Comglasco Aguila Glass Corp. v. Blay

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 220496. September 18, 2019.]

COMGLASCO AGUILA GLASS CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. APRIL ANN V. BLAY and LAARNI S. LIMACO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 18, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 220496 (COMGLASCO AGUILA GLASS CORPORATION, petitioner v. APRIL ANN V. BLAY and LAARNI S. LIMACO, respondents). — While this Court may resolve only questions of law in a petition for review on certiorari, an exception may be made when there are conflicting findings of fact in the lower courts or tribunals. On this occasion, the employer in illegal dismissal cases has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that an employee's dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.

This Court resolves Comglasco Aguila Glass Corporation's (Comglasco) Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's Decision 4 reversing the Labor Arbiter's Decision and finding that April Ann V. Blay (Blay) and Laarni S. Limaco (Limaco) were illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay, full backwages, and a full refund of their respective cash bonds. 5

Comglasco hired Limaco on March 11, 2011 as a customer service assistant with a monthly salary of P12,000.00 and an allowance of P1,000.00. On March 26, 2011, it hired Blay as an industrial engineer, and subsequently promoted her to product manager with a monthly salary of P20,000.00 and an allowance of P4,000.00. Comglasco requires its employees to post a cash bond equivalent to one (1) month of their basic salary. 6

On April 3, 2012, Limaco, Blay, and their co-employees Ahleli Theresa C. Gernale (Gernale) and Denmark S. Alvaran (Alvaran), filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against Comglasco, its president Florante G. Aguila (Aguila), and its general manager Chona Castillo (Castillo). 7

The complainants narrated that on March 16, 2012, Aguila and Castillo summoned three (3) of them — Limaco, Blay, and Gernale — to Aguila's office. There, Aguila and Castillo interrogated Limaco and Blay on the ongoing investigation of "irregularities involving sales personnel." 8 Limaco, Blay, and Gernale were made to surrender their personal and company-issued cellphones under threat of criminal charges. Aguila and Castillo then examined their records of phone calls, text messages, and social media use. 9

Aguila then accused Blay of allegedly spying for a rival company, NOVA, then terminated her employment on the spot. Comglasco's legal department tried to convince Blay to tender her resignation, but when she refused, the security personnel escorted her out of company premises. 10

On March 19, 2012, Limaco and Gernale were again summoned to Aguila's office, and were directed to execute affidavits attesting to Blay's involvement in the suspected fraud. When Limaco refused, she was instantly dismissed from employment and, like Blay, was also escorted out of the premises after refusing to tender her resignation. Aguila then threatened Gernale that her intimate text messages with her boyfriend would be made public if she refused to execute the affidavit. When she still refused, her private messages reached her colleagues, and she ended up resigning from Comglasco. 11

Alvaran was similarly terminated from employment. While he was abroad, Aguila phoned him on October 15, 2011 to confront him about the alleged irregularities involving him. Despite Alvaran trying to air his side, Aguila cut him off and fired him then and there. In November 2011, Alvaran was asked to tender his resignation to which he complied. 12

Comglasco narrated that Aguila and Castillo discovered how some of the company's sales personnel were leaking company information and directing company clients to NOVA. A former employee, Dennis Javier (Javier), allegedly admitted that he and others divulged Comglasco's business information to NOVA, which was composed of former Comglasco employees. Thus, Aguila and Castillo conducted the investigation and allegedly asked all employees to cooperate. 13

However, according to Comglasco, neither Blay nor Limaco showed up for work the day after the investigations were announced. Comglasco sent notices to explain their absences, but these notices were ignored. It attached an affidavit executed by Comglasco's messenger attesting to the complainants' refusal to receive the notices. 14 When Limaco and Blay allegedly refused to receive the orders of termination on March 29, 2012, Comglasco dismissed them for abandonment of their work. Further, the investigations allegedly revealed that Blay and Limaco were involved with Javier's dealings with NOVA. Thus, Comglasco filed a criminal complaint against Blay and Limaco for violation of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. 15

Comglasco further averred that Gernale and Alvaran both voluntarily resigned. Frequently tardy, Gernale opted to resign instead of being subject to performance evaluation. Aluaran, meanwhile, resigned on November 11, 2011, citing "personal reasons." 16

In its November 23, 2012 Decision, 17 the Labor Arbiter dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit. Alvaran and Gernale were deemed to have voluntarily resigned, 18 while Blay and Limaco were found to have committed serious misconduct, fraud, and willful breach of trust by divulging company secrets to a competitor. 19

However, the Labor Arbiter found that Comglasco's dismissal of Blay and Limaco did not satisfy the two-notice rule in dismissing employees because it failed to prove that the two received the notices to explain or the orders of termination. For this, Comglasco was ordered to pay nominal damages and to refund its former employees' cash bonds. All other money claims were dismissed for lack of merit. 20

Blay and Limaco appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission, which partly granted the appeal in its March 22, 2013 Decision. 21

While it maintained the Labor Arbiter's finding that Alvaran and Gernale voluntarily resigned, 22 the National Labor Relations Commission found that Blay and Limaco did not abandon their work. It ruled that Comglasco's notices to explain and orders of termination were insufficiently proven to have been served on Blay and Limaco. 23 Likewise, it held that Comglasco never explained how exactly they were involved in the supposed fraud. Despite Comglasco's claims of having conducted "a meticulous investigation[,]" 24 the records did not contain any documents or testimonies detailing any just cause for Blay's or Limaco's dismissal from employment. Therefore, Comglasco failed to overcome its burden of proving just cause for dismissal, and the employees were deemed illegally dismissed. 25

The National Labor Relations Commission ordered the payment of separation pay and backwages, and the return of cash bonds to Blay and Limaco, but maintained the Labor Arbiter's denial of all other money claims. 26

Comglasco moved for reconsideration, but its Motion was denied in the National Labor Relations Commission's May 31, 2013 Resolution. 27

Thus, Comglasco, Aguila, and Castillo filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, 28 insisting that they established just cause for Blay's and Limaco's dismissal. Citing their Position Paper, they stated that they found upon a "meticulous investigation" 29 that several employees, including Blay and Limaco, "maliciously acted and conspired with Javier to pass [its] clients and confidential business information to NOVA[.]" 30

In its February 6, 2015 Decision, 31 the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It maintained the National Labor Relations Commission's findings that Blay and Limaco were illegally dismissed. According to it, Comglasco failed to forward substantial evidence proving just cause for their dismissal, as well as their actual receipt of the notices to explain and orders of termination. 32

The Court of Appeals did not rule on the other money claims brought before the labor tribunals. It also made no findings as to the attendance of bad faith in the dismissal.

Comglasco subsequently filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari33 against respondents Blay and Limaco.

Petitioner again insists that respondents committed gross misconduct and willful breach of trust by violating their respective Oaths of Confidentiality. It reiterates that respondents' disclosure of confidential information to NOVA, as revealed by its investigations, provided just cause for their dismissal. 34 It also insists that the service of the required notices was duly proven by its messenger's annotation of "refused to receive" on the notices' to explain and the orders of termination. 35 As such, petitioner claims that it complied with procedural due process requirements, and respondents' repeated failure to heed these notices revealed their intent to sever their employment. 36 Therefore, it insists, respondents were validly dismissed for a just cause. 37

Respondents rebut these allegations in their Comment, 38 stating that they were terminated from employment "without just cause and without due process." 39 They insist that their employment was instantly terminated during the supposed investigations. 40 They also allege that they were dismissed in bad faith, as their dismissal was allegedly published in a newspaper of general circulation, ruining their reputation and causing them tremendous embarrassment and sleepless nights. Thus, they claim entitlement to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Moreover, as they were forced to litigate to uphold their rights, respondents claim that they are entitled to attorney's fees. 41

In its Reply, 42 petitioner reiterates the arguments in its Petition for Review on Certiorari. It insists that respondents abandoned their work when they were notified about the ongoing investigation, and even refused to receive the notices to explain sent to them. 43 Petitioner further insists that per the company's investigation, respondents were redirecting its clients to a competitor. This provided just cause for their dismissal. 44

This Court is now tasked with resolving the sole issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the National Labor Relations Commission's finding that respondents April Ann V. Blay and Laarni S. Limaco were illegally dismissed.

The Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error.

In this case, petitioner disputes only the factual matters determined by the National Labor Relations Commission and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

This Court's discretionary review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may ordinarily be exercised solely for questions of law. However, it may resolve questions of fact when there are inconsistent factual findings among the lower courts or tribunals. 45 In this case, since the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission have conflicting findings on respondents' acts, this Court may review the circumstances here.

In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving just cause for terminating an employment. 46 Such proof requires substantial evidence, which is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 47

Here, while the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission differ as to whether respondents actually committed the acts alleged, the case records reveal that petitioner has not submitted any evidence proving respondents' supposed serious misconduct. Petitioner's pleadings do not contain any documents referencing its "investigations" 48 into respondents' supposed leaking of information and their redirection of clients to its competitor. Neither did petitioner include any affidavits of those involved in the investigation, which could establish exactly how respondents were involved in the supposed scheme.

Petitioner's allegations alone cannot substantiate respondents' involvement in the supposed scheme to defraud the company. Allegations are not proof. 49 Thus, petitioner failed to give valid basis for respondents' dismissal.

Petitioner's contention that respondents abandoned their work is similarly unmeritorious. Valid dismissal on the ground of abandonment requires the concurrence of an employee's continued unjustified absence with clear intent on his or her part to sever employment. 50 Of these two (2) elements, clear intent to sever the employer-employee relationship is deemed more cogent. 51

Respondents' continued absence without leave for six (6) days, as alleged by petitioner, cannot amount to abandonment without proof of clear intent to terminate their employment. Moreover, their immediate filing of a Complaint for illegal dismissal clearly indicates an intent contrary to abandonment. The records show that they were terminated from employment on March 29, 2012, 52 and that respondents immediately filed the Complaint for illegal dismissal five (5) days later, on April 3, 2012. 53 Thus, this Court affirms the Court of Appeals' reliance on Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama: 54

In this case, petitioner failed to establish clear evidence of respondent's intention to abandon his employment. Except for petitioner's bare assertion that respondent did not report to the office for reassignment, no proof was offered to prove that respondent intended to sever the employer-employee relationship.

Besides, the fact that respondent filed the instant complaint negates any intention on his part to forsake his work. It is a settled doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot by logic be said to have abandoned his work. 55 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

There is, therefore, a lack of just or authorized cause for respondents' dismissal. This renders petitioner's supposed compliance with procedural due process irrelevant.

Meanwhile, this Court maintains the prior findings that petitioner is not liable for moral or exemplary damages or attorney's fees.

An award of moral damages requires proof that "the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., resulted therefrom." 56 Likewise, an award of exemplary damages requires proof that "dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive[,] or malevolent manner." 57

In this case, while respondents alleged that petitioner had their dismissal published in a newspaper of general circulation, they failed to attach a copy of this publication in any of their pleadings before this Court. Thus, inasmuch as petitioner was unable to forward sufficient evidence of just cause for respondents' dismissal, respondents were also unable to substantiate their claims of bad faith on petitioner's part.

As to attorney's fees, Spouses Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., 58 is instructive:

The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. 59 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Having failed to establish bad faith in their dismissal, respondents are not entitled to attorney's fees.

This Court may only consider the evidence brought before it. Without such evidence, the parties forward only their own allegations in support of their claims. Again, allegations are not proof. 60

Since petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proving that respondents' dismissal was for a just or authorized cause, this Court upholds the Court of Appeals' finding that respondents were illegally dismissed. Likewise, having failed to establish the attendance of bad faith in their dismissal, or that they were dismissed in a wanton or oppressive manner, respondents' claims for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, are also unwarranted.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for the failure of petitioner Comglasco Aguila Glass Corporation to show any reversible error by the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on leave.)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-36.

2.Id. at 37-50. The February 6, 2015 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3.Id. at 52-53. The September 8, 2015 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Former Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

4.Id. at 87-97. The March 22, 2013 Decision was penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro of the Sixth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

5.Id. at 97.

6.Id. at 38.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 38-39.

11.Id. at 39.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 38 and 40.

14.Id. at 124.

15.Id. at 40.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 104-116.

18.Id. at 113.

19.Id. at 114.

20.Id. at 115-116.

21.Id. at 87-97.

22.Id. at 92-93.

23.Id. at 93-94.

24.Id. at 95.

25.Id. at 95-96.

26.Id. at 96-97.

27.Id. at 99-101. The Resolution was penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro of the Sixth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

28.Id. at 68-85.

29.Id. at 79.

30.Id.

31.Id. at 37-50.

32.Id. at 47-48.

33.Id. at 13-36.

34.Id. at 21.

35.Id. at 27.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 21.

38.Id. at 233-252.

39.Id. at 240.

40.Id. at 245.

41.Id. at 248-249.

42.Id. at 263-274.

43.Id. at 264.

44.Id. at 266.

45.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

46.Remoticado v. Typical Construction Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 206529, April 23, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64149> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

47.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, 614 Phil. 520, 528-529 (2009) [Per J. Quisimbing, Second Division].

48.Rollo, p. 128.

49.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].

50.Demex Rattancraft v. Leron, G.R. No. 204288, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 461, 471 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

51.Pare v. National Labor Relations Commission, 376 Phil. 288, 292 (1999) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].

52.Rollo, pp. 40 and 124.

53.Id. at 38.

54. 659 Phil. 362 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].

55.Id. at 370.

56.Montinola v. Philippines Airlines, 742 Phil. 487, 505 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

57.Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 304 Phil. 798, 805 (1994) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].

58. 789 Phil. 453 (2016) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

59.Id. at 460.

60.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].