FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223291. December 2, 2021.]
OSCAR P. RIVERO, complainant, vs.ALL TRANSPORT NETWORK, INC., ALL TRANSPORT BROKERAGE, INC., MR. ANTONIO G. ESTRADA, and MRS. MARYLOU T. ESTRADA, respondents.
[G.R. No. 226880. December 2, 2021.]
ALL TRANSPORT NETWORK, INC., complainant, vs.OSCAR P. RIVERO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 223291 (Oscar P. Rivero v. All Transport Network, Inc., All Transport Brokerage, Inc., Mr. Antonio G. Estrada, and Mrs. Marylou T. Estrada); and G.R. No. 226880(All Transport Network, Inc. v. Oscar P. Rivero). — On February 24, 1994, All Transport Brokerage, Inc. (ATB) hired Oscar P. Rivero (Oscar) as an import clerk. On June 3, 2004, Oscar was transferred to All Transport Network, Inc. (ATN) where he was appointed as customs brokerage officer. Later, Oscar became officer-in-charge of the Brokerage Section and was paid a basic monthly salary of P22,410.00 and fixed allowance of P8,000.00. 1
In December 2012, ATN's client Roberto P. Gopiao Corporation (RPG) complained about the delay in the release of its shipment despite payment of facilitation fees of P80,000.00. 2 On July 12, 2013, ATN issued a memo 3 asking Oscar to explain why he should not be held liable for gross misconduct, fraud and dishonesty, and loss of trust and confidence for the delay and for not remitting the funds he received from RPG. The memo also informed Oscar of his preventive suspension. 4 In response, Oscar explained that the delay resulted from RPG's misdeclaration of the contents of its shipments, and that he did not receive the fees from RPG. Rather, Rocky Ohao, another employee, received the sum and turned it over to processor Myron Perkins, who in turn gave the sum to contacts in the Bureau of Customs. 5
On July 24, 2013, ATN issued a second memo 6 asking Oscar to explain why he should not be held liable for the delay in the release of the shipment of its client Tricum Corporation (Tricum), implementing the wrong initiatives, and mismanaging the facilitation fees. ATN committed to have the cargo released within seven (7) days but the cargo was only released after one (1) month. 7 In response, Oscar denied that he promised that the shipment would be released within seven (7) days since it involved technical smuggling given that the consignee had no customs registration and the item was regulated. Oscar and another employee, Elias Lacatan, exerted their best efforts to have the shipment released at the earliest possible time. He also denied that he misspent the facilitation fees and explained how they were spent. 8
On July 31, 2013, ATN issued a third memo 9 asking Oscar to explain why he should not be held liable for endorsing the requests for cash advance of co-worker Dailo Cruz (Dailo) for excessive charges related to the Armscor Shooting Center, Inc. (Amscor) shipment and for approving certain unauthorized charges. 10 In response, Oscar explained that the Arrmscor shipment was his first transaction involving firearms. He relied on the estimates of Dailo which were provided by the billing section of the customs warehouse. Dailo informed Oscar that additional charges would be imposed due to the nature of the cargo, but Oscar merely endorsed the amount for approval of the chief operating officer. Oscar had not yet approved the liquidation submitted by Dailo because he was still verifying the expenses. 11
After an administrative hearing, ATN dismissed Oscar for serious and grave violations of the Labor Code and company rules and regulations, and loss of trust and confidence. 12 Aggrieved, Oscar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against ATN, ATB, and their officers (ATN, et al.) before the Labor Arbiter (LA). 13 Oscar argued that there was no cause for his dismissal and prayed for his reinstatement and backwages. 14 On the other hand, ATN, et al., countered that Oscar was dismissed for cause and after compliance with due process. 15 In a Decision 16 dated December 27, 2013, the LA ruled that Oscar was illegally dismissed and ordered ATN and ATB to pay his backwages, separation pay as reinstatement is no longer viable, service incentive leave, and attorney's fees, 17 thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring OSCAR PASCUAL RIVERO ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. ALL TRANSPORT NETWORK, INC[.] and ALL TRANSPORT BROKERAGE, INC. are jointly and solidarily ordered to pay OSCAR PASCUAL RIVERO:
[1] Separation pay equivalent to one month pay per year of service and full backwages from August 14, 2013. Separation pay and full backwages shall both be computed up to the date of promulgation of this Decision;
[2] Service incentive leave pay equivalent to 6.5 days;
[3] Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award.
All other claims arc dismissed for lack of merit.
The monetary award is as computed in Annex "A" forming part of this Decision. 18
Both Oscar and ATN, et al., appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Resolution 19 dated May 30, 2014, the NLRC affirmed the LA's finding that Oscar was illegally dismissed as well as the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. However, the NLRC modified the award of backwages by limiting it to six (6) months as a penalty for Oscar's infractions, 20 to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 27 December 2013 is MODIFIED by limiting the award of backwages to complainant to six (6) months only or the amount of [P]182,460.00. The Decision awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, service incentive leave and attorney's fees are (sic)AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 21
Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, 22 Oscar and ATN, et al., filed their petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137293 and CA-G.R. SP No. 137211, respectively. Oscar's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 137293 was dismissed in a Decision 23 dated October 13, 2015, ratiocinating that ATN, et al., acted in good faith when it terminated Oscar's services. The CA affirmed the NLRC's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, reduction of backwages, and denial of moral and exemplary damages, 24 to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The challenged Resolutions dated 30 May 2014 and 21 July 2014 both rendered by the NLRC, Third Division in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 08-11720-13, NLRC LAC NO. 03-000679-14 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
Meanwhile, ATN, et al., moved for the consolidation 26 of the cases, but was denied by the CA in a Resolution 27 dated November 23, 2015.
In a Decision 28 dated April 8, 2016, the CA likewise dismissed ATN, et al.'s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 137211. Yet, the CA modified the award of backwages and declared that the same should be computed until the finality of the Decision in line with Article 279 (now Article 294) of the Labor Code and prevailing jurisprudence, 29 thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Resolutions dated 30 May 2014 and 21 July 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, in NLRC LAC NO. 03-000679-14, are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that the backwages be computed from the time the compensation was withheld from Respondent Oscar P. Rivero on 14 August 2013, up to the time of the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 30
Oscar and ATN, et al., sought reconsideration but were denied in separate Resolutions dated February 19, 2016 31 and September 13, 2016. 32 Hence, Oscar and ATN, et al., filed these present petitions for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 223291 and G.R. No. 226880, respectively. Oscar claims that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's award of limited backwages as a penalty for his supposed infractions and in denying his claims for damages. 33 On the other hand, ATN, et al., contends that the CA erred in ruling that Oscar was illegally dismissed despite the violations he committed, and in awarding full backwages. 34 The petitions were later consolidated. 35
Prefatorily, it bears emphasis that ATN, et al., questioned the CA, the NLRC, and the LA's appreciation of the evidence supporting the illegality of Oscar's dismissal from employment. This is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA and the labor tribunals speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 36 While it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exists in the instant case. At any rate, even if this Court decides the issue, ATN, et al.'s petition would still be denied.
Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code enumerates serious misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duties as just causes for an employee's dismissal. Case law defined misconduct as improper or wrongful conduct, or the 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 of judgment. To justify the employee's dismissal, the misconduct: (a) must be serious; (b) must be related to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. 37 Gross negligence, on the other hand, connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. 38
Here, ATN, et al., served Oscar three (3) notices to explain the alleged infractions and omissions he committed relative to the RPG, Tricum and Armscor shipments. In particular, ATN, et al., asked Oscar why he should not be held administratively liable for the delay in the release of the RPG and Tricum shipments and for endorsing the requests for cash advance of his subordinate for excessive charges for the Armscor shipment. Nevertheless, the delays in the release of the RPG and Tricum shipments were not attributable to Oscar. Substantial evidence exists that the delays happened because RPG undervalued and misdeclared the contents of its shipments and failed to obtain the corresponding import clearances over the same. Similarly, Tricum failed to get the necessary customs registration. 39 RPG and Tricum cannot pass the blame to Oscar. The shipments would have been released without delay had RPG and Tricum correctly declared the contents of the shipments and obtained the necessary permits and clearances for valid importation.
At most, Oscar committed the following infractions and omissions in the discharge of his duties, namely: (1) not being transparent with RPG on the status of its shipments and not reporting the facilitation fees received by his co-worker from RPG; (2) failing to give appropriate instructions to his subordinate who handled the Tricum shipment; and (3) endorsing the Armscor cash advances of his subordinate without verifying the correctness of the amounts. As the CA and the labor tribunals aptly observed, these violations do not warrant the penalty of dismissal considering Oscar's 20 years of loyal service to ATN, et al. Moreover, Oscar's failure to counter-check the excessive cash advances of his subordinate for the Armscor shipment is insufficient ground for his termination. The cash advances were based on the estimates given by the customs warehouse for the release of the shipment of high-powered firearms. Oscar relied on the estimates since it was his first transaction involving guns. Taken together, Oscar's neglect is only simple warranting a penalty less punitive than dismissal. Assuming the neglect was gross, it was an isolated case and did not merit the harsh and grave penalty of termination. To be sure, Oscar did not commit any previous violation in his 19 years of service. Oscar was even promoted twice, attesting to his competence and diligence in the performance of his duties. 40
Oscar's neglect also cannot justify the loss of the trust and confidence ATN reposed upon him. To be a valid cause for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. 41 In the present case, there was no showing that Oscar endorsed the cash advance prepared by Dailo despite his knowledge that the charges were excessive or unauthorized. It is undisputed that the Armscor shipment was Oscar's first transaction involving high-powered firearms and that he was unfamiliar with the additional charges that could be imposed on the shipment. Oscar's claim that he relied on the estimates given by the customs warehouse is thus credible. If at all, Oscar endorsed the requests for cash advance of his subordinate carelessly. Hence, ATN had no cause to dismiss Oscar for loss of trust and confidence.
However, the CA erred when it modified the NLRC's award of backwages. Under Article 279 (now Article 294) of the labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and backwages computed from the time his compensation was withheld until his actual reinstatement. In the event reinstatement is no longer feasible, payment of separation pay may he ordered instead. 42 In certain cases, the Court has carved out an exception to the rule and ordered the reinstatement of the employee with limited or without backwages on account of the following: (1) the fact that the dismissal of the employee would be too harsh of a penalty; and (2) that the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. 43
In Stream International Global Services Philippines, Inc. v. Pimentel, 44 the employee was dismissed for her prolonged absence despite the denial of her application for leave. The Court ruled that dismissal would be too harsh a sanction for the infraction and ordered the employer to reinstate the employee and to pay limited backwages equivalent to one (1) year salaries. The employer was deemed to have acted in good faith in effecting the dismissal of the employee who ignored the e-mails and disregarded the return-to-work. 45 In Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, 46 the Court held that the penalty of dismissal would have been too harsh considering the employee's failure to report was prompted by a medical emergency and not because he wanted to defy the return-to-work order. The Court ordered the employee's reinstatement but deleted the award of backwages upon finding that the employer was in good faith in dismissing the employee. 47 In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Race, 48 the Court discussed other cases where the Court limited the award of backwages or did not award backwages at all despite the finding that the employee was illegally dismissed. 49 Applying these precepts, the CA and the labor tribunals recognized that Oscar committed infractions and omissions in the performance of his duties but found that the same were insufficient to warrant his dismissal. Hence, the limitation of the award of backwages was proper given that Oscar was not blameless and ATN, et al., was in good faith when it instituted administrative proceedings.
Lastly, the NLRC correctly denied Oscar's claim for damages for lack of merit. Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. 50 Yet, Oscar failed to show that ATN, et al., dismissed him in bad faith or that his dismissal constituted an act oppressive to labor or that it was done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 13, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137293 is AFFIRMED. On the other hand, the Decision dated April 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137211 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of backwages shall be limited only to six (6) months in accordance with the Resolution dated May 30, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission. The monetary award shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 51
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 223291), pp. 38, 73, 140-141, 215-216, and 282.
2. Id. at 39.
3. Id. at 149-150.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 151-152.
6. Id. at 193.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 194-196.
9. Id. at 199-200.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 201-204 and 261-263.
12. Id. at 164-167.
13. Id. at 124-126.
14. Id. at 130-134.
15. Id. at 222-232.
16. Id. at 282-288. Penned by Labor Arbiter Marie Josephine C. Suarez.
17. Id. at 285-286.
18. Id. at 286-287.
19. Id. at 72-87. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III.
20. Id. at 85-86.
21. Id. at 86-87; emphases in the original.
22. See Resolution dated July 21, 2014; id. at 88-90.
23. Id. at 37-48.
24. Id. at 44-47.
25. Id. at 47; emphases in the original.
26. See Motion for Consolidation and to Allow Filing of Memoranda on the Consolidated Cases dated October 20, 2015; rollo (G.R. No. 226880), pp. 182-186.
27. Id. at 188-190. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
28. Id. at 46-54. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
29. Id. at 53.
30. Id. at 53-54; emphases and italics in the original.
31. Rollo (G.R. No. 223291), pp. 49-50.
32. Rollo (G.R. No. 226880), pp. 56-57.
33. Rollo (G.R. No. 223291), pp 24-32.
34. Id. at 325-327.
35. Id. at 432-433.
36. Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 273 (2017); Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 177-178 (2017); and Bacsasor v. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858, 867 (2009).
37. Raza v. Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc., 765 Phil. 61, 80 (2015).
38. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Notario, 648 Phil. 285, 297 (2010).
39. Rollo (G.R. No. 223291), pp. 45-46, 80, and 285-286.
40. Id. at 45-46, 85-86, and 285-286. See also rollo (G.R. No. 226880), pp. 50-52.
41. San Miguel Corporation v. Gomez, G.R. No. 200815, August 24, 2020.
42. JS Unitrade Merchandise, Inc. v. Samson, Jr., G.R. No. 200405, February 26, 2020.
43. See the Court's Resolution in Stream International Global Services Philippines, Inc. v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 227814, April 18, 2018.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46.704 Phil. 120 (2013).
47. See id. at 144-145.
48. 593 Phil. 606 (2008).
49. See id. at 614.
50. Monsanto Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 230609-10, August 27, 2020.