THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234845. January 29, 2018.]
VANESSA LAURA S. ARCILLA, petitioner,vs. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, REV. FR. ROLANDO DELA ROSA, REV. FR. FLORENTINO BOLO, JR., CLARITA CARILLO, LUCILA BANCE, LYNMARIE THERESE CABARON, MONICA SOPHIA DE LEON, NENITA CERVANTES, AND LENNY GADIANA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 29, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234845 (Vanessa Laura S. Arcilla v. University of Santo Tomas, Rev. Fr. Rolando Dela Rosa, Rev. Fr. Florentino Bolo, Jr., Clarita Carillo, Lucila Bance, Lynmarie Therese Cabaron, Monica Sophia De Leon, Nenita Cervantes, and Lenny Gadiana). — The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive upon this Court and can no longer be re-examined.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 3, 2017 Decision 2 and October 19, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134315. The Court of Appeals affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission November 20, 2013 Decision, 4 which upheld the April 12, 2013 Decision 5 of the Labor Arbiter, dismissing Vanessa Laura S. Arcilla's (Arcilla) complaint for illegal dismissal.
In December 2009, Arcilla applied as a guidance counselor at the Guidance and Counseling Department of University of Santo Tomas (UST). Despite not having any vacancy for this position, UST still had Arcilla go through the hiring process. 6 In January 2010, Arcilla was hired as a psychometrician/counselor/researcher. She filled up an application form which was later notarized. However, she claimed that Dr. Lucila Bance (Dr. Bance), Director of Guidance and Counseling Department, 7 returned the application form and instructed her to remove her previous employment with Olivarez College. 8
On February 16, 2010, the Office of the Vice Rector for Academic Affairs issued Arcilla's appointment paper, which stated that her appointment date was February 9, 2010 and that she was under probation. Her position was Junior Counselor II. 9
On May 16, 2011, Dr. Bance told Arcilla that she could not be evaluated as her position had no evaluating body, but that Arcilla would be moved to a full-time counselor position. Arcilla learned that prior to their May 16, 2011 meeting, Dr. Bance had already hired Julie Anne Laroza (Laroza) as replacement for her. To clarify Arcilla's and Laroza's scopes of functions, Arcilla presented a Memorandum of Agreement to Dr. Bance, with which Dr. Bance disagreed. 10
On June 7, 2011, Arcilla signed her appointment paper as a guidance counselor at the Faculty of Arts and Letters and was later assigned to the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. 11
On September 29, 2011, Arcilla received a letter from Dr. Bance and the faculty council, informing her that they had unanimously decided to end her appointment on October 31, 2011. On October 24, 2011, she received another letter stating the reasons for the non-recommendation for her reappointment. 12
On June 8, 2012, Arcilla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary and wages, regularization and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations Commission. The case was docketed as LAC No. 05-001595-13. 13 On April 12, 2013, the Labor Arbiter issued its Decision dismissing the complaint. The dispositive portion of this Decision stated: aScITE
WHEREFORE, respondent University of Santo Tomas is hereby ordered to pay the complainant nominal damages amounting to P30,000.00 plus attorney's fees amounting to P3,000.00. The complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The complaint for unpaid services is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. 14
Arcilla appealed the Labor Arbiter Decision before the National Labor Relations Commission, which later dismissed her appeal on November 20, 2013. 15 Her motion for reconsideration was denied in its December 27, 2013 Resolution. 16
Arcilla filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, questioning the National Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of her appeal. 17 She claimed that the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that she had been dismissed for just causes by UST. 18
In its February 3, 2017 Decision, the Court of Appeals denied Arcilla's petition. 19 It ruled that she was a probationary employee, who was terminated from employment for just causes: for dishonesty, excessive tardiness, insubordination, and disrespect for authority. She did not disclose her previous employment with Olivarez College in her application form. She falsely claimed illness to justify a two (2)-day absence, when in fact she used those two (2) days to go to Olivarez College to ask for a certificate of employment. She could not prove her claim that Dr. Bance told her to remove her stint with Olivarez College from her application form. Her unsatisfactory conduct was supported by evidence on record. 20
Further, she was habitually tardy, as shown by the Guidance and Counseling Tardiness Reports. She failed to prove that her immediate superior tolerated her tardiness. 21
Finally, she was found to be willfully disobedient or insubordinate, and disrespectful of authority. She unjustifiably refused to transfer to a full-time guidance counselor position. Additionally, she failed to submit the original logbook provided by the Guidance and Counseling Department despite the order to do so, and submitted only its certified true copy. She also used "arrogant and disrespectful statements and words" in her letters to UST officials. 22
She failed to present any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to substantiate her claims that UST and its officials deliberately caused the non-renewal of her probationary employment, not even an affidavit from a third party. 23
In its October 19, 2017 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Arcilla's Motion for Reconsideration. 24
On November 23, 2017, Arcilla filed before this Court her Petition (With Motion for Leave of Court to Admit) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 3, 2017 Decision and October 19, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. In her petition, she claims that the factual findings of the lower tribunals and of the Court of Appeals warrant this Court's review. 25 She maintains that she presented evidence showing that UST failed to prove its case with substantial evidence. She argues that her dismissal was Dr. Bance's retaliatory action to the administrative case Arcilla filed against her. 26
Moreover, she was illegally dismissed by way of the expiration of her semestral appointment during her probationary appointment. She holds that her dismissal was simulated because the September 29, 2011 letter did not state the reasons for her termination. She further asserts that the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals was simulated. She argues that she had been re-appointed for three (3) semesters despite her tardiness, showing that UST had tolerated her conduct. 27
Further, she avers that the removal of her stint at Olivarez College from her application form was upon Dr. Bance's instruction. 28 She argues that she substantially complied with the order to return the logbook when she submitted the certified true copy. 29 She claims that she was provoked by Dr. Bance into being disrespectful. 30 Finally, she asserts that UST treated her employment not as probationary but as a fixed-term employment since the September 29, 2011 letter stated that her probationary employment would end on October 31, 2011. 31
As to the UST officials, she maintains that they violated Article 19 of the Civil Code, alleging that Rev. Father Florentino Bolo, Jr. (Fr. Bolo), Rev. Father Rolando Dela Rosa (Fr. Dela Rosa), and Clarita Carillo (Carillo) all acted in bad faith over her employment. 32 She alleges that Fr. Bolo covered up for Dr. Bance, Fr. Dela Rosa deceived her into believing that he would correct Dr. Bance's patent abuse of authority, 33 and that "Carillo [was] the grand architect of UST's illegal practice [against her]." 34 HEITAD
The sole issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not petitioner Vanessa Laura S. Arcilla was illegally dismissed by University of Santo Tomas.
The Petition for Review is denied.
The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon this Court. In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna: 35
The issues the petitioners raise unavoidably assail common factual findings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. In one case, we discussed the particular parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the CA's Rule 65 decision on a labor case, as follows:
In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. . .
Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. 36 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
This Court may re-examine these findings only if, for instance, "there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo." 37
Here, petitioner prays that this Court review the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, which found that her dismissal from employment was valid and for just causes. She claims that she presented controverting evidence to prove that her dismissal was illegal.
However, petitioner failed to show that the tribunals and the Court of Appeals relied on insufficient and insubstantial evidence to conclude first, that petitioner was a probationary employee, and second, that the termination of her employment was due to dishonesty, habitual tardiness, and willful disobedience or insubordination. Further, petitioner's counter-arguments were unsubstantiated and unsupported by proof. As found by the Court of Appeals:
A perusal of the evidence on record shows that petitioner committed these instances of unsatisfactory conduct during her probationary employment, viz.:
One. Petitioner did not disclose in her application form her previous employment with Olivarez College. Petitioner likewise claimed that she was suffering from LBM with vomiting and dizziness so as to justify her absence on August 24 and 25, 2011 when in fact she was in Olivarez College asking for a certificate of employment. Such act of non-disclosure is a form of dishonesty and serious misconduct, which, in turn, constitutes just cause for dismissal under the law.
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner essays that Dr. Bance specifically ordered her to remove her employment with Olivarez College in her application form. Such allegation is, however, not substantiated by any proof.
Two. It would not be amiss to point out that petitioner committed excessive tardiness as shown by the Guidance and Counseling Tardiness Reports. . . . ATICcS
Petitioner cannot properly claim that her tardiness had been tolerated by her immediate superior. Such allegation is not enough. Petitioner still has the obligation to adduce proof that her tardiness had been condoned by private respondents and that the latter had waived their prerogative to impose sanctions on petitioner for breach of the company rules. Such obligation petitioner failed to do here.
Finally, petitioner is guilty of willful disobedience or insubordination and disrespect for authority. . . .
Petitioner was ordered to transfer to a full[-]time guidance counselor position but she unjustifiably refused. She was likewise directed to submit the original logbook provided by the Guidance and Counseling Department but she only submitted a certified true copy of the logbook. Petitioner's refusal to obey the directives to be transferred to a full[-]time guidance counselor position and to submit the original logbook, absent any bad faith or malice on the part of private respondents, is a showing of her guilt deliberately ignoring and defying the lawful orders of her employer. Indeed, an employee who refuses to be transferred, when such transfer is valid, is guilty of insubordination.
We cannot also disregard the arrogant and disrespectful statements and words used by petitioner in her letters to private respondents. Thus, the Labor Arbiter observes:
Moreover, the records disclose that the complainant was obstinate and arrogant in her dealings with Dr. Lucila Bance, who was her superior. After she was informed of her re-assignment as full-time counselor, she wrote Dr. Bance a letter . . . telling the latter that she intended to stay and to challenge her transfer. After she was directed to explain her repeated violations of the Guidance and Counseling Timekeeping Policy . . . , she wrote Dr. Bance a letter . . . asking . . . "madam were you really guidance and counseling practitioner?" . . .
In fine, given the totality of petitioner's infractions, We find that private respondents' dismissal of petitioner's employment was lawful and valid. 38 (Citation omitted)
The Court of Appeals correctly found that the National Labor Relations Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that the dismissal of petitioner's complaint was warranted.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is DENIED DUE COURSE. The February 3, 2017 Decision and October 19, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134315 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."(Martires, J., on Wellness Leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-61.
2.Id. at 62-74. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios of the Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 78-81. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios of the Former Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 152-165. The Decision, docketed as NLRC LAC No. 05-001595-13, was penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palana and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena of the Fourth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
5.Id. at 799-823. The Decision, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-08775-12, was penned by Labor Arbiter Cheryl M. Ampil of National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
6.Id. at 63.
7.Id. at 88.
8.Id. at 64.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 65.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 63.
14.Id. at 66.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 67.
17.Id. at 62-63.
18.Id. at 67-68.
19.Id. at 74.
20.Id. at 70-71.
21.Id. at 71.
22.Id. at 72.
23.Id. at 73.
24.Id. at 80.
25.Id. at 32.
26.Id. at 33.
27.Id. at 33-36.
28.Id. at 40.
29.Id. at 42.
30.Id. at 43.
31.Id. at 45-46.
32.Id. at 48-49.
33.Id. at 49.
34.Id. at 50.
35. 700 Phil. 1 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
36.Id. at 9-10.
37.Id. at 10.
38.Rollo, pp. 70-72.