THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209454. July 9, 2014.]
MARIBETH I. ESPIRITU, petitioner, vs. MAHATMA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND LAWRENCE BUCK, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 9, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209454 (Maribeth I. Espiritu vs. Mahatma Gandhi International School and Lawrence Buck). — Petitioner Maribeth I. Espiritu (Espiritu) was employed by respondent Mahatma Gandhi International School (MGIS) as a probationary teacher from 2006-2007. She was offered the post of English Teacher for Grade 6 and Humanities Teacher for Grades 6 and 7 by MGIS. In August 2007, she accepted the offer and was issued a Letter of Appointment for the said positions. Under the item on "Salary and Conditions," the Letter of Appointment reads as follows:
Salary and Conditions
The remuneration for this post will be Thirty Thousand Pesos only. Php20,000. (emphasis provided.)
The controversy of this case centers on the intended salary of Espiritu: whether it is Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) as it is written in words, or Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) as it is written in numbers in the Letter of Appointment.
On March 5, 2008, Espiritu received three (3) letters all dated March 5, 2008 and signed by respondent Lawrence M. Buck (Buck), Headmaster of MGIS, and Ms. Nicole Zialcita-Javier (Ms. Zialcita-Javier), Director for Administration of the same school. In the letters, Espiritu was ordered to explain in writing her failure to meet certain deadlines and turn-in required submissions.
Espiritu replied to all the letters. However, on March 6, 2008, Espiritu was informed in writing that her explanations were unacceptable with a warning that further breaches of school policy may result in disciplinary actions against her.
Espiritu claimed that she was forced to resign from her job. She narrated that when she reported to work on March 24, 2008, she was forced to receive a "resignation paper" which states, in part, the following:
The effectivity of your resignation shall be on March 31, 2008. You will be given a paid leave from March 16-31, 2008 (15 working days) that will no longer require you to come on MGIS on those dates. You will receive the compensation for the said dates through a check that you may pick up on March 31, 2008, Monday, from 8:00-12:00 noon from our Financial Office in MGIS. AacCHD
On March 25, 2008, Espiritu filed a complaint docketed as NLRC RAB No. NCR Case No. 04331-08 for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement with backwages, non-payment of salary, demand for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees against respondents. The latter countered that no dismissal took place but rather a voluntary resignation.
On December 24, 2008, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Espiritu's complaint for lack of merit, ordered her to return to work and directed MGIS to accept her back to her regular position. The dispositive portion of the LA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing for lack of merit, the instant complaint for illegal (actual) dismissal.
However, the complainant is hereby ORDERED to return to work, and the respondents are hereby ORDERED to accept her back to her regular teaching position with the same rank, duties, and privileges.
All other claims are DENIED for lack of factual and legal bases.
SO ORDERED.
Espiritu appealed to the NLRC. On July 16, 2009, the NLRC affirmed the LA Decision. The NLRC noted that obviously, Espiritu was not satisfied with the LA Decision even when it ordered her to return to work because otherwise, she would not have appealed the case. Also, during a hearing before the LA where MGIS offered her to report to back to work, she rejected the same despite her prayer of reinstatement and backwages. From the foregoing, the NLRC concluded that Maribeth filed the illegal dismissal case only to recover her monetary benefits and not to regain her alleged lost employment and held that her claim of illegal termination must fail. In its June 16, 2009 Resolution, the NLRC held —
When the Labor Arbiter ordered her to go back to her regular teaching position with the same rank, duties and privileges, she was not satisfied and appealed the decision. It is therefore clear that filing of this case is aimed to get the monetary benefits only, and not to regain her alleged lost employment. Her claim of illegal termination therefore, must fail.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Espiritu filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) mainly claiming that she was entitled to her unpaid salary differential of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) starting August 2007. Petitioner pointed out that while it was clear in her Letter of Appointment that her monthly salary was Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00), she only received Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) per month. She noted that the Labor Arbiter denied her claim for salary differential on the ground of estoppel considering that she never protested her pay of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) from the time she assumed her position in August 2007 up to her alleged illegal dismissal in March 2008.
On October 28, 2009, the NLRC rendered a Decision partially granting Espiritu's Motion for Reconsideration. It sustained the findings on illegal dismissal but ordered respondents to pay Espiritu her salary differentials to be computed at Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) multiplied by eight (8) months (the period from August 2007 when she assumed her post up to March 2008 when she voluntarily resigned) or a total of Eighty Thousand Pesos (Php80,000.00). IHSTDE
On February 18, 2010, the NLRC 2nd Division denied MGIS's Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
In the meantime, Espiritu was admitted back to work by MGIS.
In May 2010, MGIS filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that Espiritu's monthly salary was Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00). MGIS pointed out that prior to the filing of the illegal dismissal case, not a single instance did Espiritu raise the issue of alleged underpayment with the school authorities nor mentioned it to her colleagues. MGIS stressed that Espiritu raised this for the first time only in her Position Paper filed with the LA. Moreover, MGIS also argued that assuming that Espiritu was really entitled to a monthly salary of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) she should have demanded payment of the additional Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) per month from April 2008 up to the present considering that she was admitted back to work by MGIS. Based on the foregoing, MGIS insisted that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that respondents monthly salary is Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) and not Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) when the facts and evidence presented before it and the behaviour exhibited by Espiritu showed that the latter's monthly salary is, in truth, only Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00).
On August 24, 2012, the (CA) 1 denied MGIS's Petition and affirmed the October 28, 2009 and February 18, 2010 Resolutions of the NLRC 2nd Division.
MGIS filed an MIR dated September 18, 2012 while Espiritu filed an Opposition with Motion for Correction of Plain Error as to Salary Differential of the Private Respondent dated September 25, 2012 (Motion for Correction).
In her Motion for Correction, Espiritu argued that the salary differential of Eighty Thousand Pesos (Php80,000.00), covering eight (8) months, awarded by the NLRC is a plain error which should be corrected because she was still working with MGIS. She requested the CA to rectify the error of the NLRC which fixed the salary differential at Eighty Thousand Pesos (Php80,000.00) instead of continuing the computation of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) up to the present. She noted that MGIS is continuously violating the Letter of Appointment since she has been receiving only Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) per month. She has been receiving the salary starting April 2008 under protest because of her claim for salary differential remains unpaid.
On December 12, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution stating that after considering MGIS's MIR and Espiritu's Motion for Correction, there was no reason to modify or reverse its August 24, 2012 Decision. However, the dispositive portion of said Resolution mentioned the denial only of the MR and made no mention of the Motion for Correction. The said portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners is DENIED for lack of merit.
Espiritu filed a Motion to Resolve the Motion for Correction (Motion to Resolve) dated February 11, 2013 alleging that the December 12, 2012 Resolution of the CA has not yet resolved her Motion for Correction.
In the meantime, MGIS filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 204851 praying for the reversal of the CA Decision. Again, MGIS alleged that the CA erred in sustaining that Espiritu's salary was Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) when, based on facts, evidence presented, and the behaviour exhibited by Espiritu, her salary is Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00). DISTcH
On February 13, 2013, MGIS's Petition was denied by this Court for lack of proof of service of the Petition. This Court also found no reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering the challenged Decision so as to warrant this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
On May 22, 2013, the CA issued a Resolution denying Espiritu's Motion for Correction. On October 3, 2013 the CA issued a Resolution also denying her MR and noting that this Court has rendered a Resolution dated February 13, 2013 denying MGIS's petition and the same has become final and executory on June 4, 2013.
Espiritu thereafter filed with this Court this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the CA Resolutions dated May 22, 2013 and October 3, 2013 raising the following issue: Whether the CA erred in not correcting the plain error as to her salary differential.
First, We agree with the CA when it held that the amount expressed in words in the Letter of Appointment takes precedence over the amount expressed in numbers and affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC. The CA explained —
Certainly, favorable interpretation of the Letter of Appointment under scrutiny should be for the private respondent Espiritu. In the said Letter of Appointment dated July 27, 2007, the amount in words was Thirty Thousand Pesos while the amount in figures or numbers was only P20,000.00. The amount expressed in words takes precedence over the amount expressed in numbers. The petitioners caused the preparation of the Letter of Appointment in question and consequently, the ambiguity must be construed against them as they are presumed to have confirmed to the same. We adhere to the pronouncement in the case of Villanueva vs. NLRC, wherein it was ruled that where a contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly against the party who prepared it. Furthermore, Article 1702 of the Civil Code provides that, in case of doubt, all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the laborer.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision dated October 28, 2009, and the resolution dated February 18, 2010 of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED.
However, We find that the CA erred in not resolving Espiritu's Motion for Correction and in not ordering MGIS to continue paying Espiritu her salary of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) from the time she reassumed her position.
All doubts on Espiritu's correct salary have been finally and firmly settled when this Court, in G.R. No. 204851, found no reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering its August 24, 2012 Decision affirming the NIRC Resolutions ordering MGIS to pay Espiritu her salary differential computed at Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) a month. Therefore, it is clear that the salary of Espiritu is Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) and not Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) as MGIS persistently insists. Thus, the computation on her salary differential should not be limited to the period from August 2007 to March 2008 but should extend up to the present. Moving forward, MGIS should pay Espiritu the correct amount of her monthly salary, Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00), for the succeeding months of her employment.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition. ASTcaE
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2013 and October 3, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 113930 are SET ASIDE. Respondent MGIS is ORDERED to pay petitioner Maribeth I. Espiritu her unpaid remuneration to be computed at Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) for every month from August 2007 until the date of this Resolution and thereafter pay her the correct amount of her monthly salary of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00). (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. In a Decision of the Special Fourth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 113930 promulgated on August 24, 2012, penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Socorro B. Inting.