SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229844. July 10, 2019.]
HERBERT F. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs.KFORCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS * /ANGEL ROMUALDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229844 — HERBERT F. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, versus KFORCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS/ANGEL ROMUALDEZ, respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated August 31, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated February 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145486 which affirmed the Decision 4 dated January 22, 2016 and Resolution 5 dated February 23, 2016 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 01-000035-16 (NLRC-NCR Case No. 11-14936-13).
Facts
KForce Global Solutions (respondent company) is a corporation duly registered in the Philippines engaged in business process outsourcing. Respondent Angel Romualdez 6 was impleaded in his capacity as Senior Vice-President and General Manager of respondent company.
Herbert F. De Guzman (petitioner) was hired as Billing Specialist on March 5, 2012. Petitioner's main duties included coordinating and forwarding billing invoices to respondents' clients and ensuring that they are accurate and forwarded on time. 7
In the first months of employment, respondents assessed petitioner's performance as unsatisfactory and gave him a "below expectation" rating during his first evaluation period. 8 He was placed on the company's Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for one month, effective October 1, 2012. The PIP is a program of the company to help employees "achieve the desired level of performance by clarifying work performance or behavior to be improved." 9 However, petitioner's performance did not improve, and he was placed on a second PIP on November 1, 2012, for three months. 10 Despite receiving additional coaching, there was still no improvement in petitioner's performance. He again received an unsatisfactory rating in his second PIP. 11
Petitioner also committed several infractions of respondent's rules and regulations during and after his second PIP, on the standard operating procedures of the clients assigned to him, specifically: (1) failure to send clients' invoices on time and sending clients incomplete and inaccurate invoices; (2) failure to reply to clients' invoice reminders; (3) failure to reply to clients' urgent emails within required period; (4) failure to follow company's pro-forma checklist in sending auto-emails; (5) lying about sending invoices to clients when in fact the invoices had not been sent; and (6) failure to check the status of client invoices which had been previously placed on hold and failure to follow specific instructions in dealing and communicating with clients. 12
On June 25, 2013, a Show Cause Notice was issued to petitioner in view of said violations and his failure in the two consecutive PIPs. 13 Petitioner responded on June 28, 2013, 14 and an administrative hearing was conducted on the same day. 15 On July 1, 2013, respondent issued a Notice of Termination. 16
Thus, petitioner filed on November 15, 2013, a complaint 17 for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioner alleged that his dismissal was illegal as the same was done without just cause and due notice. He did not deny his infractions and merely reasoned that the same do not constitute gross neglect of duties. Moreover, he was not afforded due process as he was required to submit a response to the Show Cause Notice and to attend the administrative hearing within 48 hours only, giving him insufficient time to prepare. On July 1, 2013 he was asked to sign a termination letter which he refused to do.
Findings of the labor tribunals and CA
In his Decision 18 dated October 8, 2015, Labor Arbiter Jaime M. Reyno (LA) dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner's money claims were also denied, except for the award of pro-rated 13th month pay of P2,250.00. 19
The LA held that petitioner was dismissed for just cause for his failure to comply with respondent company's policies. The LA also noted that petitioner was informed upon his employment of respondent's Table of Progressive Discipline 20 which provides that an employee's failure to obtain a satisfactory rating in two consecutive performance evaluations shall be a ground for termination. 21 The LA also held that respondent complied with the requirements of procedural due process. 22
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA's Decision, holding that petitioner committed deliberate disregard and disobedience of respondent company's policies and standard operating procedures which he had been apprised of upon employment. Petitioner's disregard of said policies was manifested by his failure in two consecutive PIPs. The NLRC also held that respondent was able to comply with the two-notice and formal hearing rule. 23 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in NLRC's Resolution 24 dated February 23, 2016.
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA upheld the Decision of the NLRC, citing in full the pronouncements in the NLRC Decision. The CA held that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the findings of the LA. 25 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA's Resolution 26 dated February 7, 2017.
Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition. Respondents filed their Comment 27 on February 26, 2018. Petitioner filed a Reply 28 dated April 23, 2018.
Issue
Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the Decision of the NLRC.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
Petitioner comes before the Court assailing the common factual findings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA, merely repeating his arguments and allegations before said court and tribunals.
However, it is an established rule that factual findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the NLRC and the LA, which have acquired expertise because of their specific jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality, especially when affirmed by the CA. 29
Moreover, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. It is not the function of the Court to examine and consider anew the factual issues and evidence already passed upon by the CA and administrative agencies. The scope of a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing errors of law. 30
The CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the findings of the NLRC. Petitioner's repeated infractions and violations of the company's policies and standard operating procedure constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties, which is a just cause for termination of employment under Article 297 31 of the Labor Code.
Under the Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations of Book VI of the Labor Code, 32 gross neglect is defined as "the absence of that diligence that an ordinary prudent man would use in his/her own affairs." 33 Habitual neglect is also defined as the "repeated failure to perform one's duties over a period of time, depending upon the circumstances." 34
Petitioner was already given two chances to improve his performance, yet he failed to do so and committed even more infractions during and after the second PIP. To the Court, petitioner's failure to pass two evaluations and continued commission of infractions against company policy and procedure, constitutes gross and habitual neglect of duties, punishable with dismissal from employment. Petitioner reasoned that his actions were not motivated by any "perverse mental attitude." 35 Yet, bad faith or ill motive are not elements of gross and habitual neglect of duties. It suffices that the employee fails to exercise ordinary prudence in the performance of his duties and continues to do so over a significant period.
Petitioner also alleged that he was not in violation of Article II, Section 2.1. of the Table of Progressive Discipline for failure to attain a satisfactory rating in two consecutive performance evaluations. Since he was regularized on his fifth month with the respondent company and despite failing his first evaluation, petitioner argues that respondents were considered to have forgiven his first offense and given him a clean slate, such that the same was erased. He argues that the offenses he committed while he was a probationary employee cannot be counted together with the offenses he committed as a regular employee.
The Court cannot countenance such reasoning. An employee's regularization does not have the effect of a tabula rasa which erases the past infractions he has committed.
In Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., 36 the Court held that the employer may consider and weigh an employee's past infractions in determining the imposable sanction. The Court, citing Merin v. NLRC, 37 held:
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. x x x 38
Besides, as correctly ruled by the CA and the tribunals below, the company's policy as expressed in the Table of Progressive Discipline is clear that an employee's failure in two evaluation periods may result in his termination.
The Court also agrees with the CA that respondents complied with procedural due process in dismissing petitioner. In terminations for just cause in labor cases, the employer must comply with the two-notice rule. The first notice or notice to explain, shall inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions imputed against him and the second notice or notice of termination shall inform him of the employer's decision to dismiss him. 39 A hearing may be conducted if the employer deems it necessary or if the employee requests for one. However, the essence of due process is complied with as long as the employee is given an opportunity to be heard. 40
In the instant case, respondents were able to comply with the above rules. Petitioner was issued a notice to explain on June 25, 2013. Petitioner was able to submit his response on June 28, 2013 and an administrative hearing was conducted on the same day. On July 1, 2013, the notice of termination was issued to petitioner. Petitioner gripes that he was only given 48 hours to respond to the Show Cause Notice on June 25, 2013. Nonetheless, he was indeed able to respond on June 28, 2013 and a hearing was conducted in which he was given further opportunity to be heard and explain his side. Petitioner cannot thus claim to have been denied due process when in fact he was able to participate in the administrative proceedings against him. In fine, respondents did observe the requirements of substantive and procedural due process in imposing the ultimate penalty of dismissal on petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 31, 2016 and Resolution dated February 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145486 are AFFIRMED. The Complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." (LAZARO-JAVIER, J., no part; REYES, A., JR., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated July 3, 2019)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also appears as "KForce Global Solutions, Inc." in some parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo, pp. 11-38.
2. Id. at 40-51. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
3. Id. at 53-55. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
4.Id. at 336-348. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus, with Commissioners Numeriano D. Villena and Bernardino B. Julve concurring.
5.Id. at 380-382. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus and concurred in by Commissioner Bernardino B. Julve.
6. Counsel for respondents filed a Manifestation dated March 20, 2017 stating that Angel Romualdez had passed away, however, no certificate of death was attached to said Manifestation; rollo, pp. 537-539.
7.Id. at 337.
8.Id.
9. PIP dated October 1, 2012; id. at 174.
10. PIP dated November 1, 2012; id. at 176.
11. See rollo, p. 337.
12.Id. at 337, 340.
13.Id. at 201-203.
14.Id. at 204-205.
15.Id. at 206.
16.Id. at 207-209.
17.Id. at 89-90.
18.Id. at 299-311.
19.Id. at 311.
20.Id. at 167.
21. Article II, Section 2.1. of the Table of Progressive Discipline, id.
22.Rollo, pp. 308-310.
23.Id. at 342-347.
24.Id. at 380-382.
25.Id. at 48-50.
26.Id. at 53-55.
27.Id. at 553-601.
28.Id. at 614-627.
29. See Sarona v. NLRC, 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
30.Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Spouses Abay-Abay, 687 Phil. 584, 590 (2012).
31. ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(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.
32. Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 147-15, September 7, 2015.
33.Id., Sec. 4 (j).
34. Id., Sec. 4 (k).
35. See Petition, rollo, p. 24.
36. 718 Phil. 415, 427 (2013).
37. 590 Phil. 596, 602 (2008).
38. Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., supra note 36, at 427-428.
39. See Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Sallao, 580 Phil. 229, 237 (2008).
40. See id. at 237-238.