SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247382. July 29, 2019.]
CONCENTRIX SERVICES CORPORATION, FORMERLY SYNNEX CONCENTRIX, petitioner, vs.MARIE SOL M. JALAGAT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247382 (Concentrix Services Corporation, formerly Synnex Concentrix v. Marie Sol M. Jalagat)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 6, 2018 Decision 2 and the May 9, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08347-MIN for failure of petitioner Concentrix Services Corporation, formerly Synnex Concentrix (petitioner), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that it had illegally dismissed respondent Marie Sol M. Jalagat (respondent) from service.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to substantiate that respondent's misconduct was a serious or grave malfeasance as to warrant the penalty of dismissal, considering that: (a) the common practice among supervisors in asking their agents to log in and out for them was not specifically denied by respondent; 4(b) respondent was forced to commit the offense because of her marital problems, and as such, said commission was without intent to defraud on her part; 5 and (c) this was respondent's first infraction in her 11 years of service with no derogatory record. 6 It is settled that dismissal should only be a last resort, a penalty to be meted only after all the relevant circumstances have been appreciated and evaluated with the goal of ensuring that the ground for dismissal was not only serious but true. The cause of termination, to be lawful, must be a serious and grave malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood, 7 which does not obtain in this case. Lastly, it is settled that findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 8 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 9 which are not present in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Titled "Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Prayer for Urgent Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction)"; rollo, pp. 11-45.
2.Id. at 52-68-A. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
3.Id. at 84-87. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales, concurring.
4. See id. at 61.
5. See id. at 62-63.
6. See id. at 62.
7. "Although we recognize the inherent right of the employer to discipline its employees, we should still ensure that the employer exercises the prerogative to discipline humanely and considerately, and that the sanction imposed is commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. The discipline exacted by the employer should further consider the employee's length of service and the number of infractions during his employment. The employer should never forget that always at stake in disciplining its employee are not only his position but also his livelihood, and that he may also have a family entirely dependent on his earnings." (See Malcaba v. Prohealth Pharma Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 209085, June 6, 2018, citing Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders, 716 Phil. 533, 545-546 (2013).
8. See Acevedo v. Advantar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
9.Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).