FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223190. December 7, 2020.]
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., petitioner,vs. MARIA CORAZON F. MALIWAT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 7, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223190 (Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc., Petitioner, v. Maria Corazon F. Maliwat, Respondent). — This petition for review on certiorari1 assails the Decision 2 dated 01 December 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated 23 February 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130569, affirming the Decision 4 dated 27 November 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the Decision 5 dated 19 January 2012 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), and declared petitioner Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. (petitioner) guilty of illegal dismissal.
Antecedents
The case stemmed from the illegal dismissal complaint filed by respondent Maria Corazon F. Maliwat (respondent) against petitioner. Respondent alleged that she was employed by petitioner in 1982. By the time she was terminated on 01 March 2010, respondent was holding the position of Account Analyst 6 assigned at the Central Luzon Operations Office (CLO).
As an Account Analyst, respondent was responsible for reviewing and validating hauling charges and other related billings of third party operators. She would usually prepare Credit Memorandum (CM) for offsetting the haulers/distributors' billings against their outstanding receivables, then transmit the same with the supporting documents to Credit and Finance Manager Alex Rampas (Rampas) 7 and Finance Manager Susana Palo (Palo), for their review, approval, and signature. The documents would then be returned to respondent for offsetting.
Respondent averred that on 12 January 2010, Rampas and Palo confronted her regarding their alleged forged signatures on CM CLO-10001119 and the overpayment made to some haulers/distributors, particularly Amy's Store, owned by John V. Bolus (Bolus), and Gina's General Merchandise, owned by Renato Decena. Respondent, who denied any participation in the alleged irregularities, was told by Rampas and Palo to await the result of the ongoing audit. Demoralized by the accusation against her, respondent went on leave starting 13 January 2010.
Subsequently, respondent received a memorandum 8 enumerating the charges against her, and requiring her to explain and appear at the scheduled administrative hearing on 01 February 2010. She was then placed under preventive suspension for thirty (30) days on even date. In her written explanation 9 dated 15 February 2010, respondent insisted that she never forged or falsified any signature, neither has she received any bribe during her more than twenty (20) years of service in the company.
During the administrative hearing, it was revealed that: (1) the hauling charges of Amy's Trucking, also owned by Bolus, for the period covering 01-15 November 2009 only amounted to Php80,984.49, and not Php393,572.80 as billed by respondent in CM No. CLO-10001119; (2) respondent bloated the figures due to Amy's Store by crediting to the account of Bolus certain delivery receipts pertaining to other operators and amounts previously credited under CM No. CLO-10001085 dated 01 December 2009; (3) in CM No. CLO-10001137 dated 17 December 2009, respondent padded the hauling charges of Gina's Merchandising by including several receipts of another hauler in the computation of the CM, making it appear that the amount of Php153,389.01 was creditable to Gina's Merchandising, instead of the correct bill of Php52,946.15; (4) when Rampas and Palo confronted respondent regarding the forgeries, respondent admitted that she committed the forgeries, bloated the actual charges, and received Php50,000.00 from her co-conspirators, Bolus and Decena, for the fraudulent transactions.
Respondent, however, denied the charges against her during the administrative investigation. She insisted that Rampas and Palo admitted that they did not actually see her forge their signatures and the allegations against her were merely based on the fact that she prepared the CMs.
In the Notice of Decision 10 dated 01 March 2010, petitioner terminated respondent, stating that:
Based on available evidence and the testimonies of Finance Manager Susan Palo and Settlement and Credit Manager Alex Rampas, you connived with Amy's Store through John Bolus by forging the signature of SCM Rampas and FM Palo at Credit Memorandum[s] No. 1000119 dated December 28, 2009 wherein you intentionally overstated the amount supposed to be credited to Amy's Store. Records would reveal that you have also attached as supporting documents to the said falsified credit memorandum, billings of other haulers just to increase the CM of Amy's Store. Per admission of SCM Rampas during the admin hearing, you admitted receiving P50,000.00 from Amy's Store through John Bolus from the said anomalous transactions. Moreover, review of all available records at the plant would reveal that Credit Memorandum No. 10001208 you have emailed to SOM Ramel Ramos last January 11, 2010 in the amount of P352,298.43 is non-existing and highly spurious and that SCM Alex Rampas has never approved such credit memorandum. 11
Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
The LA dismissed respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The LA noted that only three (3) persons were involved in the approval of CMs: respondent, Palo, and Rampas. Respondent failed to prove that she did not forge the questioned CMs and with her admission that she prepared the CMs with bloated charges, respondent was lawfully terminated. The LA also found respondent guilty of: (1) serious misconduct or willful disobedience of the lawful orders of her employer or representative in connection with her work; (2) gross habitual neglect of her duties; and (3) fraud or willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed on her by her employer or duly authorized representative, which are justifiable grounds for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
The NLRC granted the appeal. It overturned the LA's decision and held that petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the NLRC's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision appealed from is VACATED, and a new one issued declaring the respondents guilty of illegal dismissal.
Respondents are ordered to pay complainant the following:
|
1) Backwages |
495,591.03 |
|
2) Separation Pay |
420,000.00 |
|
3) Pro. Rate 13th month pay (Decision of the Labor Arbiter) |
2,333.33 |
|
4) Moral damages |
50,000.00 |
|
5) Exemplary damages, and |
50,000.00 |
|
6) Attorney's fees |
101,792.43 |
|
|
––––––––––– |
|
TOTAL |
1,119,716.73 |
The attached computation of the judgment awards is hereby adapted as an integral part of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.12
According to the NLRC, there were four (4) signatures appearing on CM No. CLO-10001119, contrary to petitioner's claim that only respondent, Rampas, and Palo signed the CMs. The unidentified signature was already existing even before Rampas and Palo affixed their "signatures." Further, the unidentified signature was never mentioned nor identified by petitioner in its pleadings. As regards CM No. CLO-10001137, the NLRC observed that respondent's signature therein appears to be fake. It noted that Rampas and Palo, who never claimed that their signatures were forged in CM No. CLO-10001137, appeared to have signed the said CM despite the fake signature of the person who prepared it. Regarding CM No. CLO-10001208, only a Summary of Credit Memos was presented, which does not bear the signature of respondent, thus, casting doubt on whether respondent participated in the preparation of said CM. Contrary to petitioner's claim, nothing in respondent's email sent to the Pulilan Sales Office can be construed as a direct instruction to credit any amount to the account of Amy's Store. The NLRC also found the sworn statements of Rampas and Palo as self-serving and did not conform to the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner.
Further, the NLRC ruled that petitioner failed to prove that respondent padded the billings of the independent contractors. Neither was there any evidence to support that respondent benefitted from the questioned billings. The NLRC found no basis to the charge that respondent received Php50,000.00 from Bolus and Decena, who likewise denied the allegations. In addition, the NLRC rejected the claim of Rampas and Palo that respondent admitted her guilt. Respondent categorically denied the accusation, saying she could not believe that she would be accused of such crimes after decades of working for the company.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion.
Ruling of the CA
Finding no grave abuse of discretion, the CA affirm the NLRC Decision. The CA agreed with the NLRC that petitioner failed to justify respondent's dismissal. The CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove that the signatures of Rampas and Palo were forged and that respondent was the author of the forgery. Petitioner did not even present the genuine signatures of Rampas and Palo for comparison.
On the allegation that respondent instructed the Pulilan Sales Office to credit the CMs, the CA noted that she merely requested confirmation of receipt from the recipient. The CA also found insufficient evidence to support the alleged padding of hauling bills. Petitioner only presented its unauthenticated and unverified summary reports, which were self-serving. The actual receipts of Amy's Trucking and Amy's Store were never offered to prove the alleged padding and over-computation of the billings. The CA likewise did not give credence to Rampas and Palo's statements that respondent admitted receiving Php50,000.00 from Bolus and Decena. As signatories to the CMs, Rampas and Palo were not uninterested witnesses and cannot be considered credible.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the NLRC that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner.
Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
The Court's review of a CA decision in a labor case raised via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to resolving only questions of law. 13 In the case at bar, petitioner raises mainly questions of fact, specifically whether respondent: (1) committed forgeries; (2) intentionally padded the hauling bills credited in favor of Bolus and Decenas' accounts; (3) whether respondent received Php50,000.00 from Bolus and Decena in consideration of the fraudulent transactions; and (4) instructed the Pulilan Sales Office to Credit the erroneous amounts. We reiterate that 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 re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate 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." 14
It should be stressed that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was dismissed for a just or authorized cause. 15 Failure to discharge this duty would lead to the conclusion that the employee was illegally dismissed. 16
In this case, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish that respondent's dismissal from employment was for a just and valid cause. As found by the NLRC and the CA, petitioner's allegation that respondent committed forgeries and padded hauling charges was not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, we affirm the decision of the CA that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner illegally dismissed respondent.
The award of moral and exemplary damages, however, should be deleted for lack of legal basis. Moral and exemplary damages are not automatically awarded based solely on the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without authorized cause and/or due process. 17 Moral damages can be awarded when the dismissal of the employee was attended with bad faith or fraud, or was done in a manner that is oppressive to labor or contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. 18 Exemplary damages, on the other hand, can be recovered when the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. 19
Nothing on record shows that petitioner was motivated by ill will in terminating respondent, or that respondent's dismissal from service was done in a capricious, oppressive, arbitrary, or malevolent manner, to warrant the award of moral and exemplary damages.
Since the total monetary award is lessened with the deletion of moral and exemplary damages, the attorney's fees, which is computed at ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award will likewise be accordingly decreased. 20 Respondent is entitled to attorney's fees since she was forced to litigate to enforce her rights and protect her interest. 21 Finally, all monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until full payment. 22
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 01 December 2015 and the Resolution dated 23 February 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130569 are AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent:
|
1) Backwages |
495,591.03 |
|
2) Separation Pay |
420,000.00 |
|
3) Pro. Rate 13th month pay (Decision of the Labor Arbiter) |
2,333.33 |
|
4) Attorney's fees |
91,792.43 |
|
TOTAL |
Php1,009,716.79 |
All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.
The ex-parte compliance with the Move in the Premises Resolution dated February 12, 2020, filed by collaborating counsel for petitioner, manifesting that no subsequent developments have arisen so as to aid this Court in the immediate disposition of the instant petition or which may have rendered the case moot and academic is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."Peralta, C.J., recused from the case due to his spouse's prior participation in the Court of Appeals; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated 25 November 2020.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.Rollo, pp. 30-43; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 44-45.
4.Id.No. n pp. 66-82.
5.Id. at 209-225.
6. According to petitioner, respondent was hired as a credit analyst.
7. According to petitioner, Rampas is the company's Settlement and Credit Manager.
8.Rollo, pp. 172-174.
9.Id. at 189-190.
10.Id. at 191-196.
11.Id. at 194.
12.Id. at 81-82.
13.Agayan v. Kital Philippines Corp., G.R. No. 229703, 04 December 2019 [Per J. Inting].
14.Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., G.R. No. 202613, 08 November 2017 [Per J. Caguioa], citing Perea v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 206178, 09 August 2017, 816 Phil. 445-466 (2017) [Per J. Leonen], and Madridejos v. NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204262, 07 June 2017], 810 Phil. 704-733 (2017) [Per J. Leonen].
15.Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, 06 July 2020 [Per J. Hernando]; Marsman & Co., Inc. v. Sta. Rita, G.R. No. 194765, 23 April 2018 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro]; Meatworld International, Inc. v. Hechanova, G.R. No. 208053, 18 October 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
16.Feati University v. Pangan, G.R. No. 202851, 09 September 2019 [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr.].
17.Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation v. Binamira, G.R. No. 170464, 12 July 2010, 639 Phil. 1-16 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo].
18.Roxas v. Baliwag Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 231859, 19 February 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]; Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, 05 September 2018 [Per J. Gesmundo]; Montinola v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 198656, 08 September 2014, 742 Phil. 487-513 (2014) [Per J. Leonen].
19.Id.
20. The revised computation for attorney's fees is: [495,591.03 + 420,000.00 + 2,333.33] x 10% = 91,792.43.
21.Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. v. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, 11 April 2018 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro]; Balais, Jr. v. Se'lon, G.R. No. 196557, 15 June 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
22.Id.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.