FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 163590. November 9, 2015.]
PLANTATION BAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, and GIOVANNI ROSADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 9, 2015which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 163590 — PLANTATION BAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, and GIOVANNI ROSADO, Respondents.
Under review at the instance of the employer is the decision promulgated on November 28, 2003, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding the employee, herein respondent Giovanni Rosado, illegally dismissed from his work as bartender of the petitioner's resort. The petitioner contends that the decision of the CA was contrary to law and relevant jurisprudence.
The antecedents are summarized by the CA, 2 as follows:
On April 16, 1999, the Philam Plans employees had a dinner party at the resort. They were granted free corkage on the bottles of liquor they brought in as part of the package. When all of the bottles they brought in were consumed, Philam Plans employees made an arrangement with Lyndon Navarro, the bar supervisor on duty at that time, to borrow a bottle of Remy Martin Cognac to be replaced the following day. The cognac was replaced with a bottle of J&B Jet Scotch Whisky the next day April 17, 1999 which Lyndon Navarro received. As part of the procedure, Lyndon Navarro was supposed to report the replacement to Cost Control. But since the offices were already closed, he kept the bottle hidden beneath the supervisor's desk which he shared with private respondent, who was informed about it. The following day, Sunday, April 18, 1999, the offices were still closed, hence, Lyndon Navarro could not make a report. The next day, Monday, April 19, was his rest day, hence he did not also report for work. On Tuesday, April 20, when he reported back to work, the bottle of J&B Scotch Whisky he hid under the supervisor's desk was nowhere to be found. He asked private respondent about it but the latter disclaimed any knowledge of the same. The loss of the said bottle was formally reported to the Human Resource Department (HRD) on April 23, 1999. On April 24, 1999, the HRD manager, Cesar Pajo, conducted an investigation on the incident. On April 27, 1999, Cesar Pajo and Chief Steward Wilfredo Donaldo went to private respondent's residence at 114 Spolarium Street, Duljo, Fatima, Cebu City where they met his ailing grandmother and househelp who showed them a bottle of J&B Whisky bottle. They also noticed some other items in the house of private respondent which appear to be the hotel's property. That afternoon, private respondent was immediately confronted by the Food and Beverage Director Enzo Cilliani about the findings of Cesar Pajo and Wilfredo Donaldo that they found items inside his house which appear to be the properties of petitioner and requested him to resign. Later that same afternoon, private respondent was called to a meeting with Cesar Pajo and Wilfredo Donaldo and was told not to report the following day as he was already terminated and somebody else will take over his position.
Accordingly, on May 10, 1999, Rosado filed his complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Cebu City. On its part, the petitioner countered that Rosado had abandoned his work after being required to explain why hotel properties had been found in his home. HESIcT
On November 16, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Rosado's complaint, to wit: 3
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the claim of illegal dismissal but directing the respondent Plantation Bay to pay complainant the sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred (P5,500.00 (P12,100 x 4 mos, -:- 12)) Pesos as proportionate 13th month pay for 1999.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal by Rosado, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter on September 20, 2001, and ruled that the petitioner did not establish Rosado's abandonment of his employment; and concluded instead that Rosado had been terminated from his work without just cause, rendering his dismissal illegal. It disposed: 4
WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing premises, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a NEW ONE ENTERED finding the complainant's termination illegal. He should thus be ordered paid his backwages from April 28, 1999 up to date hereof and in lieu of reinstatement, he is further ordered paid his separation pay computed at the rate of one (1) month pay from date of hire on March 13, 1996 up to date of this decision.
Claim for damages is dismissed for lack of sufficient basis.
SO ORDERED.
After its motion for reconsideration was denied on March 10, 2003, 5 the petitioner assailed the NLRC's decision by petition for certiorari, alleging that the NLRC had gravely abused its discretion in finding that Rosado was illegally dismissed. It insisted that he had abandoned his work, and had filed the complaint for illegal dismissal only to pre-empt the investigation conducted against him for pilferage of company property.
On November 28, 2003, 6 the CA promulgated its judgment holding that Rosado had not abandoned his work because he believed that he was summarily dismissed as bar supervisor, leading him to file his complaint for illegal dismissal; and that the petitioner did not discharge its burden of proof to show abandonment. 7
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 15, 2004. 8
Accordingly, the petitioner appeals, contending that the CA gravely erred in upholding the NLRC, and in finding that Rosado had been illegally dismissed, contrary to the findings of the Labor Arbiter. It argues that the facts established by the parties showed that Rosado had filed the complaint for illegal dismissal in order to pre-empt the investigation against him for pilferage of hotel property, including the J&B Whisky bottle found in his home; hence, he should be declared to have abandoned his job as bartender. 9
We note that in the meantime, on October 4, 2004, the petitioner fully satisfied the monetary aspect of the judgment of the CA by depositing the aggregate amount of P399,826.00 with the NLRC; 10 that Rosado received the total amount of P394,400.00 on October 7, 2004, as borne out by NLRC Disbursement Voucher No. T-2004-10-012; 11 and that Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug issued a certification to the effect that the decision had become final and executory on October 8, 2004. 12 The satisfaction of the judgment was manifested by Rosado in his comment dated January 30, 2006. 13
The petition for review is denied for lack of merit.
Abandonment, to be a sufficient cause for the dismissal of an employee, must be duly alleged and established by the employer. To constitute abandonment, the following requisites must be shown to concur, namely: (a) the employee must have failed to report for work without any valid or justifiable reason; and (b) the employee clearly and intentionally wanted to sever the employer-employee relationship, as manifested by his or her actions. 14
The petitioner did not establish both requisites.
To start with, the petitioner did not refute Rosado's allegation about being informed by the petitioner's HRD Manager and Chief Steward when they "visited" his home not to report to work anymore because he had already been terminated. Secondly, Rosado was not formally placed under preventive suspension, contrary to the claim of the petitioner. In fact, his failure to report to work was not of his own volition, but due to the information from the HRD Manager and Chief Steward that he had been already terminated. And, lastly, Rosado immediately filed the complaint for illegal dismissal two weeks after the incident, an indication that he did not abandon his source of livelihood. caITAC
Moreover, it is on record that the petitioner already fully settled its monetary liability as of October 8, 2004. Based on the certification by Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug of the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII in Cebu City, the decision against the petitioner had become final and executory. Although the petitioner stated in its reply dated March 31, 2006 that the satisfaction of judgment was subject to the outcome of its appeal in this Court, such reservation sounded more like an afterthought on its part. What is indisputable is that the petitioner settled the monetary judgment in full and without any reservation. Accordingly, to still dwell on the appeal if the petitioner already accepted the outcome decreed by the CA will be superfluous.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 28, 2003; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on official business; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 2261 dated October 28, 2015.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 31-38; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga (retired), concurred by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (now a Member of the Court).
2. Id. at 32-33.
3. Id. at 120.
4. Id. at 95-96.
5. Id. at 87-88.
6. Id. at 31-38.
7. Id. at 38.
8. Id. at 41.
9. Id. at 4-25.
10. Id. at 211.
11. Id. at 212.
12. Id. at 213.
13. Id. at 206-209.
14. Concrete Solutions, Inc./Primary Structures Corporation v. Cabusas, G.R. 177812, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 44, 55.