THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211477. September 15, 2014.]
DAN MORENO CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [NLRC], 8TH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 15, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211477 (Dan Moreno Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC], 8th Division, Cagayan de Oro City, and Citra Mina Group of Companies). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT private respondent's motion for an extension of ten (10) days from July 13, 2014 within which to file comment on the petition for certiorari; and
(2) NOTE said comment.
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
Dan Moreno Castillo (Castillo) was employed as a managerial employee of Citra Mina Group of Companies (Citra Mina or the Company) from 2005. On April 12, 2010, Castillo received from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) a termination letter stating that his contract will no longer be renewed by June 11, 2010 and thanking him for his valuable contributions to the company.
On April 16, 2010, Castillo wrote the CEO clarifying that he had not signed any contract or agreement that his employment would be on a contractual basis. He also stated therein that he did not question the company's decision to cease his employment since this was management's prerogative. He asked the company to grant him separation pay and terminal benefits in the amount of Eight Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Pesos and Thirty-Two Centavos (PhP853,833.32).
On April 21, 2010, the CEO replied to Castillo in writing stating that the company could not accede to his demands as the non-renewal of his contract was due to loss of trust and confidence for various serious anomalies and irregularities, which were known to Castillo.
Thereafter, Citra Mina issued a Memorandum relieving petitioner from all his authorities and responsibilities and informing all employees that Castillo was no longer connected with the company. In compliance with the Memorandum, Castillo turned over his functions and work to another company personnel and also returned to the company all assets under his custody.
On April 29, 2010, Castillo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA) of General Santos City.
On June 4, 2010, Castillo received two (2) letters dated April 28, 2010 from management. One letter demanded Castillo to restitute the company Four Thousand US Dollars ($4,000.00) or One Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Pesos (PhP194,000.00), which was allegedly received by Castillo as a result of overpricing a contract for the construction of the company's warehouse. The other letter demanded from Castillo the return of the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP600,000.00), which was allegedly appropriated by him when he subcontracted two (2) portions of the construction of a warehouse to a certain company at a reduced amount.
Citra Mina then filed on June 16, 2010 a complaint for estafa against Castillo before the City Prosecution Office of General Santos City. The company alleged in the complaint that petitioner defrauded the company in the contract of constructing a warehouse and a building. Castillo denied the accusations against him. On September 21, 2011, the complaint for estafa was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Going back to the proceeding before the LA, Citra Mina alleged that, as senior manager, Castillo held a position of trust and confidence. Because of the irregularities and anomalies in the contracts entered into by Castillo, the company incurred additional expenses and suffered losses. Citra Mina also alleged that various evidence and witnesses surfaced testifying on the malfeasance of Castillo. ISCcAT
For his part, Castillo filed his position paper on July 13, 2010 emphasizing that he was a regular employee of Citra Mina and that he did not sign any contract regarding his employment status as contractual. He also insisted that he was illegally dismissed for failure of Citra Mina to observe procedural due process and that the alleged wrongdoings imputed on him were mere afterthought in order to justify his termination.
On December 11, 2010, the LA rendered a Decision in favor of Castillo. It found that he was illegally dismissed and ordered Citra Mina to pay him a total of One Million Five Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Seven Pesos and Fifty Centavos (Php1,579,127.50) as separation pay, partial backwages, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, unpaid salaries and proportionate 13th month pay.
At first, the NLRC rendered a Decision dismissing Citra Mina's appeal on procedural grounds. However, the NLRC reconsidered its Decision and issued a Resolution dated October 28, 2011 in favor of Citra Mina. The NLRC held that there was no doubt that Castillo held a position of trust and confidence as Senior Manager and that the acts (overpricing of the contract and subcontracting) for which he was being held responsible are work-connected or relate to the performance of his duties. On the basis of these acts, he was dismissed from service by reason of Citra Mina's loss of trust and confidence in him. Even if the ground for his termination was not stated in the notice of termination, the same is of no moment, for what matters most is that the just cause for dismissal actually exists and is established in the course of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC also found that the ground for Castillo's dismissal actually exists and was clearly supported by the facts and evidence before the Executive Labor Arbiter.
The dispositive portion of the NLRC Resolution states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion of resolution filed by respondent Citra Mina Group of Companies is GRANTED and the Resolution of this Commission dated March 30, 2011 is RECONSIDERED.
Accordingly, the Executive Labor Arbiter's Decision dated December 11, 2010 is MODIFIED as follows: (1) the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED due to the existence of a valid cause for dismissal; (2) respondent Citra Mina Group of Companies is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages for violation of his statutory right to procedural due process prior to the termination of his employment; and (3) attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary awards, is correspondingly reduced as disposed herein in the light of the dismissal of the complaint for illegal dismissal and the concomitant deletion of the award of separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages.
The monetary awards for unpaid salaries (P36,153.80) and proportionate 13th month pay for 2010 (P27,416.66) are affirmed.
Thus, for greater certainty, respondent Citra Mina Group of Companies is hereby ORDERED to pay complainant the total amount of P93,570.46 representing his unpaid salaries, proportionate 13th month pay for 2010 and nominal damages, plus attorney's fees in the amount of P9,357.05 equivalent to ten percent (10%) thereof, or a Grand Total of P102,927,51.
SO ORDERED.
On April 30, 2013, the Court of Appeals (CA) 1 affirmed the NLRC Decision in toto.
The CA found that Castillo's dismissal was based on substantial evidence and that the dismissal of the estafa case will not obviate the prerogative of the company to terminate petitioner's employment for loss of trust and confidence. The appellate court held that it was most unfair to require the company to retain Castillo just because the said case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence when there was a showing of his wrongdoing. The CA also junked Castillo's claim that the grounds for his dismissal were mere afterthought.
There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it affirmed the NLRC Decisionin toto.
Since Castillo is a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that he has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. In the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position. 2
We agree with the CA and the NLRC that Citra Mina's grounds for its loss of trust and confidence in Castillo exist and were proved by substantial evidence. Citra Mina presented affidavits attesting to Castillo's overpricing of the construction contract in the form of a commission and the subcontracting of the portions of the construction contract to another contractor and affidavits attesting to the damages and injuries suffered by Citra Mina from the poor installation of substandard materials as a result of the said overpricing and subcontracting. These affidavits were never denied nor controverted by Castillo in the proceedings below. EHTCAa
Further, the CA did not err in holding that it is immaterial that the acts constituting the grounds of petitioner's dismissal were not included in the termination letter dated April 12, 2010. It is enough that the wrongdoings of petitioner were established by sufficient evidence in the course of proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. 3
We likewise agree with the CA and the NLRC in finding that while Castillo's termination was for a valid cause, Citra Mina failed to prove that it accorded him the procedural due process required by law prior to his dismissal Castillo was not notified of the acts or omissions for which his dismissal was being sought. Neither was he given the opportunity to be heard. Thus, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, Castillo should be indemnified with nominal damages, as ordered by the NLRC.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the challenged Decision which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 04993-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. In a Decision by the Twenty Third Division of the Court of Appeals in Cagayan De Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 04993-MIN, promulgated on April 30, 2013, penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2. Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 169523, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 36.
3. Formantes v. Duncan Pharmaceuticals, Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 170661, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 268.