Greeners Property and Leisure Management Services, Inc. v. Guadarme

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241287. October 6, 2021.]

GREENERS PROPERTY AND LEISURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., petitioner,vs. RENANTE ALCARAZ GUADARME, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241287 (Greeners Property and Leisure Management Services, Inc. v. Renante Alcaraz Guadarme). — In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Greeners Property and Leisure Management Services, Inc. (Greeners) assails the Decision 2 dated March 13, 2018, and Resolution 3 dated July 31, 2018, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153649, which reversed and set aside the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Resolution 4 dated June 29, 2017 that respondent Renante A. Guadarme (Renante) was validly dismissed for Insubordination.

In its Petition, 5 Greeners claims that Renante was sufficiently informed of the Transfer Memorandum, 6 as shown by his admission that he collectively received the Transfer Memorandum and First and Second Notice to Explain (NTE) 7 on May 24, 2016. Consequently, he is fully aware of his transfer of assignment and had the opportunity to comply but he deliberately defied it. Despite receipt of the Notices, he did not bother to question why he was being charged for Insubordination. 8 Renante only filed a Complaint on July 13, 2016, or 50 days after he received the Notices through registered mail. 9 Lastly, Renante was clearly given an opportunity to be heard because he was required to explain and attend an administrative hearing yet opted not to do so.

In his Comment, 10 Renante counters that he did not commit Insubordination because he only came to know of the Transfer Memorandum on May 24, 2016.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's finding that Renante was guilty of Insubordination.

RULING

The Petition is meritorious.

In Petitions for Certiorari concerning Labor cases, the CA's review is limited to determining whether there was Grave Abuse of Discretion on the part of the NLRC in reaching its findings. 11 Here, the NLRC, on reconsideration, found that Renante was informed of the Transfer Memorandum as he admitted that he received it together with the First and Second NTEs on May 24, 2016. On the other hand, the CA, while recognizing Renante's receipt of the documents on May 24, 2016, ruled that it was insufficient to inform Renante of his transfer of assignment.

We do not agree with the CA.

The NLRC's finding that Renante was sufficiently informed of his new work assignment prior to his termination is supported by substantial evidence and admission of Renante.

Dismissal on the ground of

As a rule, the transfer of an employee lies within the ambit of the employer's prerogatives. The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employee's salary, benefits, and other privileges. Thus, the refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes Insubordination or willful disobedience of a lawful order of an employer. 12 Nevertheless, the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. 13 To discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, and not based on mere surmises or conjectures. 14

Insubordination, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, requires the concurrence of the following: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; (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. 15

In this case, the change of Renante's work assignment cannot be considered unreasonable or inconvenient because SM MOA is only 25 meters away from SM by the Bay. Also, the transfer does not involve a demotion in rank and there is no diminution of Renante's salary as he will continue to serve as a Landscape Maintenance Staff in his new work assignment.

There is likewise no dispute that Renante received copies of the Transfer Memorandum and the First and Second NTEs on May 24, 2016. However, the NLRC and the CA differ as to whether the receipt was sufficient to inform Renante of his new assignment and whether his non-compliance was willful. Thus, the issues to be resolved are (1) whether Renante was sufficiently informed of the Transfer Memorandum and (2) whether his non-compliance was willful.

Renante was sufficiently

Aside from the affidavits of Greeners' witnesses on the attempts to personally serve the Transfer Order and the Notices to Renante, the latter admitted that he received the Transfer Memorandum, with the First and Second NTEs on May 24, 2016 via registered mail. Thus, Renante cannot deny knowledge of the Order to transfer as the memorandum clearly stated that his new assignment will be at SM by the Bay. In addition, the First and Second NTEs which he received on the same day referred to his non-compliance to the transfer order. Therefore, Renante was sufficiently informed of the change of his work assignment prior to his termination.

Renante's non-compliance with

Notably, from the time he had knowledge of the Transfer Order on May 24, 2016, until his Dismissal 16 on June 15, 2016, Renante had three (3) weeks to comply with or at least communicate his concerns or objections to his employer. He did neither. His only explanation for non-compliance was that he immediately filed a Complaint upon receipt of the documents. We are not convinced. Records show that he only filed a Complaint on July 13, 2016, or a month after he was terminated. He did not do anything in the interim. Renante's inaction and his continued refusal to report to his new work assignment even if he had ample time show that his act of Insubordination was deliberate. 17 Renante took the Transfer Order lightly, despite having received it together with First and Second NTEs. The Notices should have intuitively prompted him to act on the transfer of his assignment since he was already being made to explain his defiance. Quite the contrary, he did nothing to show a willingness to comply with his employer's Transfer Order, nor did he care to provide the basis for his refusal. He merely feigned ignorance of the employer's directive to mask his stubborn refusal to comply with the transfer order.

To be sure, an employee cannot adamantly refuse to abide by a valid Order of Transfer without exposing himself to the risk of being dismissed. 18 An employee's deliberate disregard or disobedience to the legitimate rules and directives from the employer cannot be countenanced by the Court. 19

Renante was deprived of

To recall, in the NLRC's June 29, 2017 Resolution, the NLRC ruled that Renante was validly dismissed for Insubordination but was deprived of procedural due process. In termination cases, the employer must comply with the two-notice rule: the first notice contains the grounds for termination and gives the employee ample opportunity to be heard, while the second notice informs the employee of the decision to dismiss him. 20 In this case, Greeners was able to prove compliance with the First Notice because the NTEs it sent by registered mail to Renante was admittedly received by the latter. However, as to the Second Notice, the Court agrees with the NLRC that the affidavit of Greeners' Administrative Officer and Registry Receipts only show the proof of mailing the Notice of Termination to Renante. Since there was no Registry Return Card presented, one cannot conclude that the Notice of Termination was duly received by Renante. 21

Further, Greeners did not move for reconsideration of the NLRC's Judgment and it was only Renante who filed a Certiorari Petition with the CA. It is well settled that a party who fails to appeal from a judgment can no longer seek the reversal or modification thereof. 22 The failure of Greeners to question the NLRC's award of P30,000.00 nominal damages based on its ruling that Renante was deprived of procedural due process is binding upon Greeners. It is immutable and unalterable and may no longer be raised as an issue in this Petition. 23 The same is true for the awards of the service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total awards, which are also sustained.

In addition, the Court rules that all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 24

FOR THESE REASONS, the Decision dated March 13, 2018 and Resolution dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153649 are REVERSED. The Resolution dated June 29, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission is REINSTATED with the modification that all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of the 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.Rollo, pp. 11-52.

2.Id. at 1739-1759. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and with the concurrence of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

3.Id. at 1774-1775. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and with the concurrence of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

4.Id. at 622-630. Penned by Commissioner Bernardino B. Julve with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus. Commissioner Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio dissented. The fallo of the Resolution states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Our Decision promulgated 31st January 2017 is PARTIALLY RECONSIDERED, in that, complainant is hereby declared to have been validly dismissed from service but without the benefit of procedural due process. Accordingly, the award for reinstatement and back wages is DELETED.

Further, the respondents are ordered to pay the complainant the following:

(a) Service Incentive Leave Pay less the amount already received;

(b) Thirty Thousand Pesos ([P]30,000.00) as nominal damages; and

(c) Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total claims.

SO RESOLVED.

5.Id. at 11-52.

6.Id. at 202.

7.Id. at 203-206.

8.Id. at 43-45.

9.Id. at 45.

10.Id. at 1210.

11.Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. v. Solacito, G.R. No. 217431, February 19, 2020.

12.Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 517, 538 (2003).

13.Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, July 24, 2019.

14.Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., 819 Phil. 483, 494 (2017).

15.Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 366 Phil. 313, 318 (1999).

16.Rollo, pp. 208-209.

17.Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra; Solid Development Corporation Workers Association v. Solid Development Corp., 556 Phil. 784, 788 (2007).

18.Genuino Ice Company, Inc. v. Magpantay, 526 Phil. 170, 189 (2006).

19.Santos v. Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc., 789 Phil. 477, 490 (2016).

20.Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc., G.R. No. 229429, November 9, 2020; citing Article 292 of the Labor Code.

21.Rollo, pp. 626-628.

22.Concorde Condominium, Inc. v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. Nos. 228354 & 228359, November 26, 2018.

23.Hiponia-Mayuga v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 761 Phil. 521-529 (2015).

24.Dusol v. Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021; citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 275 (2013).