Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Carbonilla, Jr.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212070. January 27, 2016.]

CEBU PEOPLE'S MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE and MACARIO G. QUEVEDO, petitioners, vs. NICERATO E. CARBONILLA, JR., respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J p:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated June 25, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated March 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 05403, which reversed and set aside the Decision 4 dated April 29, 2010 and the Resolution 5 dated June 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. VAC-10-000977-2009, and accordingly, declared respondent Nicerato E. Carbonilla, Jr. (Carbonilla, Jr.) to have been illegally dismissed by petitioner Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CPMPC). AIDSTE

The Facts

On November 14, 2005, CPMPC hired Carbonilla, Jr. as a Credit and Collection Manager and, as such, was tasked with the handling of the credit and collection activities of the cooperative, which included recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit and collection policies, and conducting trainings. 6 Sometime in 2007, CPMPC underwent a reorganization whereby Carbonilla, Jr. was also assigned to perform the duties of Human Resources Department (HRD) Manager, i.e., assisting in the personnel hiring, firing, and handling of labor disputes. 7 In 2008, he was appointed as Legal Officer and subsequently, held the position of Legal and Collection Manager. 8

However, beginning February 2008, CPMPC, through its HRD Manager, Ma. Theresa R. Marquez (HRD Manager Marquez), sent various memoranda to Carbonilla, Jr. seeking explanation on the various infractions he allegedly committed. The aforesaid memoranda, as well as his replies thereto, are detailed as follows:

CPMPC'S MEMORANDA:	CARBONILLA, JR.'S REPLIES:
HRD 202 File 2008.02.19.017 dated	He claimed that he was belatedly
February 19, 2008 9 — Memorandum	informed and was not given any
relative to his non-attendance to the	written notification of the said
CLIMBS HOME PROTEK Dinner	meeting, and that he did not find any
Meeting.	relation of the said meeting to his job
	as a Legal Officer. 10
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.034 dated	No reply.
February 26, 2008 11 —Memorandum
relative to his non-submission of Weekly
Executive Summary Reports and
Itinerary for the months of January and
February.
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.035 dated	He stated that there was no policy
February 26, 2008 12 —	requiring field collectors to own — in
Memorandum on why he allowed	a strict legal sense — a motorcycle,
Joelito Aguipo (Aguipo), a	but merely to possess the same so he
contractual collector for the	can effect collections more
Bantayan Branch, to drive a	efficiently. Besides, Aguipo was
motorcycle without a driver's license	allowed to drive due to the urgency
and not being the owner thereof.	of collecting from the Bantayan
	Branch. In any case, there is an
	Affidavit of Undertaking 13
	exonerating CPMPC from any
	liability. 14
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.036 dated	He sought clarification of the charges
February 26, 2008 15 —	against him, and at the same time,
Memorandum on why he failed to:	threatened HRD Manager Marquez
(a) account for a motorcycle being	that if this Memorandum is "proven
used by a former employee under his	malicious, [she] might be answerable
branch; and (b) reclassify the vehicle	to a certain degree of civil liability
of another employee.	which the 1987 Constitution has
	given to individuals." 16
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.086 dated	He dismissed the charge as made
June 26, 2008 17 — Memorandum on	with malicious intent and aimed to
why he insulted his superior,	discredit his person, claiming that he
CPMPC Chief Operation Officer	only had a discussion with his
Agustina L. Bentillo (COO Bentillo),	superior, particularly, about Alfonso
in front of her subordinates, with the	Vasquez (Vasquez), who was
statement: "Ikaw ra may di mosalig	unsystematically pulled out from his
ba, ka kwalipikado adto niya, maski	department without his consent. He
mag contest pa mo, lupigon gani	added that if COO Bentillo was
ka" 18 or "You're the only one who	indeed offended by his remarks, then
doesn't trust her, she is very	it should not have taken almost a
qualified, you even lose in	month before his attention was called
comparison to her." 19	regarding the matter. 20
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.087 dated	Citing the Philippine Law
June 26, 200821 — Memorandum on	Dictionary, he explained that
his alleged acts of insubordination	"[i]nsubordination means a quality or
and gross disrespect when he	state of being insubordinate to a
questioned the authority of HRD	person in authority." He maintained
Manager Marquez to refuse the	that he did not commit
hiring of a new staff.	insubordination as he merely sought
	clarification about the deferment of
	the hiring of a working student by
	HRD Manager Marquez despite
	having prior approval of CPMPC
	Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
	petitioner Macario G. Quevedo
	(CEO Quevedo). 22
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.088 dated	Reiterating the definition of
June 26, 2008 23 — Memorandum on	insubordination in Philippine Law
his alleged acts of insubordination	Dictionary, he maintained that his act
and gross disrespect when he insisted	of clarifying with the CEO the policy
before CEO Quevedo that he had the	on hiring working students did not
authority as Legal and Collection	constitute insubordination, but rather,
Manager to hire a new staff	was made in the exercise of his right
	to express. 24
HRD 202 File 2008.06.27.091 dated	He only reviewed the subject
June 27, 200825 — Memorandum	documents and they were never
asking Carbonilla, Jr. to turn-over to	entrusted to him for safekeeping. 27
the officer-in-charge custody of the
following documents: Banco de Oro
contract on staff loans, CPMPC
firearm contracts and licenses, branch
offices rentals, and others. 26
HRD 202 File 2008.07.03.094 dated	He interposed the following
July 3, 200828 — Memorandum on	defenses: 29 (a) he was not
his alleged acts of gross negligence	responsible for employment
in: (a) failing to submit the	assessments having been transferred
employment assessment of one	to the Legal Department; (b) as then
Marcelina M. Remonde (Remonde);	HRD Manager, it was within his
(b) promoting one Mary Grace R.	discretion to promote Batain whose
Batain (Batain) despite lack of any	appointment has been previously
performance appraisal; (c) failing to	concurred in by the CEO; (c) he was
report the shortage of Batain	not informed of the shortage
amounting to P108,254.55; (d)	committed by Batain nor was it
disseminating a wrong schedule of	within his primary obligation to
mediation activity which caused	disclose the same; (d) the printing of
confusion and pressure among	invitation was managed only by his
branch managers; (e) failing to	legal assistant, Joel Semblante
annotate the encumbrance on the	(Semblante) and Vasquez. However,
certificate of title offered as	the latter was unexpectedly
collateral to CPMPC; (f) failing to	transferred to another job
review and verify its contract with	assignment, leaving only Semblante
the BISDA Security Agency	to do the job, which may have caused
(agency) which exposed CPMPC to	the unintentional mistake; 30 (e) a
third-party liability for failure of the	certain Brenda Dela Cruz was the
agency to remit the Social Security	one responsible for the annotation of
System, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG	the encumbrances of real and
premiums of its security guards to	personal properties; (f) he was not
the government; (g) failing to inform	responsible for the review of the
the branch managers of any	contract between the agency and its
settlements or compromise	security guards as CPMPC had no
agreements entered into by the head	employer-employee relationship with
office resulting in confusion as to	them; (g) he was unaware of the
payments; and (h) failing to submit	complaints of the branch managers
to HRD Manager Marquez the status	regarding the payment confusion as a
of the firearms and licenses assigned	result of settlements or compromise
to the branch managers.	agreements; and (h) it was not his
	duty to determine the status, custody,
	and licenses of the firearms. 31
HRD 202 File 2008.07.04.095 dated	His acts did not constitute gross
July 4, 2008 32 — Memorandum on	misconduct, gross disrespect, or loss
the allegations he made against the	of trust and confidence as he only
CEO during the Board of Directors'	questioned the suspicious
inquiry hearing, which constituted	transactions of CEO Quevedo
gross misconduct, gross disrespect,	regarding the sale of a titled parcel of
and loss of trust and confidence.	land owned by the cooperative for an
	inadequate consideration. He then
	added that as a member of CPMPC,
	he has the right to demand
	transparency of all the transactions
	made by CEO Quevedo, of which its
	consequences will affect the
	cooperative. 33
HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.098 dated	The said meeting was scheduled
July 8, 2008 34 — Memorandum on	outside the regular meeting day and
his failure to attend the management	he was only informed about it on the
and operations committee meeting	day of the meeting at which time, he
held on July 7, 2008 despite prior	was personally handling collection
notices.	cases. 35
HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.103 dated	He admitted that as head of the Legal
July 9, 200836 — Memorandum	Department, he endorsed the
relative to the mediation settlements	documents for notarization to his
which were forwarded for	friend who only charged P50.00 per
notarization to one Atty. Miñoza	document as compared to the legal
who is not the authorized legal	retainers who charged P100.00 per
retainer of CPMPC.	document. He added that "[t]he same
	is more advantageous and secured
	rather than having it notarized by a
	'murio-murio' notary public at the
	back of the Cebu City Hall." 37
HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.104 dated	The two cases were re-filed before
July 9, 2008 38 — Memorandum on	the Regional Trial Court on May 29,
his failure to update the CEO and	2008 as the amounts involved were
management committee of the	beyond the jurisdiction of the
dismissal of the cases filed by	Municipal Trial Court (MTC). He
CPMPC against Spouses Alex and	also explained that he was not aware
Alma Monisit in Civil Case No. R-	of the filing of these cases before the
52633 and against Spouses Helen	MTC as he was occupying the
and Rogelio Lopez in Civil Case No.	position of the HRD Manager at that
R-53274.	time. 39
HRD 202 File 2008.07.15.106 dated	He explained that as head of the
July 15, 2008 40 — Memorandum	Legal Department, he was
relative to Carbonilla, Jr.'s	responsible for the proper disposal of
instruction to Semblante to pull out	all legal documents and contracts,
important records and vital	and the cancellation of said
documents, i.e., Compromise/	documents were done to protect the
Settlement Agreement, Mediation	interest of the cooperative.
Tracking Form, Agreement to	Moreover, he claimed that the
Mediate, Mediator's Report,	erasures were caused by the
Evaluation of Mediation, among	cancellation of the notarial
others, from the head office without	subscription since Carbonilla, Jr.
the knowledge and approval of the	found the requirements of the notary
management, which documents were	public — which required all 125
later on returned tampered and	respondents to appear personally and
altered.	present their community tax
	certificates — impractical. Moreover,
	he claimed that the cancellation of
	the documents "was not for the
	purpose of falsifying or tampering
	the same[,] but merely to protect the
	interest of the cooperative against
	possible sanctions [or] circulating
	bogus documents." 41
HRD 202 File 2008.07.16.107 dated	The delay in liquidation was due to
July 16, 2008 42 — Memorandum	the "agreement" he had with the
relative to the unliquidated cash	notary public about the disposition of
advances of the notarial transactions	the notarized documents. He claimed
of the mediation agreements. 43	that in the afternoon of the same day,
	he turned over the amount of
	P6,250.00 to the Accounting
	Department. 44
HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.111 dated	No reply.
July 19, 2008 45 — Memorandum on
the alleged tampering and loss of
CPMPC's vital records and documents,
i.e., two (2) copies of the compromise
settlement agreement.

 

Unconvinced by Carbonilla, Jr.'s explanations, CPMPC scheduled several clarificatory hearings, 46 but the former failed to attend despite due notice. 47 Later, CPMPC conducted a formal investigation where it ultimately found Carbonilla, Jr. to have committed acts prejudicial to CPMPC's interests. 48 As such, CPMPC, CEO Quevedo, sent Carbonilla, Jr. a Notice of Dismissal 49 dated August 5, 2008 informing the latter of his termination on the grounds of: (a) loss of trust and confidence; (b) gross disrespect; (c) serious misconduct; (d) gross negligence; (e) commission of a crime of falsification/inducing Aguipo to violate the law or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code; and (e) committing acts highly prejudicial to the interest of the cooperative. 50

Consequently, Carbonilla, Jr. filed the instant case for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, 13th month pay, as well as damages and backwages, against CPMPC, before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC RAB VII-08-1856-2008. 51 In support of his claims, Carbonilla, Jr. denied the administrative charges against him, asserting that the Management and Board of Directors of CPMPC merely orchestrated means to unjustly dismiss him from employment. 52

In defense, CPMPC maintained that the totality of Carbonilla, Jr.'s infractions was sufficient to warrant his dismissal, and that it had complied with the procedural due process in terminating him. 53 Further, CPMPC pointed out that Carbonilla, Jr. had been fully paid of all his benefits, notwithstanding his unsettled obligations to it in the form of loans, insurance policy premiums, and cash advances, among others, amounting to a total of P129,455.00. 54

The LA Ruling

In a Decision 55 dated July 1, 2009, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Carbonilla, Jr.'s complaint for lack of merit. 56 The LA found that Carbonilla, Jr. committed a litany of infractions, the totality of which constituted just cause for the termination of his employment. 57 Likewise, it was determined that CPMPC afforded Carbonilla, Jr. procedural due process prior to his termination, as evinced by the former's issuance of a series of memoranda, as well as its conduct of investigation with notices to the latter. 58 Furthermore, the LA denied his claims for unpaid salaries and 13th month pay, as records show that the aggregate amount of his monetary claims is not even enough to pay his accountabilities to CPMPC in the total amount of P129,455.00. 59

Aggrieved, Carbonilla, Jr. appealed to the NLRC, which was docketed as NLRC Case No. VAC-10-000977-2009. 60

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision 61 dated April 29, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling. It found CPMPC to have substantially proven the existence of just causes in dismissing Carbonilla, Jr., i.e., abuse of authority; disrespect to his colleagues and superiors; being remiss in his duties; and commission of acts of misrepresentation. 62 It further held that Carbonilla, Jr. was given the opportunity to present his side and to disprove the charges against him, but failed to do so. 63 Finally, the NLRC explained that while Carbonilla, Jr. may indeed be entitled to his claims for unpaid salaries and 13th month pay, the same cannot be granted as his accountabilities with CPMPC were larger than said claims. 64

Carbonilla, Jr. moved for reconsideration, 65 which was, however, denied in a Resolution 66 dated June 30, 2010. Undaunted, he elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari. 67

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 68 dated June 25, 2013, the CA reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling and accordingly, ordered Carbonilla, Jr.'s reinstatement and the remand of the case to the LA for the computation of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, as well as attorney's fees. 69 It held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring Carbonilla, Jr.'s dismissal as valid, considering that, other than CPMPC's series of memoranda and self-serving allegations, it did not present substantial documents to support a conclusion that would warrant Carbonilla, Jr.'s valid dismissal. 70 In fine, CPMPC failed to discharge the burden of proving that Carbonilla, Jr.'s dismissal was for just causes. 71

Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration, 72 but the same was denied in a Resolution 73 dated March 17, 2014; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that Carbonilla, Jr.'s dismissal was valid.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is impressed with merit.

To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 74

In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 75

Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in granting Carbonilla, Jr.'s certiorari petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that he was validly dismissed from employment as CPMPC was able to prove, through substantial evidence, the existence of just causes warranting the same.

Basic is the rule that an employer may validly terminate the services of an employee for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code, 76 namely:

(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.

As may be gathered from the tenor of CPMPC's Notice of Dismissal, it is apparent that Carbonilla, Jr.'s employment was terminated on the grounds of, among others, serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. 77

On the first ground, case law characterizes misconduct as 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. 78 For misconduct to be considered as a just cause for termination, the following requisites must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. 79

All of the foregoing requisites have been duly established in this case. Records reveal that Carbonilla, Jr.'s serious misconduct consisted of him frequently exhibiting disrespectful and belligerent behavior, not only to his colleagues, but also to his superiors. He even used his stature as a law graduate to insist that he is "above" them, often using misguided legalese to weasel his way out of the charges against him, as well as to strong-arm his colleagues and superiors into succumbing to his arrogance. Carbonilla, Jr.'s obnoxious attitude is highlighted by the following documents on record: (a) his reply to HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.036 dated February 26, 2008 wherein he threatened HRD Manager Marquez with a lawsuit, stating that if the memorandum is "proven malicious, [she] might be answerable to a certain degree of civil liability which the 1987 Constitution has given to individuals"; 80(b) HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.086 dated June 26, 2008 81 wherein he berated COO Bentillo in front of her subordinates with the statement: "[i]kaw ra may di mosalig ba, ka kwalipikado adto niya, maski mag contest pa mo, lupigon gani ka"82 or "[y]ou're the only one who doesn't trust her, she is very qualified, you even lose in comparison to her[,]" 83 and his reply thereto wherein he dismissed the charge as made with malicious intent and aimed to discredit his person; 84(c) HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.088 dated June 26, 2008 85 wherein he argued with the CEO Quevedo, insisting that he had the authority to hire a new staff, and his reply thereto where he cited the Philippine Law Dictionary to maintain that his act did not amount to insubordination; 86(d) HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.087 dated June 26, 2008 87 wherein he openly questioned the authority of HRD Manager Marquez in refusing to hire a new staff and his reply thereto where he again cited the Philippine Law Dictionary to insist that he did not commit acts of insubordination; 88 and (e) HRD 202 File 2008.07.04.095 dated July 4, 2008 89 wherein he openly and improperly confronted the CPMPC CEO during a Board of Directors' inquiry hearing, to which he again maintained that his acts did not constitute misconduct, gross disrespect, and loss of trust and confidence as he was only looking after the welfare of the cooperative. 90

Indisputably, Carbonilla, Jr.'s demeanor towards his colleagues and superiors is serious in nature as it is not only reflective of defiance but also breeds of antagonism in the work environment. Surely, within the bounds of law, management has the rightful prerogative to take away dissidents and undesirables from the workplace. It should not be forced to deal with difficult personnel, especially one who occupies a position of trust and confidence, as will be later discussed, else it be compelled to act against the best interest of its business. Carbonilla, Jr.'s conduct is also clearly work-related as all were incidents which sprung from the performance of his duties. Lastly, the misconduct was performed with wrongful intent as no justifiable reason was presented to excuse the same. On the contrary, Carbonilla, Jr. comes off as a smart aleck who would even go to the extent of dangling whatever knowledge he had of the law against his employer in a combative manner. As succinctly put by CPMPC, "[e]very time [Carbonilla, Jr.'s] attention was called for some inappropriate actions, he would always show his Book, Philippine Law Dictionary and would ask the CEO or HRD Manager under what provision of the law he would be liable for the complained action or omission." 91 Irrefragably, CPMPC is justified in no longer tolerating the grossly discourteous attitude of Carbonilla, Jr. as it constitutes conduct unbecoming of his managerial position and a serious breach of order and discipline in the workplace. 92

With all these factored in, CPMPC's dismissal of Carbonilla, Jr. on the ground of serious misconduct was amply warranted.

For another, Carbonilla, Jr.'s dismissal was also justified on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. According to jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal when it is shown that: (a) the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence; and (b) he performs an act that would justify such loss of trust and confidence. 93 There are two (2) classes of positions of trust: first, managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff; and second, fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence. 94

Records reveal that Carbonilla, Jr. occupied a position of trust and confidence as he was employed as Credit and Collection Manager, and later on, as Legal and Collection Manager, tasked with the duties of, among others, handling the credit and collection activities of the cooperative, which included recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit and collection policies, and conducting trainings. 95 With such responsibilities, it is fairly evident that Carbonilla, Jr. is a managerial employee within the ambit of the first classification of employees afore-discussed. The loss of CPMPC's trust and confidence in Carbonilla, Jr., as imbued in that position, was later justified in light of the latter's commission of the following acts: (a) the forwarding of the mediation settlements for notarization to a lawyer who was not the authorized legal retainer of CPMPC (HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.103 dated July 9, 2008); 96(b) the pull-out of important records and vital documents from the office premises, which were either lost or returned already tampered and altered (HRD 202 File 2008.07.15.106 dated July 15, 2008 97 and HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.111 dated July 19, 2008); 98 and (c) the incurring of unliquidated cash advances related to the notarial transactions of the mediation agreements (HRD 202 File 2008.07.16.107 dated July 16, 2008). 99 While Carbonilla, Jr. posited that these actuations were resorted with good intentions as he was only finding ways for CPMPC to save up on legal fees, this defense can hardly hold, considering that all of these transactions were not only highly irregular, but also done without the prior knowledge and consent of CPMPC's management. Cast against this light, Carbonilla, Jr.'s performance of the said acts therefore gives CPMPC more than enough reason to lose trust and confidence in him. To this, it must be emphasized that "employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions by which their nature require the employer's full trust and confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him," 100 as in this case.

Perforce, having established the actual breaches of duty committed by Carbonilla, Jr. and CPMPC's observance of due process, the Court no longer needs to further examine the other charges against Carbonilla, Jr., as it is already clear that the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when the latter declared that CPMPC validly dismissed Carbonilla, Jr. from his job. The totality and gravity of Carbonilla, Jr.'s infractions throughout the course of his employment completely justified CPMPC's decision to finally terminate his employment. The Court's pronouncement in Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc.101 is instructive on this matter, to wit: CAIHTE

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[.] Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests.102 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

On a final point, the Court notes that Carbonilla, Jr.'s award of unpaid salaries and 13th month pay were validly offset by his accountabilities to CPMPC in the amount of P129,455.00. 103 Pursuant to Article 1278 104 in relation to Article 1706 105 of the Civil Code and Article 113 (c) 106 of the Labor Code, compensation can take place between two persons who are creditors and debtors of each other. 107 Considering that Carbonilla, Jr. had existing debts to CPMPC which were incurred during the existence of the employer-employee relationship, the amount which may be due him in wages was correctly deducted therefrom.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 25, 2013 and the Resolution dated March 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 05403 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 29, 2010 and the Resolution dated June 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. VAC-10-000977-2009 declaring respondent Nicerato E. Carbonilla, Jr. to have been validly dismissed by petitioner Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 33-90.

2. Id. at 97-108. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Maria Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.

3. Id. at 110-115.

4. Id. at 115-A-132. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug with Commissioners Aurelio D. Menzon and Julie C. Rendoque concurring.

5. Id. at 133-134.

6. Id. at 135. See also id. at 248.

7. Id. at 136. See also id. at 248.

8. Id. at 97-98.

9. Id. at 174.

10. Id. at 175.

11. Id. at 185.

12. Id. at 176.

13. Id. at 178.

14. Id. at 177.

15. Id. at 179.

16. Id. at 180.

17. Id. at 186.

18. See Incident Report dated June 20, 2008 signed by COO Bentillo; id. at 187.

19. See id. at 69.

20. Id. at 188.

21. Id. at 183.

22. Id. at 136-137. See also id. at 184.

23. Id. at 181.

24. Id. at 137. See also id. at 182.

25. Not attached to the rollo.

26. Rollo, p. 138.

27. Id. at 138-139.

28. Id. at 189-191.

29. Id. at 192-194.

30. Id. at 193.

31. Id. at 141-143.

32. Id. at 195.

33. Id. at 196.

34. Id. at 197.

35. Id. at 198.

36. Id. at 202.

37. Id. at 203.

38. Id. at 199.

39. Id. at 200.

40. Id. at 207-208.

41. Id. at 209; emphasis and underscoring omitted.

42. Not attached to the rollo.

43. Rollo, pp. 146-147.

44. Id. at 147-148.

45. Id. at 210-211.

46. See HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.102 (id. at 212), HRD 202 File 2008.07.14.105 (id. at 213), and HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.110 (id. at 214).

47. Id. at 242. Except HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.102 (id. at 212), which scheduled hearing was cancelled despite Carbonilla, Jr.'s attendance (see id. at 145).

48. See id. at 101 and 125.

49. HRD 202 File 2008.05.112. Id. at 215-222.

50. Id. at 221-222.

51. See id. at 135.

52. Id. at 300.

53. See id. at 242-243.

54. Id. at 244.

55. Id. at 135-158. Penned by Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez.

56. Id. at 158.

57. Id. at 157.

58. Id.

59. Id. at 158.

60. See id. at 115A.

61. Id. at 115A-132.

62. Id. at 127-130.

63. Id. at 130.

64. Id. at 131.

65. Not attached to the rollo.

66. Rollo, pp. 133-134.

67. Id. at 356-410.

68. Id. at 97-108.

69. Id. at 107.

70. Id. at 106.

71. Id.

72. Not attached to the rollo.

73. Rollo, pp. 110-115.

74. See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014.

75. See id.

76. As amended and renumbered by Republic Act No. 10151, entitled "AN ACT ALLOWING THE EMPLOYMENT OF NIGHT WORKERS, THEREBY REPEALING ARTICLES 130 AND 131 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-TWO, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES," approved on June 21, 2011.

77. See rollo, pp. 221-222

78. See Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014, citing Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, 679 Phil. 97, 110-111 (2012).

79. See Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, id.

80. Rollo, p. 180.

81. Id. at 186.

82. Id. at 187.

83. See id. at 69.

84. Id. at 188.

85. Id. at 181.

86. Id. at 182.

87. Id. at 183.

88. Id. at 184.

89. Id. at 195.

90. Id. at 196.

91. Id. at 39.

92. See Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. v. Angelo, 673 Phil. 150 (2011 ). See also Garcia v. Manila Times, G.R. No. 99390, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 399; St. Mary's College v. NLRC, 260 Phil. 63 (1990); and Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. v. Lavarez, Jr., 226 Phil. 20 (1986).

93. See Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., G.R. No. 202158, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 406, 417-418, citing Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 227, 235.

94. See Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., id. at 418, citing Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, id. at 235-236.

95. Rollo, pp. 97-98.

96. Id. at 202.

97. Id. at 207-208.

98. Id. at 210-211.

99. Id. at 147.

100. Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, supra note 93, at 237, citing Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban, 594 Phil. 620, 631-632 (2008), further citing Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120030, June 17, 1997, 273 SCRA 551, 558.

101. 686 Phil. 1110 (2012).

102. Id. at 1120, citing Merin v. NLRC, 590 Phil. 596, 602 (2008).

103. See Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 202996, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 676, 692-693.

104. Article 1278 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other.

105. Article 1706 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1706. Withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the employer.

106. Article 113 (c) of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 113. Wage Deduction. — No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.

107. See Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc., supra note 103, at 692-693.