FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244698-99. September 7, 2022.]
DESKTOP BAGS PHILS., INC. (DBPI), petitioner, vs.DESKTOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DEA), JOHNY D. MARRON,1[DECEASED; SUBSTITUTED BY JUAN VILLANOS MARRON, JR.], TITO P. ABARRACOSO, JACSON C. ABOY, LINDON M. ABELLA, ARNOLD V. ABSALON, CHRISTIAN ALCAIDE, ALFIE G. ALCANTARA, EVELYN S.G. ANTONIO, ARBIE P. APEROCHO, MICHAELA C. BALAN, ALLAN C. BAYONITO, NORMAN B. BERCES, RICHARD BERCES, DANTE B. BIENDIMA, RANDY M. BRANZUELA, HENRY M. BRIONES, NIÑO C. BULLUNGAN, GEORGE S. BUSTINERA, ALBERT S. CABALLERO, JOSHUA C. CABUSI, JOMAR R. CASTRO, JELMAR M. CATAYNA, DENNIS B. CERIOLA, JOEL M. CIELO, JERICK V. CULALA, IMELDA L. DE GUZMAN, EDWIN M. DELIGERO, REYNALDO M. DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA N. DE GUZMAN, DENNIS A. DIAZ, MILAGROS Q. DIMARUCOT, RALPH DIMLA, DENNIS A. DIONES, JERRY V. DUQUE, GRETCHEN DE LA CRUZ, MARLON D. ESGUERRA, MICHAEL E. MORALES, JOHNREY C. FLOR, PIMENTEL E. FLORES, BERNARDO FONTANILLA, CHRISTOPHER M. GALAPIA, ROSALINDA F. GARCIA, ANGELO G. GOLPO, JHEFFORD A. GUPONG, JOHN REY A. GUPONG, EDGAR S. JAMITO, JOEL R. LAEM, ALLAN C. LANDICHO, MARILYN S. LAYA, LEONARDO R. LORENZO, LESTER L. MALOBO, MELCHOR T. MADANAY, JOHNNY E. MARCELLA, EDGAR N. MENDOZA, JEFFREY E. MERCADO, EDRALIN R. MOJECA, ROLDAN M. MONSALVE, EDGARDO B. MONTERO JR., FERNANDO G. MONTES, NINOY O. MONTIBON, MARLON N. MUJAR, ALBERT L. OCAMPO, GREGIE P. OLMEDO, JEY-AR C. PERALTA, RANILO V. QUEMADA, JERIC D. SANTIAGO, SAMUEL C. SOLOMON, BRIAN M. TAGUAS, JOSEPHINE M. TERO, RAYMART B. VALDEZ, AND CHRIS JOHN VALEROZO, REPRESENTED BY JOHNY MARRON (PRESIDENT), respondents.
[G.R. No. 245463. September 7, 2022.]
DESKTOP EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (DEA) AND ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, NAMELY, JOHNY D. MARRON [DECEASED; SUBSTITUTED BY JUAN VILLANOS MARRON, JR.], TITO P. ABARRACOSO, JACSON C. ABOY, LINDON M. ABELLA, ARNOLD V. ABSALON, CHRISTIAN ALCAIDE, ALFIE G. ALCANTARA, EVELYN S.G. ANTONIO, ARBIE P. APEROCHO, MICHAELA C. BALAN, ALLAN C. BAYONITO, NORMAN B. BERCES, RICHARD BERCES, DANTE B. BIENDIMA, RANDY M. BRANZUELA, HENRY M. BRIONES, NIÑO C. BULLUNGAN, GEORGE S. BUSTINERA, ALBERT S. CABALLERO, JOSHUA C. CABUSI, JOMAR R. CASTRO, JELMAR M. CATAYNA, DENNIS B. CERIOLA, JOEL M. CIELO, JERICK V. CULALA, IMELDA L. DE GUZMAN, EDWIN M. DELIGERO, REYNALDO M. DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA N. DE GUZMAN, DENNIS A. DIAZ, MILAGROS Q. DIMARUCOT, RALPH DIMLA, DENNIS A. DIONES, JERRY V. DUQUE, GRETCHEN DE LA CRUZ, MARLON D. ESGUERRA, MICHAEL E. MORALES, JOHNREY C. FLOR, PIMENTEL E. FLORES, BERNARDO FONTANILLA, CHRISTOPHER M. GALAPIA, ROSALINDA F. GARCIA, ANGELO G. GOLPO, JHEFFORD A. GUPONG, JOHN REY A. GUPONG, EDGAR S. JAMITO, JOEL R. LAEM, ALLAN C. LANDICHO, MARILYN S. LAYA, LEONARDO R. LORENZO, LESTER L. MALOBO, MELCHOR T. MADANAY, JOHNNY E. MARCELLA, EDGAR N. MENDOZA, JEFFREY E. MERCADO, EDRALIN R. MOJECA, ROLDAN M. MONSALVE, EDGARDO B. MONTERO JR., FERNANDO G. MONTES, NINOY O. MONTIBON, MARLON N. MUJAR, ALBERT L. OCAMPO, GREGIE P. OLMEDO, JEY-AR C. PERALTA, RANILO V. QUEMADA, JERIC D. SANTIAGO, SAMUEL C. SOLOMON, BRIAN M. TAGUAS, JOSEPHINE M. TERO, RAYMART B. VALDEZ, AND CHRIS JOHN VALEROZO, REPRESENTED BY JOHNY MARRON (PRESIDENT), petitioners, vs.DESKTOP BAGS PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR TOMMY CHING, JOHNSON TAM AND PAMELA AQUINO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 7, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. Nos. 244698-99 — (Desktop Bags Phils., Inc. (DBPI) v. Desktop Employees Association (DEA), Johny D. Marron, [deceased; substituted by Juan Villanos Marron, Jr.], Tito P. Abarracoso, Jacson C. Aboy, Lindon M. Abella, Arnold V. Absalon, Christian Alcaide, Alfie G. Alcantara, Evelyn S.G. Antonio, Arbie P. Aperocho, Michaela C. Balan, Allan C. Bayonito, Norman B. Berces, Richard Berces, Dante B. Biendima, Randy M. Branzuela, Henry M. Briones, Niño C. Bullungan, George S. Bustinera, Albert S. Caballero, Joshua C. Cabusi, Jomar R. Castro, Jelmar M. Catayna, Dennis B. Ceriola, Joel M. Cielo, Jerick V. Culala, Imelda L. De Guzman, Edwin M. Deligero, Reynaldo M. Del Rosario, Teresita N. De Guzman, Dennis A. Diaz, Milagros Q. Dimarucot, Ralph Dimla, Dennis A. Diones, Jerry V. Duque, Gretchen de la Cruz, Marlon D. Esguerra, Michael E. Morales, Johnrey C. Flor, Pimentel E. Flores, Bernardo Fontanilla, Christopher M. Galapia, Rosalinda F. Garcia, Angelo G. Golpo, Jhefford A. Gupong, John Rey A. Gupong, Edgar S. Jamito, Joel R. Laem, Allan C. Landicho, Marilyn S. Laya, Leonardo R. Lorenzo, Lester L. Malobo, Melchor T. Madanay, Johnny E. Marcella, Edgar N. Mendoza, Jeffrey E. Mercado, Edralin R. Mojeca, Roldan M. Monsalve, Edgardo B. Montero Jr., Fernando G. Montes, Ninoy O. Montibon, Marlon N. Mujar, Albert L. Ocampo, Gregie P. Olmedo, Jey-ar C. Peralta, Ranilo V. Quemada, Jeric D. Santiago, Samuel C. Solomon, Brian M. Taguas, Josephine M. Tero, Raymart B. Valdez, and Chris John Valerozo, represented by Johny Marron (President); and G.R. No. 245463 — (Desktop Employees' Association (DEA) and its Officers and Members, namely, Johny D. Marron [deceased; substituted by Juan Villanos Marron, Jr.], Tito P. Abarracoso, Jacson C. Aboy, Lindon M. Abella, Arnold V. Absalon, Christian Alcaide, Alfie G. Alcantara, Evelyn S.G. Antonio, Arbie P. Aperocho, Michaela C. Balan, Allan C. Bayonito, Norman B. Berces, Richard Berces, Dante B. Biendima, Randy M. Branzuela, Henry M. Briones, Niño C. Bullungan, George S. Bustinera, Albert S. Caballero, Joshua C. Cabusi, Jomar R. Castro, Jelmar M. Catayna, Dennis B. Ceriola, Joel M. Cielo, Jerick V. Culala, Imelda L. De Guzman, Edwin M. Deligero, Reynaldo M. Del Rosario, Teresita N. De Guzman, Dennis A. Diaz, Milagros Q. Dimarucot, Ralph Dimla, Dennis A. Diones, Jerry V. Duque, Gretchen de la Cruz, Marlon D. Esguerra, Michael E. Morales, Johnrey C. Flor, Pimentel E. Flores, Bernardo Fontanilla, Christopher M. Galapia, Rosalinda F. Garcia, Angelo G. Golpo, Jhefford A. Gupong, John Rey A. Gupong, Edgar S. Jamito, Joel R. Laem, Allan C. Landicho, Marilyn S. Laya, Leonardo R. Lorenzo, Lester L. Malobo, Melchor T. Madanay, Johnny E. Marcella, Edgar N. Mendoza, Jeffrey E. Mercado, Edralin R. Mojeca, Roldan M. Monsalve, Edgardo B. Montero Jr., Fernando G. Montes, Ninoy O. Montibon, Marlon N. Mujar, Albert L. Ocampo, Gregie P. Olmedo, Jey-ar C. Peralta, Ranilo V. Quemada, Jeric D. Santiago, Samuel C. Solomon, Brian M. Taguas, Josephine M. Tero, Raymart B. Valdez, and Chris John Valerozo, represented by Johny Marron (President) v. Desktop Bags Philippines, Inc. and/or Tommy Ching, Johnson Tam and Pamela Aquino). — Before Us are two consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari2 (consolidated petitions) stemming from the same factual backdrop, appealing the Decision 3 dated 29 June 2018 and Resolution 4 dated 30 January 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 151146 and 152445. The CA reversed the Resolutions dated 30 January 2017 5 and 31 March 2017 6 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-23551-15 [NLRC LAC No. 01-000040-17].
Antecedents
Complainants 7 were employed by Desktop Bags Philippines, Inc. (DBPI) as sewers, operating specialized machines, in the manufacture and production of computer-designed bags. According to complainants, they started receiving position allowances in 2012 because they handled specialized machines. However, despite complainants' continued use of the said machines, DBPI stopped giving them position allowances in 2015. Complainants asked DBPI to resume the grant but the latter refused. DBPI explained that only those employees involved in the production of Targus and Dell bags were entitled to the same. However, the production thereof has been discontinued and awarded to companies in other countries. 8
On 20 July 2015, 49 of herein complainants filed a Complaint 9 for diminution of benefits. The case was scheduled for conciliation-mediation conference under the Single Entry Approach (SenA) on 06 August 2015. Thus, complainants filed their respective applications for leave of absence so they could attend the conference. DBPI, however, denied the leave applications, reasoning that their absence from work would paralyze DRPI's production lines. Complainants were instead advised to appoint representatives from among themselves to attend the conference. Nevertheless, the 49 complainants still attended the conference. 10
DBPI claimed that for 06 August 2015, the day of the conference, its production fell short of its average daily output of 6,714 bags for its brand client. This allegedly translated to company losses of about US$185,440.68. Consequently, DBPI issued notices to explain to the 49 complainants and told them to attend the next conference through representatives and not en masse. 11
On the second SEnA conference conducted on 19 August 2015, only four of the 49 employees attended. Since no settlement was reached, the case was referred for arbitration and raffled to Labor Arbiter (LA) Reynaldo Abdon (LA Abdon). Subsequently, the rest of herein complainants filed another complaint for diminution of benefits which resulted in the consolidation of the two complaints. 12
Complaints were scheduled for preliminary conference on 16 September 2015. Five days prior thereto, all 71 complainants filed their respective applications for leave of absence from work. DBPI pleaded with complainants to appoint among themselves representatives who would appear on their behalf. Johnny Marron (Marron), one of the complainants, wrote a letter to DBPI stating that the summons/notice of hearing issued and served on them by Lucien Puno, the Labor Arbiter Associate (LAA) of LA Abdon, directed all of them to appear during the conference. The applications for leave of absence were disapproved, but complainants still attended the preliminary conference. 13
During the preliminary conference, the LA allegedly explained to Pamela Aquino, the DBPI representative, that the presence of complainants was required, at least in the initial hearing, for their office to check if the complainants really existed and were real, especially since the complaint form was only notarized and complainants were not physically present when the complaints were filed. 14
The second en masse leave caused DBPI to miss its 16 September 2015 target production of 60,668 bags for a foreign client, costing the company an estimated US$204,174.16. DBPI claimed that complainants' infraction put the job orders at risk of cancellation and subjected the company to penalties for delays. 15
The following day, 17 September 2015, complainants accomplished their return-to-work slips, but these were labeled with "disapproved leave." They were also asked to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for their absences without leave, 16 in violation of the Company Rules and Regulations on Offenses against Company Interest, which reads:
Section 1: Offenses against Company Interest. —
a. Engaging in illegal concerted actions that shall include but is not limited to stoppage, slowdown, mass leave, riot or other similar disruptive activities (Pagsali sa mga illegal na sama-samang pagkilos, kabilang ang mga sumusunod ngunit hindi limitado sa pagpapatigil, paghina o pagbagal, maramihang pag-alis o pagliban, kaguluhan o iba pang gawain na makakasira o makakasagabal)
First Offense — Dismissal 17
Complainants filed their respective explanations. However, on 03 October 2015, they were issued termination notices. Thereafter, or on 12 October 2015, complainants filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, union busting, and attorney's fees, among others. 18
Meanwhile, the complaint for diminution of benefits was dismissed by the LA in a Decision 19 dated 29 February 2016. On appeal, the same was upheld by the NLRC. 20
Ruling of the LA
In a Decision 21 dated 06 October 2016, the LA dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The LA found that DBPI validly exercised its management prerogative in terminating the employment of complainants. 22 The dispositive reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby, as it is hereby rendered, DISMISSING the instant case for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 23
Aggrieved, complainants filed an appeal with the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
In its Resolution 24 dated 30 January 2017, the NLRC partially granted the appeal, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTIALLYGRANTED. The 06 October 2016 Decision of Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon is MODIFIED in that complainants are ordered reinstated WITHOUT payment of backwages.
The rest of the Decision stands.
SO ORDERED. 25
The NLRC held that complainants did indeed defy company rules but committed only one absence en masse. Thus, the penalty of dismissal was too severe and greatly disproportionate to the offense committed when a lighter penalty would have sufficed. Thus, the NLRC decreed their reinstatement. 26
On motion for reconsideration, the NLRC upheld its Resolution 27 but modified its order for reinstatement. Noting the strained relations between the parties, the NLRC instead awarded separation pay. 28 The parties, thereafter, sought recourse to the CA by filing a Petition for Certiorari. 29
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 30 dated 29 June 2018, the CA decided in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are hereby resolved as follows:
(1) The Resolution of the NLRC dated 30 January 2017 and 31 March 2017 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE in that the herein respondents/petitioners Johnny Marron, Tito Abarracoso, Jacson Aboy, Lindon Abella, Arnold Absalon, Christian Alcaide, Alfie Alcantara, Evelyn Antonio, Arbie Aperocho, Michaela Balan, Allan Bayonito, Norman Reces, Richard Berces, Dante Biendima, Randy Branzuela, Henry Briones, Niño Bullungan, George Bustinera, Albert Caballero, Joshua Cabusi, Jomar Castro, Jelmar Catayna, Dennis Ceriola, Jeric Culala, Imelda De Guzman, Edwin Deligero, Reynaldo Del Rosario, Teresita De Guzman, Dennis Diaz, Milagros Dimarucot, Ralph Dimla, Dennis Diones, Jerry Duque, Gretchen De la Cruz, Marlon Esguerra, Michael E. Morales, Johnrey C. Flor, Pimentel E. Flores, Bernardo Fontanilla[,] Christopher Galapia, Rosalinda Garcia, Angelo Golpo, Jhefford, Gupong, Jhonrey Gupong, Edgar Jamito, Joel Laem, Allan Landicho, Marilyn Laya, Leonardo Lorenzo, Lester Malobo, Melchor Madanay, Johnny Marcella, Edgar Mendoza, Jeffrey Mercado, Edralin Mojica, Roldan Monsalve, Edgardo Montero Jr., Fernando Montes, Ninoy Montibon, Marlon Mujar, Albert Ocampo, Gregie Olmedo, Jey-ar Peralta, Ranilo Quemada, Jeric Santiago, Samuel Solomon, Brian Taguas, Josephine Tero, Raymart Valdez, Chris John Valeroso, Joel M. Cielo are found to have been illegally dismissed from service. They are hereby awarded with backwages computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision, and separation pay, as computed in the Decision of NLRC equivalent to one month salary for every year of service;
(2) The denial of the claim for moral and exemplary damages are affirmed;
(3) The denial of the claim for attorney's fees is reversed, hereby awarding an amount equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award;
(4) The name of Johnny Marcela is to be amended and read as Johnny E. Marcela Jr. HEITAD
SO ORDERED.31
The CA ruled that complainants were illegally dismissed. It held that there was no lawful and valid ground for DBPI to dismiss them. The reason given by complainants in their applications for leave of absence, i.e., attending the preliminary conference, cannot be considered as an illegal concerted activity. The CA likewise found that reinstatement was no longer possible because of the animosity that existed between the parties, hence, the award of backwages. The CA also awarded attorney's fees since, in labor cases, there need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly. 32
Both parties subsequently moved for reconsideration, but the same were denied in a Resolution 33 dated 30 January 2019. Hence, these consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari.
Issues
The present consolidated petitions raise the following issues: (1) whether or not the act of complainants in being absent en masse twice should be considered as illegal strike and serious misconduct or willful insubordination; 34 (2) whether or not complainants can still be reinstated; (3) whether or not DBPI committed unfair labor practice; and (4) whether or not the CA erred in denying complainants' claims for moral and exemplary damages. 35
Essentially, the issues are hinged on the question of whether complainants were illegally dismissed.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the petitions without merit.
G.R. Nos. 244698-99
DBPI argues that complainants' act of being absent en masse twice is tantamount to illegal strike, giving the company valid ground to dismiss them for violating its rules and regulations on mass leave, which amount to serious misconduct or willful insubordination. Likewise, DBPI points out the LA Decision, which noted that instead of all complainants going to the preliminary conference, they could have just sent Marron, the president of the labor union, on their behalf. As such the termination of employment was valid and there was no basis for the CA to grant backwages, separation pay, or attorney's fees to complainants. 36
Article 297 (a) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience. 37 Insubordination or willful disobedience necessitates the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude"; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties for which he had been engaged to discharge. 38
A perusal of the records shows that complainants, prior to their absences, filed their respective applications for leave of absence to attend the scheduled preliminary conference. 39 Complainants' act of attending the preliminary conference was not tantamount to an illegal strike nor could it be considered a serious misconduct or willful insubordination.
As such, complainants are not guilty of violating Section 1 (Offenses against Company Interest) of DBPI's Company Rules and Regulations. They did not engage in any illegal concerted action when they attended the hearing. Their attendance was directed by the LA. Disregarding the directive would have resulted in the dismissal of their complaint. Rule V, Sec. 10 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure (NLRC Rules), as amended, provides:
SECTION 10. NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES. — The nonappearance of the complainant or petitioner during the two (2) settings for mandatory conciliation and mediation conference scheduled in the summons, despite due notice thereof, shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. x x x
As correctly observed by the CA, complainants did not discreetly absent themselves or abandon their posts without any legitimate reason. To appear in a hearing conducted by the LA, when required by law, cannot be considered an illegal conduct. Notably, complainants filed their leave applications five days before the scheduled preliminary conference. Having been apprised of the situation, DBPI should have taken the necessary steps to mitigate the effect of complainants' one-day absence in the production and manufacturing of its products. 40
Rule III, Sec. 6 (b) of the NLRC Rules provides the instances when a non-lawyer may appear before the NLRC or the LA, thus:
SECTION 6. APPEARANCES. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A non-lawyer may appear in any of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or Commission only under the following conditions:
(1) he/she represents himself/herself as party to the case;
(2) he/she represents a legitimate labor organization, as defined under Articles 212 (now 219) and 242 (now 251) of the Labor Code, as amended, which is a party to the case: x x x
(3) he/she represents a member or members of a legitimate labor organization that is existing within the employer's establishment, who are parties to the case: x x x
(4) he/she is a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office recognized by the Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines: x x x
(5) he/she is the owner or president of a corporation or establishment which is a party to the case: x x x
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
A legitimate labor organization is defined as any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. 41 Based on the certificate of registration of Desktop Employee's Association (DEA), the labor organization within DBPI, it appears to have been registered only on 16 September 2015, the same day when the preliminary conference was conducted. 42 Complainants could not have sent a representative to the preliminary conference since they were not yet members of a legitimate labor organization at the time of the filing of the complaint for diminution of benefits and the scheduled preliminary conference. It is clear from Rule III, Section 6 (b) (3) that only members of a legitimate labor organization can be represented by a non-lawyer. Therefore, complainants' presence at the preliminary conference was indeed necessary.
Thus, We find DBPI's order for complainants not to attend, and instead send a representative to, the preliminary conference to be unreasonable. As pointed out by the CA, DBPI cannot coerce its employees to send a representative because this option belongs to the party involved and cannot be imposed by an employer. 43
This Court, in a recent case, expounded that insubordination or willful disobedience, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. 44
Moreover, a willful or intentional disobedience of such rule, order or instruction justifies dismissal only where such rule, order or instruction is (1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) connected with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge. 45
Accordingly, even though complainants' applications for leave of absence were disapproved, they could not be dismissed for willful disobedience when they attended the preliminary conference. One of the requisites of willful disobedience is that the order violated must have been reasonable, which is lacking in this case. In the absence of a lawful and valid ground to dismiss the complainants, they are considered to have been illegally dismissed from service.
It is also worth mentioning that DBPI's Policy on Leave provides the consequence for taking a leave despite the disapproval of the application, thus:
6. IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES
6.2 Vacation Leave
xxx xxx xxx
6.2.3 Employee should apply for Vacation Leave at least three (3) days in advance with the approval of the Department Head. It shall be the responsibility of the employee to remind the Department Head of his/her application for VL. Should the Department Head be not around due to unavoidable circumstances, the employee should seek approval to the next higher approving authority.
xxx xxx xxx
6.2.5 All application for vacation leave which do not conform to #3 shall be considered as unauthorized and unpaid. 46
Complainants' situation is covered by DBPI's Implementing Guidelines on Vacation Leave since their leave applications had been disapproved. The provision on offenses against company interest that would merit the penalty of dismissal does not apply to the instant case. Instead of dismissing complainants, DBPI should have considered their leave applications as unauthorized, therefore, unpaid. Complainants' absence from work cannot be considered as unjustified and calling for the penalty of dismissal from employment.
G.R. No. 245463
On the other hand, complainants insist that: (a) they be reinstated to their former positions instead of being awarded separation pay and backwages; (b) the CA erred in disregarding their claim that DBPI is guilty of unfair labor practice; and (c) they should be awarded moral and exemplary damages considering that they suffered mental anguish, sleepless nights, and anxiety due to the arbitrary termination of their employment. 47
Having established that complainants are illegally dismissed from employment, they are entitled to backwages and reinstatement. They should be paid full backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal until the finality of this resolution. However, in cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay may be granted in lieu of reinstatement. The Court is aware that reinstatement is the rule, and for the exception of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned. 48
In the instant case, complainants' continued imputation that DBPI engaged in unfair labor practice, and DBPI's allegation that 71 of its employees committed mass leave or sabotage against the company resulting in business losses, will no longer make reinstatement viable or desirable. Due to the continued imputation of bad faith against each other, it is doubtful that a healthy working relationship between the litigants will be possible. 49
Furthermore, by reason of the lapse of almost seven years since the filing of the illegal dismissal case on 12 October 2015, 50 the Court sustains the award of separation pay to complainants, in lieu of reinstatement, as We deem it to be more practical and in the best interest of the parties. 51 Hence, complainants are entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six months considered as one whole year. 52
Unfair labor practice involves acts that violate the workers' right to organize. There should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize. To prove the existence of unfair labor practice, substantial evidence has to be presented. 53
The Court affirms the findings of the labor tribunals that complainants failed to prove with substantial evidence DBPI's liability for alleged unfair labor practice. 54 As observed by the NLRC, "except for their sweeping and self-serving allegations, there is no convincing proof that complainants' dismissals were brought about by their formation of a union." Since complainants were unable to present any substantial evidence supporting their claim that their dismissal was brought about by anti-union motives, their accusation of unfair labor practice cannot be sustained. 55
Moral damages are awarded to a dismissed employee when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. As for exemplary damages, they may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. 56 Since there is no finding that DBPI committed the foregoing, there is no legal basis to award moral and exemplary damages.
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed upon the monetary awards granted in favor of complainants from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. 57 DETACa
WHEREFORE, the Petitions for Review are hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 29 June 2018 and Resolution dated 30 January 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 151146 and 152445 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that all monetary awards shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Court issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2021 allowing Juan Villanos Marron, Jr. to substitute for the late Johny D. Marron, who passed away on 27 July 2020, as individual petitioner to this case. (Rollo, G.R. No. 245463, unpaginated).
2. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 48-88; Rollo, G.R. No. 245463, pp. 18-74.
3. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 91-115. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court) and Manuel M. Barrios.
4. Id. at 117-122. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court) and Manuel M. Barrios.
5. Id. at 137-142. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Cecilio Alejandro C. Villanueva.
6. Id. at 144-152. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Cecilio Alejandro C. Villanueva.
7. Respondents in G.R. Nos. 244698-99 and petitioners in G.R. No. 245463, namely: Johnny Marron, Tito Abarracoso, Jacson Aboy, Lindon Abella, Arnold Absalon, Christian Alcaide, Alfie Alcantara, Evelyn Antonio, Arbie Aperocho, Michaela Balan, Allan Bayonito, Norman Berces, Richard Berces, Dante Biendima, Randy Branzuela, Henry Briones, Niño Bullungan, George Bustinera, Albert Caballero, Joshua Cabusi, Jomar Castro, Jelmar Catayna, Dennis Ceriola, Jeric Culala, Imelda De Guzman, Edwin Deligero, Reynaldo Del Rosario, Teresita De Guzman, Dennis Diaz, Milagros Dimarucot, Ralph Dimla, Dennis Diones, Jerry Duque, Gretchen De la Cruz, Marlon Esguerra, Michael E. Morales, Johnrey C. Flor, Pimentel E. Flores, Bernardo Fontanilla Christopher Galapia, Rosalinda Garcia, Angelo Golpo, Jhefford, Gupong, Johnrey Gupong, Edgar Jamito, Joel Laem, Allan Landicho, Marilyn Laya, Leonardo Lorenzo, Lester Malobo, Melchor Madanay, Johnny E. Marcella, Jr. (See CA Decision), Edgar Mendoza, Jeffrey Mercado, Edralin Mojeca, Roldan Monsalve, Edgardo Montero Jr., Fernando Montes, Ninoy Montibon, Marlon Mujar, Albert Ocampo, Gregie Olmedo, Jey-ar Peralta, Ranilo Quemada, Jeric Santiago, Samuel Solomon, Brian Taguas, Josephine Tero, Raymart Valdez, Chris John Valeroso, and Joel M. Cielo.
8. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 97-98.
9. Id. at 98.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 98-99.
12. Id. at 99.
13. Id. at 99, 138.
14. Id. at 99.
15. Id. at 99-100.
16. Id. at 100.
17. Id. at 100, 128.
18. Id. at 100.
19. Id. at 55.
20. Id. at 101.
21. Id. at 124-135; Penned by Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon.
22. Id. at 132-134.
23. Id. at 135.
24. Id. at 137-142.
25. Id. at 142.
26. Id. at 140-141.
27. Id. at 144-152.
28. Id. at 149-150.
29. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 48-85; Rollo, G.R. 245463, pp. 13-73.
30. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 91-115.
31. Id. at 114-115.
32. Id. at 107-109, 111-113.
33. Id. at 117-122.
34. Id. at 59-60.
35. Rollo, G.R. No. 245463, pp. 42-43.
36. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 66, 70, and 80.
37. Art. 297 reads:
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;
38. Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, 08 January 2020.
39. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, p. 99.
40. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, p. 107.
41. ARTICLE 219 [212] (h) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered) defines a legitimate labor organization as any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.
42. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, p. 109.
43. Id. at 108.
44. Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. v. Chua, Jr., 817 Phil. 569, 583 (2017).
45. Id.
46. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 110-111.
47. Rollo, G.R. No. 245463, pp. 43-64.
48. Nippon Express Philippines Corp. v. Daguiso, G.R. No. 217970, 17 June 2020.
49. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, p. 149.
50. Id. at 100.
51. Lingat v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 835 Phil. 617, 634 (2018); Echo 2000 Commercial Corp. v. Obrero Filipino-Echo 2000 Chapter-CLO, 776 Phil. 737, 753 (2016).
52. Skyway O & M Corp. v. Reinante, G.R. No. 222233, 28 August 2019.
53. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc. v. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc., G.R. No. 237036, 08 July 2020.
54. Rollo, G.R. Nos. 244698-99, pp. 134, 141.
55. Id. at 141-142.
56. Agayan v. Kital Philippines Corp., G.R. No. 229703, 04 December 2019.
57. Skyway O & M Corp. v. Reinante, supra.