THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215108. March 9, 2015.]
LINTON INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. NORLITO C. PACIFICO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215108(Linton Incorporated vs. Norlito C. Pacifico). — The instant petition for review on certiorari1 assails the Decision 2 dated June 19, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated October 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126138.
Antecedents
The petitioner, Linton Incorporated (Linton), is engaged in the business of buying and selling steel items. It maintains an office in Manila and a plant in Navotas.
In 1986, Linton hired herein respondent Norlito C. Pacifico (Norlito) as a laborer/carpenter. Norlito was promoted through the years. At the time of his dismissal in 2010, he was holding the position of a dispatcher, whose functions included the following: (a) scheduling daily outgoing deliveries of merchandise based on Sales Orders (SOs) and Delivery Receipts (DRs) prepared by the Manila office and forwarded to the Navotas plant; (b) submitting the names of the drivers and helpers to the plant manager, Violito Cuario (Violito), for the latter to compute the transportation allowances necessary to effect the deliveries; (c) receiving cash payments for the delivered items and thereafter turning the same over to Violito with the accompanying SOs and DRs for the latter to sign; and (d) preparing on a daily basis a Submission Report which lists the buyers' names and addresses, SO and DR numbers and the description of the delivered items in the SOs. 4
Sometime in October of 2010, Violito instructed Norlito not to include in his Submission Report the SO of a cash sale in the amount of P4,900.00. Unintentionally, Norlito still indicated the said SO in his report. Further, the buyer eventually asked for an official receipt, which prompted Linton's Manila office to inquire from Norlito about the particular sale. 5EACTSH
Between October 27, 2010 and November 26, 2010, Norlito received a total of five administrative memoranda charging him with grave misconduct in the performance of his duties and anomalies with regards to various cash SOs. He was likewise placed under suspension for seven days from November 2 to 9, 2010. 6
In his answer, Norlito alleged that he gave the proceeds of the sales to Violito, who, in turn, denied the same. 7
Per Memorandum dated December 10, 2010, Linton dismissed Norlito from service effective November 11, 2010. The bases of the dismissal were Norlito's failure to (a) account for liquidated trucking expenses in the amount of P16,000.00, and (b) return and remit to Linton's Accounting Department 10 cash SOs with a cumulative amount of P49,045.00. 8
Consequently, Norlito filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay and money claims against Linton and its chairman, Lim Ka Thong.
The Rulings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA
On June 30, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision 9 declaring that Norlito was illegally dismissed and awarding in the latter's favor the total amount of P448,606.32 representing back salaries, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance and separation, 13th month and service incentive leave pay. 10 The LA awarded no interest to be imposed upon the total award adjudged.
In declaring the illegality of Norlito's dismissal, the LA explained that:
[N]ot one of the questionable Cash [SOs] were presented in evidence by [Linton and Lim Ka Thong] but Affidavits of [Violito], the Plant Manager, Dante B. Bonega and Danilo M. Aras, both security guards, and Virgilio Agang, stocks clerk. These Affidavits were all executed on February 21, 2011, about two (2) months after the filing of the instant case.
The Notice of Termination was issued on December 8, 2010 but as early as November 11, 2010[,] [Norlito] was already considered dismissed from the service. Thus, the Memoranda dated November 11, 2010, November 18, 2010 . . . and November 26, 2010 are all sham considerin[g] that his dismissal was already a foregone conclusion. Likewise, the Affidavits of the witnesses for [Linton and Lim Ka Thong] are self-serving and an afterthought, therefore[,] they cannot be considered as convincing evidence to support the alleged anomalies of [Norlito]. . . . . 11
Linton and Lim Ka Thong appealed before the NLRC, which on April 23, 2012 rendered a Decision 12 affirming the LA ruling. The NLRC found that the arguments in the appeal failed to address the substantial and evidentiary issues material to the case.
In the Resolution 13 dated May 31, 2012, the NLRC likewise denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Linton and Lim Ka Thong.
Linton and Lim Ka Thong thereafter filed a Petition for Certiorari14 before the CA, which resolved the same by affirming the LA and NLRC's disquisitions anent the illegality of Norlito's dismissal. The CA rationalized as follows:
[T]he [LA] concluded that the pieces of evidence before her were insufficient to justify the dismissal of [Norlito]. Such insufficiency was caused by [Linton and Lim Ka Thong's] neglect in not submitting the copies of the [SOs]. These documents were obviously important to the [LA] because they are evidence of the transactions the proceeds of which were claimed to have been misappropriated by [Norlito] leading to his dismissal. . . . . EaSCAH
Similarly, in adopting the findings of the [LA], the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It must be emphasized that when the assailed decision of the NLRC was issued, [Linton and Lim Ka Thong] have not yet submitted the [SOs] and the [DRs]. They were filed on 9 May 2012 or more than a year after [Linton and Lim Ka Thong] filed their position paper and after the decision of the NLRC was rendered on 23 April 2012. Thus, the NLRC cannot be faulted for adopting the factual findings and, consequently, affirming the decision of the [LA] because the NLRC only had the same evidence that the [LA] had.
. . . Although the "settled rule is that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases," it is required however, that the delay "in the submission of evidence should be clearly explained." . . . In the case at bar, [Linton and Lim Ka Thong] did not even explain why the [S]ubmission [R]eports and daily outgoing reports were delayed. . . . .
The same goes [for] the [SOs] and [DRs] which were filed much later than the reports. [Linton and Lim Ka Thong], in seeking for reconsideration of the assailed decision, attached to their motion the relevant [SOs] and [DRs]. Parenthetically, We noticed that previously, [Linton and Lim Ka Thong], in their memorandum submitted to the NLRC, said that "there is no need to present, in evidence, said Cash [SOs], which are all missing and could not be found up to this writing." However, in the reply they filed with the NLRC, they contradicted their own allegations when they admitted that the pink copies of the [SOs] and the [DRs] were retained by them, hence, they were not missing. . . . These documents were rightly disregarded by the NLRC by denying the motion for reconsideration. The explanation on the delay is not convincing. It should be noted that the subject documents have been made the basis for the dismissal of their employee . . . . One wonders why Linton would toss said documents with [the] rest of its records when they would need them in the case filed against them. 15 (Citations omitted)
The CA, however, dismissed the complaint against Lim Ka Thong on the ground that there was no evidence of bad faith or malice on his part or of his direct participation in Norlito's dismissal. 16
In the herein assailed Resolution dated October 28, 2014, the CA denied Linton and Lim Ka Thong's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. 17
Issue
The instant petition raises the sole issue of whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed in toto the NLRC decision and resolution insofar as Linton is concerned granting Norlito monetary award notwithstanding the fact that the latter was validly and justly dismissed in accordance with the Labor Code. 18EAaHTI
In other words, Linton challenges the LA, NLRC and CA's uniform finding that Norlito was illegally dismissed, hence, entitled to his money claims.
Ruling of the Court
The Court need not belabor the issue presented herein for being factual in character.
"It is settled that Rule 45 limits us merely to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. The Court is generally bound by the CA's factual findings, except only in some instances, among which is, when the said findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated. 19
In the case at bar, the LA, NLRC and CA uniformly found that Norlito was dismissed without just and valid cause and sans observance of procedural due process. This uniform finding was based on substantial evidence, hence, binding upon the Court.
However, in view of Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 20 the Court finds it proper to modify the herein assailed decision by imposing upon the total monetary award the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof. TAacIE
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 19, 2014 and Resolution dated October 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126138 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Linton Incorporated is hereby directed to PAY Norlito C. Pacifico the following:
(1) backwages, inclusive of basic salary, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and 13th month and service incentive leave pay reckoned from November 11, 2010, the date of illegal dismissal from employment, up to the finality of this Resolution;
(2) separation pay computed from May 24, 1986, the date of initial employment, up to the finality of this Resolution at the rate of one month pay per year of service; and
(3) the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum of the total monetary award computed from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof.
The LABOR ARBITER is hereby ORDERED to make a RECOMPUTATION of the total monetary benefits awarded and due to Norlito C. Pacifico in accordance with this Resolution."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-21.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba concurring; id. at 22-29.
3. Id. at 38.
4. Id. at 52-53.
5. Id. at 53.
6. Id. at 54.
7. Id. at 23.
8. Id. at 54-55.
9. Issued by LA Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga; id. at 39-50.
10. Id. at 49-50.
11. Id. at 48-49.
12. Issued by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog, with Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-de Castro concurring; id. at 51-57.
13. Id. at 58-59.
14. Id. at 60-101.
15. Id. at 26-27.
16. Id. at 28.
17. Id. at 30-34.
18. Id. at 17-18.
19. United Tourist Promotions (UTP) v. Kemplin, G.R. No. 205453, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 559, 572-573.
20. G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439.