Greenstone Packaging Corp. v. Gomez

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254987. May 14, 2021.]

GREENSTONE PACKAGING CORP. AND NIXON LIM, petitioners, vs.RICKY ALTO GOMEZ, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254987 (Greenstone Packaging Corp. and Nixon Lim, Petitioners v. Ricky Alto Gomez, Respondent.) — This Petition for Review (Petition) 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution 2 dated 18 June 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated 22 December 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 163656, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Greenstone Packaging Corporation (GPC) and Nixon Lim (collectively, petitioners).

This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay and separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, filed by Ricky Alto Gomez (Gomez) against petitioners. In contravention, petitioners insist that Gomez was validly terminated for sleeping thrice during office hours, which under company rules and regulations warrants a penalty of termination. On the other hand, Gomez claimed that on most of the instances that he was caught "sleeping," he was not really sleeping but was feeling dizzy. 4

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but directed GPC to pay Gomez's his proportionate 13th month pay of Php7,987.20. 5

On appeal, the NLRC partly granted the appeal and ordered the reinstatement of Gomez and the payment of backwages. 6 The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision dated 09 May 2019 reads:

WHEREFORE, complainant's appeal is hereby PARTLYGRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 29, 2018 rendered by Labor Arbiter Benedict G. Kato is hereby MODIFIED in that Greenstone Packaging Corporation is ordered the following: cDHAES

1. to reinstate complainant Ricky Alto Gomez to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and

2. to pay him full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from August 6, 2018 until his actual reinstatement, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.

A provisional computation of complainant's judgment award is attached as an integral part of this decision.

The rest of the assailed Decision STANDS.

SO ORDERED.7

Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its Resolution 8 dated 30 August 2019, prompting petitioners to file a petition for certiorari before the CA. 9

The CA, however, dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners, holding that aside from the procedurally infirm petition, petitioners failed to prove that the NLRC committed grave abuse of error in issuing the assailed decision and resolution. The CA stressed that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause. In this case, the CA found that petitioners failed to discharge such burden, leading to the conclusion that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. 10

We DENY the Petition.

A review of the CA decision in a labor case via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to resolving only questions of law. In this case, petitioners are asking the Court to re-examine the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA. The Court is not a trier of facts. It is not this Court's function to examine and evaluate anew the factual issues and evidence already passed upon by the CA and the NLRC.

Factual findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies such as the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality when affirmed by the CA, thus:

As a rule, we only examine questions of law in a Rule 45 petition. Thus, "we do not reexamine conflicting evidence, reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the [National Labor Relations Commission], an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field." Similarly, we do not replace our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, when confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are usually "conclusive on this Court." 11

In this case, the CA concurred with the NLRC ruling that there is no substantial evidence to show that Gomez was dismissed for a just and valid cause. Petitioners insist that Gomez was validly terminated for sleeping thrice during office hours, which under company rules and regulations, warrants a penalty of termination. In justifying such infractions as willful disobedience warranting the employee's dismissal, petitioners claim that GPC was merely exercising its management prerogative in terminating Gomez and that it is in the employer's interest to prevent their employees from sleeping on the job.

We cannot subscribe to petitioners' view. As noted by the NLRC, even the GPC rules and regulations on "sleeping or napping" while on duty states that "the penalty may be lower or higher than the one cited herein depending on the nature of assignment and the probable or actual consequences arising from the infraction." In this case, petitioners failed to substantially show that the nature of Gomez's assignment and the probable or actual consequences arising from his alleged sleeping on the job warrants the grave penalty of dismissal from service. As found by the NLRC, and affirmed by the CA, Gomez's alleged act of sleeping on the job were not done with wrongful, malicious, or perverse intent. In particular, the NLRC noted that the third incident of alleged "sleeping" was denied by Gomez who maintained that he was feeling dizzy which caused him to lie down for awhile. Although an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees, those directives, however, must always be fair and reasonable, with the corresponding penalties commensurate to the offense involved and the degree of the infraction. 12 We concur with the ruling of the NLRC and the CA that the alleged infractions do not warrant the very harsh penalty of dismissal from service, especially considering Gomez's more than 17 years of service with the company.

Lastly, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed to the monetary amounts granted from the finality of the NLRC's Decision dated 09 May 2019 until fully paid. 13

WHEREFORE, the Resolutions dated 18 June 2020 and 22 December 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 163656 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the NLRC's Decision dated 09 May 2019 until the amounts are fully paid. ASEcHI

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. 9-27.

2.Id. at 31-37; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Second (2nd) Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

3.Id. at 39; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Former Second Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

4.Id. at 31-33.

5.Id. at 33.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 125.

8.Id. at 138-142.

9.Id. at 34.

10.Id. at 34-36.

11.Menez v. Status Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 227523, 29 August 2018 [Per J. Caguioa], citing Madridejos v. NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., 810 Phil. 704, 723-724 (2017); G.R. No. 204262, 07 June 2017 [Per J. Leonen].

12.See VH Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 379 Phil. 444, 451 (2000); G.R. No. 130957, 19 January 2000 [Per J. De Leon, Jr.].

13.See Skyway O & M Corp. v. Reinante, G.R. No. 222233, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Inting].