THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229197. January 17, 2018.]
ADOLFO B. REYES, petitioner,vs. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC./ATTY. GEORGE GILBERT G. DELA CUESTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 17, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 229197 (Adolfo B. Reyes vs. Asian Terminals, Inc./Atty. George Gilbert G. Dela Cuesta). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal and the setting aside of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated August 25, 2016 and the Resolution 2 dated January 11, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144544. The assailed CA Decision nullified the Decision 3 dated November 27, 2015, as well as the Resolution dated December 29, 2015, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and thereby declared petitioner Adolfo B. Reyes' dismissal from employment valid.
The factual antecedents of this case, as narrated in the CA Decision, are as follows:
The petitioner was an employee of respondent Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) since November 1988. Prior to his dismissal, the petitioner was holding the position of Port Operations Supervisor with a monthly salary of P41,323.00. 4
At around 11:30 p.m. onwards on 16 October 2014, there were two trucks of the respondent ATI's client with Plate Nos. WRQ 383 and ZPS 827 that entered its CNX Terminal. Then, at around 12:00 midnight, while the trucks were waiting to be loaded, the petitioner allegedly approached the drivers thereof, namely: E. Valcobero (driver of WRQ 383) and Recardo Bayocot (driver of ZPS 827), and asked for P500.00. When the truck drivers were unable to instantly produce the said amount, the petitioner purportedly told them that he would just return to complete the transaction once they already have the money. The truck drivers then waited until morning. The incident was later reported to the management of the respondent ATI and it was only then that the truck drivers were able to load their trucks. 5
In view of the said incident, the respondent ATI sent a Notice to Explain (Notice) on October 22, 2014 to the petitioner informing him of the possible offenses that may have been committed if the allegations were found to be true. The petitioner was also placed under a 30-day-preventive suspension and was notified of an administrative hearing scheduled on November 4, 2014. In reply to the Notice, the petitioner then submitted a Letter dated October 27, 2014, categorically denying having approached any truck driver to ask for any monetary consideration on the night of October 16, 2014. He explained that on the said night, even while he was attending to heavy load operations, he still managed to inform the truck drivers that they could already load their containers. In fact, he even woke them up at around 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. but they merely ignored him and, instead, decided to wait until morning for no apparent reason. 6
At the scheduled administrative hearing, the petitioner was handed with a copy of the handwritten letters of E. Valcobero (Valcobero) and Recardo Bayocot (Bayocot) dated October 16, 2014 detailing what transpired from that night until the wee hours of the morning of October 17, 2014. While Valcobero could not accurately identify the supervisor who demanded money from him, Bayocot, on the other hand, positively identified the petitioner, through a photo, as the very same person who refused to load their trucks. The petitioner was also furnished with a copy of the handwritten letter dated October 17, 2014 of a certain Ferdinand C. Ongkit (Ongkit), driver of a truck with Plate No. ZNH 710. In his letter, Ongkit narrated that upon entering the terminal at around 3:00 a.m., on October 17, 2014, someone demanded from him P500.00 as payment but he told that person that his budget is only P200.00. The said person then told Ongkit that the operator would not allow it and that he would just come back but he never did. Ongkit later identified "Picture #2" (petitioner's photo), as the man who approached him on that night. The petitioner, however, did not submit any comment on these letters of the truck drivers. 7
Thereafter, or on November 17, 2014, the respondent ATI decided to terminate the employment of the petitioner for soliciting money in the course of the performance of his duty and for failure to perform his duties and responsibilities, which were tantamount to loss of confidence, each of which is sanctioned by dismissal under its rules. 8
Accordingly, a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal, Non-Payment of 13th Month Pay, Illegal Suspension, Damages and Attorney's Fees (Complaint) was filed by the petitioner against the respondent ATI and its AVP-Legal, the herein respondent Atty. Dela Cuesta, before the Labor Arbiter (LA). 9
In a Decision dated July 31, 2015, the LA dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit. 10 The LA gave credence to the positive identification made by the truck drivers that it was the petitioner who solicited money from them, and, thus, dismissed the general denial proffered by the former. The LA similarly pointed out the lack of ill motive on the part of the truck drivers to falsely accuse the petitioner. With these, the LA concluded that the respondents were able to sufficiently establish that the petitioner committed irregular act, which shows lack of morals, respect, and loyalty to the interest of his employer that justified the termination of his employment. 11 aScITE
On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision dated November 27, 2015, reversed the LA Decision on these grounds: (1) Valcobero's statement that he could not pinpoint the supervisor who approached them only showed that they were not approached; (2) Bayocot's letter did not contain any statement regarding any solicitation; (3) the handwritten statements of the drivers were mere photocopies; thus, they cannot be admitted as evidence and cannot be a credible source of information not being attested to by their makers; (4) there was no evidence as to how the drivers were able to identify the petitioner and that they may have been coached in choosing his photo; (5) credence was given to the sworn statement of one Salvador M. Son (Son), who corroborated the petitioner's version of the events; (6) the NLRC found plausible the petitioner's explanation that the truck drivers simply wanted to wait it out until morning; (7) the respondents' assertion that the primary interest of any truck entering the terminal is to load cargo the soonest possible time is a mere assumption based on their standpoint; and (8) the respondents did not allege that the petitioner committed any other corrupt act in his 26 years of service, as well as the evidence of solicitation. The respondents sought reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated December 29, 2015. 12
On further appeal, the CA, in its now assailed Decision dated August 25, 2016, nullified the Decision and the Resolution of the NLRC and declared valid the petitioner's dismissal from employment. In so ruling, the CA upheld the veracity and integrity of Valcobero and Bayocot's statements not having been motivated by ill will in making the damaging accusation against the petitioner. Aside therefrom, the petitioner was positively identified by Bayocot to be the same supervisor who solicited P500.00 from him. The CA also deemed unacceptable the NLRC's incredulity on the regularity of the procedure observed during Bayocot's identification of the petitioner through photos. Since it was not shown that Bayocot knew the name of the petitioner, hence, showing him photos of people he could have possibly encountered on that night was the best thing to do, which procedure is not unusual even in criminal investigations. Moreover, the fact that Bayocot had to identify the petitioner through photos also shows that his accusation of him was neither premeditated nor planned. Further, it is simply illogical that respondents would concoct falsehood against the petitioner only to ease him out of office for no legitimate reason. The CA similarly held that the respondents could not be faulted in their belated presentation of the truck drivers' Sinumpaang Salaysay in their motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, as the petitioner never questioned their photocopied handwritten statements in the proceedings with the LA. Remarkably, when the NLRC refused to admit the same, the respondents rectified it by supplementing it with Sinumpaang Salaysay, which the NLRC should have considered, though belatedly filed. To note, the NLRC is directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice. It may, thus, consider evidence, such as documents and affidavits, submitted by the parties even for the first time on appeal. 13
The petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the now challenged Resolution dated January 11, 2017.
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds:
PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS SERIOUS ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE [CA] AND A PURE QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN RENDERING ITS DECISION, NULLIFYING THE NLRC DECISION, TOTALLY DISREGARDING ITS CLEAR AND SPECIFIC FINDINGS, PARTICULARLY THE NINE REASONS IT MADE IN RESOLVING THE PETITIONER'S CASE IN HIS FAVOR.
THE DECISION OF THE [CA] HAS NO BASIS AT ALL AS IT IS CONTRARY TO MATERIAL FACTS, ISSUES, ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON RECORD BY BOTH PARTIES and CONTRARY TO LAW AND EXISTING APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED WOULD CAUSE GRAVE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO HEREIN PETITIONER.14 (Emphasis in the original.)
The petition is not impressed with merit.
After a cautious perusal, this Court finds no sufficient ground to reverse the challenged decision.
The CA correctly ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in its appreciation, or lack of it, of the respondents' evidence against the petitioner. To note, the NLRC refused to admit the photocopied handwritten statements of the truck drivers to prove the solicitation done by the petitioner for not being affidavits. Nonetheless, on motion for reconsideration, the respondents submitted a separate Sinumpaang Salaysay of the truck drivers, particularly Valcobero and Bayocot, to attest to the authenticity of their photocopied handwritten statements. But the NLRC failed to consider the same. This is despite the fact that the truck drivers' statements would readily prove the act of solicitation by the petitioner. Thus, notwithstanding the belated submission of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, still, the NLRC should have considered them just the same. More so, the respondents cannot be faulted for such belated presentation of the truck driver's Sinumpaang Salaysay considering that the petitioner never objected to the presentation of the former's photocopied handwritten statements in the proceedings before the LA and even in the NLRC. HEITAD
It is well-entrenched that administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law. The rules of procedure are construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies and are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as these are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice. 15 Moreover, Section 10, Rule VII of the 2011 NLRC New Rules of Procedure, as amended, explicitly states that "[t]he rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and a equity shall not be controlling and the [NLRC] shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." With that, the NLRC is not prohibited to consider evidence submitted by the parties even for the first time on appeal or for the first time on motion for reconsideration.
Further, as properly observed by the CA, the truck drivers' statements were clothed with integrity considering that they were not shown to have been motivated by any ill motive in accusing the petitioner of an offense that may cause him to lose his job. In addition thereto, Bayocot positively identified the petitioner to be the same supervisor who solicited P500.00 from him. The manner or procedure of identification done by Bayocot, that is, through photos, is neither improper nor irregular since the latter did not know the name of the petitioner and showing him photos of people he could possibly have encountered that night at the respondent ATI's CNX Terminal was the most reasonable thing to do.
Having established that the petitioner, indeed, solicited money from the truck drivers of the respondents' client in the course of the performance of his duty, thus, his dismissal from employment is valid as the same amounts to serious misconduct, which is a valid cause for dismissal under Article 282 (now Article 296) of the Labor Code, as amended. For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, these elements must concur: (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. 16 Clearly, the petitioner's infractions amount to serious misconduct justifying his dismissal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The CA Decision and Resolution dated August 25, 2016 and January 11, 2017, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 144544 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring, rollo, pp. 33-43.
2.Id. at 23-24.
3. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog with Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, concurring, id. at 24-29.
4. CA Decision dated August 25, 2016, id. at 33-34; NLRC Decision dated November 27, 2015, id. at 24.
5.Id. at 34; id. at 24-25.
6.Id. at 34-35; id.
7.Id. at 35; id. at 25.
8.Id. at 35-36; id.
9.Id. at 36; id.
10. CA Decision dated August 25, 2016, id.
11. NLRC Decision dated November 27, 2015, id. at 25.
12. CA Decision dated August 25, 2016, id. at 36-38; NLRC Decision dated November 27, 2015, id. at 27-29.
13. CA Decision dated August 25, 2016, id. at 39-41.
14. Petition for Review dated March 8, 2017, id. at 15-16.
15.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, et al., G.R. No. 161910, June 17, 2008.
16.Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, et al., G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014.