FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210781. December 5, 2018.]
FRANCIS C. PANCHO AND JOSEPH M. MORADA, petitioners, vs.METRO LEGAZPI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VICTORIA FEROLINO, REMLYN * TIPONTIPON, AND EDWARD GAISANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 5, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210781 (Francis C. Pancho and Joseph M. Morada v. Metro Legazpi Development Corporation, Victoria Ferolino, Remlyn Tipontipon, and Edward Gaisano). — This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Francis C. Pancho (Pancho) and Joseph M. Morada (Morada) seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' (CA) July 15, 2013 Decision 2 and January 8, 2014 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122205. The CA denied petitioners' special civil action for certiorari 4 under Rule 65 against the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) July 4, 2011 Decision 5 and September 6, 2011 Resolution 6 in NLRC-LAC Case No. 02-000376-11. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's (LA) December 28, 2010 Decision 7 dismissing petitioners' consolidated complaints 8 for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, underpayment, and claims for damages including attorney's fees against Metro Legazpi Development Corporation (MLDC), its Vice President Edward Gaisano, Store Manager Victoria Ferolino, and Human Resources (HR) Liaison Officer Remlyn Tipontipon (Tipontipon) (collectively, respondents). 9
Petitioners Pancho and Morada worked as store nurse and receiving checker respectively in MLDC, a domestic corporation operating a wholesale and retail mall in Legazpi City. 10 The dispute arose when they both received separate Notices to Explain with Preventive Suspensions from the management, as follows: (1) Notice 11 dated June 9, 2010 charging Pancho with falsification of her Social Security System (SSS) sickness benefit application form, a criminal act punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC); (2) Notice 12 dated June 16, 2010 charging Morada with making derogatory statements tending to discredit, dishonor, and put the company in a bad light before the police and over a radio program in violation of Section 5 13 of the company rules, and insubordination for his alleged refusal to report to Luz Bitang (Bitang), Assistant Vice President (AVP) for Operations, in violation of Section 4 14 of the company rules; and (3) Notice 15 dated June 16, 2010 charging Pancho with making derogatory statements over the same radio program tending to discredit, dishonor, and put the company in a bad light. CAIHTE
After receipt of petitioners' explanations and conduct of subsequent investigation, respondents terminated their services on July 8 and 15, 2010 respectively on grounds of serious misconduct, disloyalty, and willful disobedience. 16
Subsequently, petitioners filed their consolidated complaints with the LA. They claimed that their dismissals were not only without just cause but also discriminatory and coercive conducts against them for initiating the formation of the Metro Legazpi Rank and File Employees Union-All Filipino Workers Confederation (MLRFEU-AFWC), and for being its officers. 17
Pancho denied that she was guilty of dishonesty because her superiors allowed her to file the Sickness Notification (SN) form. She explained that when she felt sick on April 28, 2010, she consulted with the company doctor, who filled out the first SN form indicating that she needed to be on a 30-day recuperation period. On May 9, 2010, HR Liaison Officer Jeamary 18 Buendia (Buendia) required her to report for work upon advice of Senior Store Manager Glenda Navares. Respondent Tipontipon, another HR Liaison Officer, disapproved her first SN form but was aware of, and consented to, Pancho's filing of the second SN form 19 covering the period from May 12 to June 11, 2010. 20
Morada, on the other hand, claimed that he is not guilty of either willful disobedience or serious misconduct. First, he clarified that his alleged refusal to report to the office of the AVP for Operations could not be considered willful disobedience since he did not disobey any reasonable order. It was the respondents who failed or refused to answer his inquiry on the reason why he was being called to report to the office of the AVP for Operations. 21 Second, he explained that his statements before the police and recorded in the police blotter were true and accurate: 22 that in a meeting held on June 13, 2010, MLDC's Head of the Security Department Retired Major General Victor U. Garcia (Retired General Garcia) accused the MLRFEU-AFWC of being a communist/New People's Army organization; and that all employees, including Morada but without Pancho, were locked in the room and forced to sign an affidavit of retraction. 23 Unfortunately, the local media got wind of the incident and had it aired as part of the daily news. 24
With respect to the radio interview where they characterized the alleged incident as a form of harassment, 25 Morada, together with Pancho, averred that they accepted the radio station's request for interview as part of their freedom of speech, and to fulfill their duty to protect MLRFEU-AFWC from the false accusations and its members from the coercive attitude of the respondents. 26
For their part, respondents explained that Pancho's acts of falsifying her SSS sickness benefit application form 27 and making damaging remarks over the radio against respondents are tantamount to fraud and serious misconduct. They claimed that she fabricated the period of her confinement to 30 days in order to claim sickness benefits covering the said period despite being fully aware that she was out on sick leave for only seven days. This act of falsifying an entry in her SSS sickness benefit application form is an act of serious misconduct amounting to loss of trust and confidence. More, Pancho's untruthful statements over the radio accusing respondents of harassments, which caused damage to MLDC's reputation, justified her dismissal. 28 As to Morada, his act of entering into the police record false and unfounded statements and accusations not only against his superiors but also against MLDC, and his subsequent conduct of going to the radio station on June 18, 2010 to air vicious lies against respondents amounted to serious misconduct. Also, Morada's stubborn defiance to the directive for him to personally see the AVP for Operations demonstrates his lack of respect for his superiors. 29
The LA dismissed the consolidated complaints for lack of merit, 30 holding that both petitioners were dismissed for just cause.
First, respondents presented substantial evidence proving that Pancho's SSS sickness benefit application form dated May 12, 2010 falsely stated that she was on home confinement since May 12, 2010 due to an ailment, and that she wrongfully sought approval from the SSS to reimburse the company for her 30-day sickness benefits. 31 However, Pancho's Attendance Report 32 for the period disclosed that she reported for work and discharged her duties during the material period. The LA rejected Pancho's claim that she was compelled to report to the office as this was categorically denied by Buendia and Tipontipon; there was also no showing that her supervisors were motivated by ill will or bad faith in testifying against her. The LA found that Pancho's dishonesty in this incident, considered together with her past charges of dishonesty involving shortage of cash 33 when she was still a cash card custodian, amounts to a just cause for her dismissal. 34 DETACa
Second, the LA found Morada guilty of disobedience for failing to report to Bitang as the AVP for Operations despite instructions to do so. It held that Morada should have reported to Bitang since it is the fundamental duty of an employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules. 35
Third, the LA agreed that petitioners' acts of making derogatory statements before the police and media amounted to serious misconduct. Morada's acts of entering into the police records false statements and accusations against respondents were established. Pancho's statements over the radio regarding the incidents in the meeting were also inaccurate because records disclose that she was not present in the meeting. Thus, the LA concluded that petitioners overstepped the limit of their right to freely express themselves. 36
Lastly, the LA also found that respondents complied with the requirements of procedural due process. He also noted that petitioners' claims of illegal suspension and underpayment were not mentioned, discussed, and presented as issues in their position paper, making them without any factual basis. 37
The NLRC affirmed the LA's Decision 38 and denied petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration in its September 6, 2011 Resolution. 39
The CA denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 subsequently filed by petitioners. It found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in upholding the dismissal of the consolidated complaints. Pancho and Morada were guilty of serious misconduct for the false accusations against their employer, while Pancho was additionally guilty of committing a crime or offense against the person of her employer. Nevertheless, the CA took exception to the conclusion that Morada committed willful disobedience. According to the CA, the order to see Bitang did not pertain to the duties which Morada had been engaged to discharge as a receiving checker; Morada's inquiry as to the purpose of the meeting, without more, is not sufficient to support a finding of willful disobedience on his part. 40
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CA in its January 8, 2014 Resolution. 41
Here, petitioners reiterate that their dismissals from service were discriminatory and coercive conducts against them for being officers of MLRFEU-AFWC, and were designed to persecute them because of their union activities. They reiterate that they were acting well within their rights when they, as union officers and employees, recorded respondents' coercive acts in the police blotter and accepted a radio interview. 42 They also reiterate that Pancho's alleged offense of falsifying her SSS sickness benefit application form was tolerated or acquiesced by respondents. 43
In their comment, 44 respondents counter that petitioners' dismissals were not because of their affiliation to MLRFEU-AFWC, but because of their individual commission of acts of misconduct and dishonesty. According to respondents, there is no basis for the claim of harassment owing to petitioners' union activities. 45 Not only was MLRFEU-AFWC not the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees, it also failed to qualify for a petition for certification election. 46
The issue for resolution is whether the CA correctly determined that no grave abuse of discretion attended the NLRC's Decision when it held that petitioners' dismissals were based on just causes.
We deny the petition.
In labor cases brought up before the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the only issue we need to resolve is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion; we do not review the correctness of the decision itself. 47 Grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when: (1) its findings and conclusions reached are not supported by substantial evidence or are in total disregard of evidence material to, or even decisive of, the controversy; (2) it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; (3) the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and (4) necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. 48 aDSIHc
Here, the petition reopens the issues of whether petitioners committed acts of dishonesty and serious misconduct that justified their dismissals. These are factual in nature which, as a general rule, cannot be reviewed in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. We are not triers of fact; our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous. 49
More, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. 50
In this case, we agree with the CA that no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the NLRC and the LA in arriving at their decisions. Contrary to petitioners' claim, we find that the findings of serious misconduct are supported by substantial evidence.
Article 282 51 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code of the Philippines enumerates the just causes for which an employer may terminate an employment. Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. For serious misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the concurrence of the following elements is required: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. 52
Pancho's acts of falsification are evident from the discrepancy between her SN form, her SSS sickness benefit application form dated May 12, 2010, where she indicated that she was on home confinement since May 12, 2010 due to an ailment and that she sought approval from the SSS to reimburse the company for her 30-day sickness benefits, and her Attendance Report which disclosed that she reported for work and discharged her duties during the relevant period. Also, her claim that she was compelled to report to the office or was allegedly allowed to do so does not absolve her. For one, this was denied by Buendia 53 and Tipontipon. 54
The falsification of an SSS Form is a serious offense punishable by the RPC itself. As we have held in Mirano v. National Labor Relations Commission, 55 its commission constitutes serious misconduct that warrants the penalty of dismissal. Such misrepresentation is also an act of fraud or dishonesty committed against MLDC, which is another just cause for termination of employment. 56 As correctly noted by the CA and the LA, the act, if countenanced, would result in double compensation to Pancho to MLDC's detriment; it would also make MLDC an involuntary partner in committing a fraud. 57
We further find that respondents were able to prove by substantial evidence that Morada's statements and accusations against respondents before the police and over the radio were false and fabricated. Respondents were able to present the affidavit complaint 58 of Retired General Garcia who denied all the imputations. They also presented the affidavits 59 of four employees present in the meeting, disclaiming Morada's statements that the retired general called Morada and his group an NPA or communist, that they were forced to retract from MLRFEU-AFWC, and that they were locked inside the meeting room. In contrast, Morada's statements were uncorroborated except by Pancho who was not even in attendance at the meeting. To uphold his lone testimony at this point would amount to re-evaluating the credibility of witnesses when there is no reason to do so. 60 ETHIDa
The same conclusion applies to Pancho's statements aired over the radio regarding the alleged incidents in the meeting. Not only were Pancho's statements untruthful and disparaging, as shown by the evidence on record, she also demonstrated bad faith when she gave said statements about the meeting despite the undisputed fact that she was not present thereat. An act of making false derogatory statements imputing criminal acts on the part of the employer, more so when uttered to the police and over media, is not only a violation of the MLDC's rules and regulations, 61 it also constitutes serious misconduct and may be a valid ground for terminating an employee. 62
Finally, the records are devoid of any substantial evidence that would establish petitioners' claim that their dismissals were entirely and exclusively motivated by their union affiliation or brought about by a clear discriminatory motive. In contrast, their individual misconducts were sufficiently established by respondents. From the foregoing, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the NLRC in upholding their dismissals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 15, 2013 and Resolution dated January 8, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122205 are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as Remylyn and Remalyn in other parts of the record.
1. Rollo, pp. 11-41.
2. Id. at 47-60; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales. The dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 4, 2011 and the Resolution dated September 6, 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-LAC Case No. 02-000376-11 [NLRC-RAB V Case Nos. 07-00160-10 and 07-00163-10] are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. Id. at 60.
3. Id. at 43-45.
4. Id. at 76-126.
5. Id. at 132-144.
6. Id. at 127-131.
7. Id. at 270-279.
8. NLRC Case Nos. RAB V-07-00160-10 and RAB V-07-00163-10.
9. Rollo, p. 270.
10. Id. at 48.
11. Id. at 350.
12. Id. at 362-363.
13. Id. at 362. Sec. 5. Integrity (Trust and Confidence). — Making derogatory statements, either in oral or written form, tending to discredit, dishonor, or put the Company, co-employee or customer in bad light.
14. Id. Sec. 4. Respect for Authority. — a. Insubordination or refusing lawful and reasonable orders of supervisors.
15. Rollo, pp. 364-365.
16. Id. at 138, 377-379 (Notice of Termination dated July 8, 2010 addressed to Pancho); Id. at 380-382 (Notice of Termination dated July 15, 2010 addressed to Morada).
17. Id. at 53.
18. Also referred to as Joemary in other parts of the record.
19. Rollo, pp. 460-461.
20. Id. at 324-329.
21. Id. at 334, 368.
22. Id. at 71-72.
23. Id. at 570.
24. Id. at 88.
25. Id. at 577-589.
26. Id. at 331, 333-334.
27. Id. at 462.
28. Id. at 405-406, 409.
29. Id. at 272.
30. Id. at 279. The dispositive portion of the LA's Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints for illegal dismissal, for lack of merit.
All other claims and/or charges are likewise dismissed, for lack of factual and/or legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
31. Id. at 274.
32. Id. at 463-465.
33. Id. at 428.
34. Id. at 275.
35. Id. at 276.
36. Id. at 277.
37. Id. at 278-279.
38. Id. at 143. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
39. Supra note 6.
40. Rollo, pp. 56-60.
41. Supra note 3.
42. Rollo, pp. 22, 24-25.
43. Id. at 28-29, 32-34.
44. Id. at 674-699.
45. Id. at 689-690.
46. Id. at 675, 689.
47. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 334, 342-343.
48. E. Ganzon, Inc. (EGI) v. Ando, Jr., G.R. No. 214183, February 20, 2017, 818 SCRA 165, 174. Citation omitted.
49. Maritime Factors, Inc. v. Hindang, G.R. No. 151993, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 526, 532.
50. Id. at 533. Citation omitted.
51. Art. 282 (Now Art. 297). Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
52. Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, Jr., G.R. No. 222730, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 191, 199-200. Citations omitted.
53. Rollo, pp. 481-483.
54. Id. at 484.
55. G.R. No. 121112, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 96.
56. Id. at 105; San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82467, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 510, 515.
57. Rollo, pp. 57, 139.
58. Id. at 562-564.
59. Id. at 565-566 (Joint Affidavit executed by Josela M. Botin, Maria Cristina Barnedo, and Judith M. Sarturio); Id. at 571-572 (Affidavit of Noel B. Samar).
60. See Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Incorporated v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121324, September 30, 1999, 315 SCRA 587, 597.
61. Supra note 13.
62. See Autobus Workers' Union (AWU) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117453, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 219, 228.