FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222845. November 11, 2021.]
ANGELITO C. SICAT, petitioner, vs.FRESENIUS KABI PHILS., INC., GEORGE CHAN, JAMELYN DE DIOS, AND NIÑA REYES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 222845 (Angelito C. Sicat v. Fresenius Kabi Phils., Inc., George Chan, Jamelyn De Dios, and Niña Reyes). This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) September 29, 2015 Decision 2 and February 4, 2016 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 128000, which affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) August 30, 2012 Decision 4 and October 16, 2012 Resolution 5 in NLRC LAC No. 07-001944-12 finding Angelito C. Sicat's (Angelito) dismissal valid.
The petition lacks merit.
Angelito questioned the CA and the labor tribunals' appreciation of evidence, which is one of fact and is beyond the ambit of this Court' s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not the Court's task to go over the evidence presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA affirms the NLRC and Labor Arbiter's (LA) findings and conclusions. 6 At any rate, the Court agrees with the CA that Angelito was validly dismissed for a just cause and that Fresenius Kabi Phils., Inc. (FKPI) has observed procedural due process.
Article 297 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the dismissal of the employee, as follows:
(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 representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphases supplied)
To discharge the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 7
Misconduct is improper conduct or a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. It is a forbidden act or a willful dereliction of duty that implies a wrongful intention. To be a just cause for dismissal, the misconduct must: (a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the employee's duties that the employee has become unfit to continue working; and (c) has been performed with wrongful intent. 8
Here, FKPI proffered sufficient evidence to justify Angelito's dismissal. The alleged falsification was substantially proven by: (1) the report of the independent consultant who personally examined the Doctor Call Cards (DCCs) and visited the doctors and medical staff; (2) the affidavits of an external auditor and FKPI's employees who also visited the doctors and medical staff, (3) the MD Signature Validation report showing the result of the visits; (4) and the copies of Angelito's DCCs. DCCs are vital to a professional medical representative's (PMR) nature of work because it allows the pharmaceutical company to verify whether the PMR visited the doctors. 9 As PMR, Angelito must visit the required number of doctors within his assigned area to promote and market FKPI's products. After each visit, Angelito would ask the doctors to sign on a DCC. He would then submit the DCCs to FKPI, enabling the latter to monitor his activities and performance. If Angelito fails to meet the required number of monthly call targets, it will affect his chances of being promoted and receiving sales incentives. 10 Knowing the effect of failing to meet his monthly target, Angelito intentionally submitted DCCs with forged doctors' signatures to misrepresent that he met his call targets even if he did not visit the required number of doctors. This constitutes serious misconduct, making Angelito unfit to continue working as PMR. Thus, there is a just cause to terminate his dismissal.
Falsification of reports and misconduct are against FKPI's policies. Angelito's employment contract 11 explicitly provides that falsification of reports and misconduct that may lead the company to lose confidence in him merits the penalty of dismissal. The Court has recognized the employer's management prerogative to promulgate policies on work-related activities of the employees, including immediate dismissal, provided it is done in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' rights. Company policies are generally valid until revised or amended by a competent authority. 12
To effect a valid dismissal on the ground of just cause, the employer must comply with the procedural requirements of due process laid down in King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 13viz.:
(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.
(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment. (Emphases in the original; citations omitted.)
Here, FKPI furnished Angelito with three show cause notices informing him of the charges against him and the company policies he violated and directing him to explain his side. Angelito submitted a written explanation, and an administrative hearing was conducted, in which he presented his defenses. Then, FKPI validated the forgery charge by sending its employees to the four doctors whose signatures were forged. Thereupon, a notice of dismissal was issued, indicating the circumstances justifying his dismissal. Evidently, FKPI has complied with the standards of due process required to effect a valid dismissal based on a just cause.
It is unnecessary for Angelito to confront the doctors and medical staff. The Court explained in Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corporation14 that confrontation of witnesses is not required in company investigations, thus:
Petitioners contend that they were not given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against them. Petitioners must be reminded, however, that confrontation of witnesses is required only in adversarial criminal prosecutions, and not in company investigations for the administrative liability of the employee. Additionally, actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification, or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. This is not an inherent right, and in company investigations, summary proceedings may be conducted. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
In Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Trajano, 15 the Court reiterated that the company has complied with the proper procedure in terminating employees based on just causes even if the employee was not allowed to confront the complainant. It suffices that she was allowed to submit her written explanation and was invited to the final clarificatory meeting. Likewise, in Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio, 16 the Court held that the due process requirement was met when the employee was allowed to refute the allegations against her.
Finally, Angelito's allegation of unfair labor practices must fail. An employer is only liable for unfair labor practices if his acts affect the rights of employees to self-organize, and the employee's claim is supported by substantial evidence. 17 In this case, Angelito failed to provide substantial evidence to show that the review of the PMRs' reports was done to stunt the union's growth. His dismissal resulted from his personal act of submitting DCCs with forged signatures. Hence, FKPI is not liable for unfair labor practice.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 29, 2015 and Resolution dated February 4, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 128000 are affirmed.
SO ORDERED." Lazaro-Javier, J., no part; Inting, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated September 20, 2020.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-40.
2.Id. at 87-94; penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sandang, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court).
3.Supra note 20.
4.Id. at 363-376; penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with the concurrence of Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog, III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
5.Id. at 331-332.
6.Tupil, Jr., et al. v. LBP Service Corporation, G.R. No. 228407, June 10, 2020.
7.Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc. v. Relucio, G.R. No. 234725, September 16, 2020.
8. G.R. No. 227070, March 9, 2020.
9.Chua v. NLRC, 493 Phil. 399 (2005).
10.Rollo, pp. 846-847.
11.Id. at 862-863. Subclause 10 (a) (2) & (4), which reads:
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS — Any provision in this Contract to the contrary notwithstanding, it is further agreed and stipulated that:
(a) It is the Company's policy that any of the following violations, among others, constitute sufficient ground for your immediate dismissal from employment, without prejudice to any other grounds for dismissal as may be provided by law:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Falsification of reports and any other Company records.
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Any action relating to general misconduct or attitude that may lead the Company to lose confidence in you.
12. See Bicol Isarog Transport System v. Relucio, supra note 32.
13. 553 Phil. 108 (2007).
14. 540 Phil. 516 (2006).
15. 712 Phil. 254 (2013).
16. 818 Phil. 321 (2017).
17. See San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 819 Phil. 326 (2017).