged Mr. Marian, his immediate superior, to a fist fight during their telephone conversation and that he denied also having uttered "napakademonyo si Tonyo." With respect to the alleged illegal entry, he explained that he was allowed by the Finance and Administrative Manager to get his things in the warehouse before serving his suspension.

In view of the abovementioned infractions, complainant Aplicador was terminated from his job by virtue of the Notice of Termination, dated 17 October 2013, issued to him by respondents. 6

In a Decision 7 dated February 24, 2014, the Labor Arbiter (LA) held that petitioner's dismissal was illegal. The LA reasoned that petitioner had already been disciplined with the penalty of suspension, so that the same infractions cannot be used as a ground for the termination of petitioner's employment as he had already been penalized for the same offenses before. The LA posited that the penalty of dismissal was also too harsh a penalty, taking into consideration petitioner's length of service and the fact that he had no derogatory record prior to 2013. The LA ordered the reinstatement of petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages. 8

On appeal to the NLRC, the LA Decision was overturned. In its Decision 9 dated July 17, 2014, the NLRC ruled that petitioner's dismissal was valid. Petitioner's third offense — challenging his immediate superior to a fistfight — is serious misconduct, for which the penalty of termination from employment is appropriate. 10

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA which affirmed the NLRC's Decision. In its Decision, 11 the CA held that there was substantial evidence that petitioner maligned and threatened Antonio Mariano (Antonio) over work-related matters. The CA agreed with the NLRC that petitioner's actions constitute serious misconduct, punishable with dismissal from work. It was also noted by the CA that this was not the first time that petitioner was involved in an altercation within the company. Petitioner had been previously suspended from work for 30 days from September 3, 2008 to October 9, 2008 for starting a fistfight with a co-worker, Lloyd Yason. Petitioner had already been warned after the first incident that a repetition of the violation would result in the harsher penalty of dismissal. Thus, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its decision. 12 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA. 13

Undeterred, petitioner elevated the controversy before the Court through the instant Petition. Petitioner denies that he threatened Antonio with bodily harm. His words "kita [na lang] tayo sa labas mamaya" uttered against Antonio was not a threat. Given a literal interpretation, petitioner claims that he only meant for them to meet or talk outside the office. 14

In its Comment, 15 respondent maintains that petitioner was rightfully dismissed from work. Respondent avers that petitioner was a repeat offender as he had previously engaged in a fistfight with a different employee. In fact, Antonio felt so threatened by petitioner that he reported the incident to the police. Besides that, petitioner was also guilty of violating other company rules and regulations. The totality of the infractions, respondent argues, warranted petitioner's dismissal from service.

Issue

Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the Decision of the NLRC.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition lacks merit.

It is an established rule that findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. 16

Petitioner does not deny the allegations made against him. However, he contends that the utterance of the words "Putang ina mo, x x x kita [na lang] tayo sa labas mamaya" 17 against his immediate superior does not constitute serious misconduct to warrant the penalty of dismissal from service.

Serious misconduct is one of the just causes for termination of employment under Article 297 18 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. 19 Misconduct has been defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. 20

In a number of cases, the Court has been consistent in ruling that the utterance of obscene, insulting, or offensive words against a superior constitutes serious misconduct. In Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v. KMM-Katipunan, 21 the Court upheld the dismissal of an employee who uttered the words:

x x x "Huwag maingay, puro bawal." x x x "Puro kayo bawal, bakit bawal ba magpahinga?" Not contented, Esponga gave her supervisor the "dirty finger" sign and said "Wala ka pala eh, puro ka dakdak. Baka pag ako nagsalita hindi mo kayanin. x x x" 22

Other illustrative cases of utterances considered as serious misconduct were cited in the CA Decision:

In De La Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission, the dismissed employee shouted, "Sayang ang pagka-professional mo!" and "Putang ina mo" at the company physician when the latter refused to give him a referral slip. In Autobus Workers' Union [(AWU) v. National Labor Relations Commission], the dismissed employee told his supervisor "Gago ka" and taunted the latter by saying, "Bakit anong gusto mo, tang ina mo." Recently, in Benitez v. Santa Fe Moving and Relocation Services, the dismissed employee berated and maligned his Managing Director by throwing foul and offensive words at him, such as "putang ina mo ka VK, gago ka!" 23 (Citations omitted)

Thus, the mere utterances of foul and incendiary language, even without threat of bodily harm, were held as serious misconduct. Petitioner's insistence that he only meant to talk with Antonio overlooks that he likewise uttered the words "putang ina mo" before telling Antonio to meet him outside. Considering that, as attested by Antonio, petitioner's tone in uttering the words was angry and threatening, the only logical interpretation of petitioner's utterance is that the same was a challenge to some sort of physical altercation.

Moreover, as correctly argued by respondent, the totality of the infractions committed by petitioner also justifies his dismissal. He had been previously suspended for 30 days, for initiating a physical altercation with a co-worker in 2008. More recently, he was also suspended for concealing the loss of his company-issued cellphone. An NTE was also issued to him for his failure to finish the inventory of parts at the company warehouse.

In Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., 24 the Court held that the employer may consider and weigh an employee's past infractions in determining the imposable sanction. The Court, citing Merin v. NLRC, 25 held:

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty. x x x 26

Undoubtedly, petitioner's utterances constitute serious misconduct and the Court agrees with the CA and the NLRC that the utterances, taken together with his previous infractions, are valid grounds for his dismissal from service. In these modem times, when the use of language has become loose and words have taken on different meanings and nuances, it is also important to Maintain the rules of civility in the workplace as well as outside. As the Court eloquently put in Philippines Today, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission: 27

x x x No matter how the employee dislikes his employer professionally, and even if he is in a confrontational disposition, he cannot afford to be disrespectful and dare to talk with an unguarded tongue and/or with a bileful pen. 28

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 11, 2016 and Resolution dated June 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139259 are AFFIRMED. The Complaint before the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-09-01241-13-L is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.

2.Id. at 18-27. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.

3.Id. at 28-30.

4.Id. at 49-60. Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palaña, with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena concurring.

5. See id. at 50.

6.Id. at 50-51.

7.Id. at 35-48. Penned by Labor Arbiter Enrico Angelo C. Portillo.

8.Id. at 47-48.

9.Id. at 49-60.

10. Id. at 57-59.

11. Id. at 18-27.

12. Id. at 24-25.

13. Id. at 28-30.

14. See id. at 10.

15. Id. at 132-144.

16. See Sarona v. NLRC, 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).

17. See rollo, pp. 10, 24.

18. ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

   (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.

19. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered), Department of Labor and Employment Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015, July 21, 2015.

20. Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172, 181 (2014).

21. G.R. No. 221493, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 305.

22. Id. at 318.

23. Rollo, p. 25.

24. 718 Phil. 415 (2013).

25. 590 Phil. 596, 602 (2008).

26. Supra note 24, at 427-428.

27. 334 Phil. 854 (1997).

28. Id. at 869.