FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191811. June 4, 2014.]
D.M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, JR., petitioners, vs. JOVENCIO V. SANTOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 4, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 191811 (D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. and Delfin J. Wenceslao, Jr. vs. Jovencio V. Santos). — This is a petition for review 1 from the Decision 2 dated October 7, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 106566 upholding the Decision 3 dated May 21, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 049683-06, which reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Decision 4 dated May 26, 2006 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-12-10727-2005 dismissing private respondent Jovencio V. Santos' (Santos) complaint for illegal dismissal, and then ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority and with full backwages.
Santos was employed by petitioner D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. (D.M. Wenceslao), a domestic corporation engaged in construction and real estate development, as a mechanic from January 19, 1995 until November 26, 2004 when he was dismissed, along with Amado Macazo (Macazo) and Bernardo Yaba (Yaba), for violation of company rules and regulations. The notice of termination 5 dated November 18, 2004 reads:
After evaluating all the explanations and testimonies of the case, the following facts were established:
1. Amado Macazo was positively identified by the guard on duty, SG Noel Almerino as the one who poured a bucket full of scrap metals on the truck[']s utility box on October 14, 2004. DHEaTS
2. Bernardo Yaba was also positively identified as the accomplice of Amado Macazo when they both exchanged signals right after the scrap metals [were] poured in by Macazo.
3. Jovencio Santos who was about to leave with the trailer truck conspired with Amado Macazo and Bernardo Yaba and deliberately tried to prevent the opening of the tool box when it was being check[ed] by security personnel at the gate and expressed that they do not know how to open the tool boxes which was contradicted by the duly assigned driver of the trailer truck, Reynaldo Alba, who insisted [that] they knew how to open the tool boxes being his frequent assistants during his trips. It was on the third day when the security personnel were able to force it open.
4. Driver Rolando Lozada has [sic] no direct participation[,] being only the reliever driver of Reynaldo Alba who was on leave at that time, [and] was only informed of his assigned vehicle and trip early in the morning of October 14, 2004.
5. Truck trailer driver, Reynaldo Alba, the original assigned driver of TT04 was on leave for the period of October 4-20, 2004 and[,] therefore[,] not present at the workplace before and after the incident.
In view of the facts cited above, the following will be meted with the following disciplinary sanction in accordance with Company Rules & Regulation No. III-4:
1. Amado Macazo — Discharge
2. Bernardo Yaba — Discharge
3. Jovencio Santos — Discharge
In the case of Rolando Lozada & Reynaldo Alba, they were both considered innocent due to lack of evidence to pinpoint their involvement. Lozada was merely a reliever driver while Alba was on leave. 6
Santos filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, against D.M. Wenceslao and its president, Delfin J. Wenceslao (petitioners), for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and wages, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. Santos insisted that he had no participation in the theft of company properties; that he did not know that company properties were being loaded in the truck; that he boarded the truck on instruction of his supervisor to go to Trece Martires, Cavite to repair a boom truck and forklift; that he did not open the toolbox since there was no instruction from his superior, Renato Andam; and, that he followed office standard operating procedure by not doing anything except upon instruction of his immediate supervisor.
But the petitioners asserted that on October 14, 2004, the security guard saw Macazo, a welder, pour merchandise into the toolbox of the truck and then exchanged signals with Yaba, a helper/mechanic. At the gate, the security guard asked Macazo, Yaba and Santos to open the tool box but they refused claiming they did not know how. When Reynaldo Alba (Alba), the regular driver, returned to work, he said that Macazo, Yaba and Santos knew how to open the toolbox because they had assisted him in his trips.
In the Decision 7 dated May 26, 2006, the LA held that there was substantial evidence linking Santos to the concerted attempt to pilfer 200 kilos of scrap iron and spare parts.
On appeal, the NLRC ruled that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that Santos conspired with Macazo and Yaba to pilfer company properties; that the record is bereft of conspiracy among them; that his denial that he knew how to open the toolbox does not establish conspiracy with the pilferers.
On petition for certiorari to the CA, the appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in holding that the petitioners failed to adduce substantial evidence that the dismissal of Santos was because he conspired to pilfer company property, a just cause to dismiss, which needs to be proven by two concurring elements: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in the execution of an unlawful objective; that evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required, not mere inferences and presumptions.
Thus, while the security guard, Noel Almerino, positively identified Macazo as the one who emptied a bucket of scrap metals into the toolbox and exchanged knowing signals with Yaba, his account is devoid of incriminatory facts to establish the complicit involvement of Santos. The CA agreed that no such inference of conspiracy can be made from the refusal by Santos to open the toolbox when asked, nor from the fact that he was present on board the truck when the security guard stopped it for inspection.
On petition for review to this Court, the petitioners involved the following grounds:
A. THE [CA] COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN REQUIRING PROOF OF CONSPIRACY IN CRIME AS BASIS FOR DISMISSING PETITION[.] aCHDST
B. THE [CA] COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN IGNORING FACTS UNMISTAKABLY INDICATIVE OF [SANTOS'] GUILT, HIS COMPLICITY IN THE THEFT OR AT LEAST SERIOUS MISCONDUCT[.]
C. THE [CA] COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN EFFECTIVELY SANCTIONING [SANTOS'] DISLOYALTY TO HIS EMPLOYER WHICH WAS HIS SOURCE OF LIVELIHOOD FOR TEN (10) YEARS[.]
D. THE [CA] COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN AFFIRMING BACKWAGES IN DISREGARD OF COMPANY'S DISCOMFORT WITH [SANTOS].
E. IN VIEW OF EMPLOYER'S REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE LOSS OF TRUST IN [SANTOS], THE [CA] SHOULD HAVE UPHELD HIS DISMISSAL BUT DECREED SEPARATION PAY AS MIDDLE GROUND[.] 8
The petitioners maintained that Santos lied when he said he did not know how to open the toolbox when asked by the security guard to do so, because the regular driver, Alba, stated that he at times assisted him in his trips; that the reason he lied was because he knew what was inside the box but he wanted to help Macazo and Yaba get away with their offense; that his lie is evident in his complaint when he reasoned that he did not have instructions from his manager to open the box; that although Santos admitted that his manager had been stealing from the company, he never reported this to the management, thus helping to perpetuate the offense. The petitioners therefore insisted that Santos must be terminated for loss of trust and confidence, although they agree that the penalty must be tempered by giving him separation pay.
In his comment, Santos merely reaffirmed what the NLRC and the CA said, as well as insisted that he should be paid backwages too. 9
In their reply, the petitioners reiterated that Santos knew what was in the box but tried to prevent its opening to help hide the theft; that conviction for theft is not a requisite. 10
But on March 22, 2013, the petitioners submitted a Manifestation 11 to this Court that Santos had accepted a consideration of P600,000.00 from D.M. Wenceslao in agreeing to mutually settle this case as well as other cases, and for this purpose had executed a "Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" 12 dated January 14, 2013 before LA Edgardo M. Madriaga, whereby he expressly discharged the petitioner, its officers and owners from all labor, civil, criminal, and administrative actions he may have had against them.
On January 23, 2013, LA Raymund M. Celino (LA Celino) issued an Order 13 approving the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, having found the same to be in order and not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy.
On July 10, 2013, this Court ordered Santos to comment within ten (10) days on the petitioners' above manifestation. 14 Copy of the resolution was received by Santos' authorized agent, Guillermo Necebe on October 9, 2013. 15 The 10-day period given for his comment to the manifestation has expired without him having filed the same.
The law looks with disfavor upon a release and quitclaim executed by an employee who is inveigled or pressured into signing the same by an unscrupulous employer seeking to evade his legal responsibilities. But this is not true of a legitimate waiver representing a voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties. 16 A compromise entered into in good faith by a worker and his/her employer to resolve a pending controversy is valid and binding upon the agreeing parties. 17
In the case at bench, the Court notes that the factual findings and conclusions made by the NLRC and the CA are vigorously controverted by the petitioners, who despite their strong belief that they can invoke loss of trust and confidence against Santos nonetheless are willing to settle the case and to pay Santos a separation pay. The Court must then rely on the wisdom and judgment exercised by LA Celino in approving the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, having found the same to be in order and not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy. "Settlements of this kind not only are recognized to be proper agreements but so encouraged as well." 18 The Court can do no less in this case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to: (1) NOTE the Manifestation dated March 20, 2013; (2) DISPENSE with the Comment of Jovencio V. Santos on said Manifestation; and (3) CONSIDER this case CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of settlement between parties."
SO ORDERED." aECTcA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-40.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; id. at 42-47.
3. Id. at 130-133.
4. Issued by LA Cresencio G. Ramos, Jr.; id. at 95-102.
5. Id. at 68-69.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 95-102.
8. Id. at 32.
9. Id. at 145-147.
10. Id. at 156-163.
11. Id. at 167-168.
12. Id. at 170-171.
13. Id. at 172-173.
14. Id. at 174.
15. Id. at 175.
16. Talam v. NLRC, G.R. No. 175040, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 408, 425.
17. Chua v. Labor Arbiter Cruz, 268 Phil. 590, 614 (1990).
18. Morales v. NLRC, 311 Phil. 121, 132 (1995), citing CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 2028 and Santiago, IV v. De Guzman, 258 Phil. 135 (1989).