SkyCable Corp. v. Chua

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253536. June 23, 2021.]

SKYCABLE CORPORATION, RICKY ALMEDA and EDWIN PAHATE, petitioners,vs. JOEL GO TAN CHUA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253536 (SkyCable Corporation, Ricky Almeda and Edwin Pahate v. Joel Go Tan Chua). — Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution 2 dated May 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160130.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner SkyCable Corporation (SKYCABLE) is a corporation engaged in the business of providing cable television, internet and related services. Petitioners Ricky Almeda and Edwin Pahate are SKYCABLE's Head for Employee Relations and Vice-President for Sales, respectively. 3 Respondent Joel Go Tan Chua (Chua) was employed by SKYCABLE as a sales supervisor, charged with monitoring the sales activities of sales agents and team leaders under his supervision. 4 On January 3, 2017, Chua applied for early retirement 5 based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Retirement Plan between SKYCABLE and the Sky Cable Supervisors, Professional/Technical Employees Union (SSPTEU). 6 He indicated that his retirement would be effective on June 1, 2017. 7 Chua's application was acknowledged by SKYCABLE. Subsequently, he was directed to process his clearance and was informed of the computation of his retirement benefits. 8

However, in February 2017, SKYCABLE received reports of transactions involving subscribers with fictitious names and falsified addresses. Sales supervisors, such as Chua, were required to submit validation reports to confirm that subscriptions within their assigned geographical territories were legitimate. 9

After evaluating the validation reports, SKYCABLE found that some of the transactions in the territory assigned to Chua were fraudulent. On May 9, 2017, SKYCABLE sent Chua a Show Cause Memo with Notice of Preventive Suspension (Show Cause Memo) ordering him to explain himself, and to notify him of his 30-day preventive suspension. In the Show Cause Memo, SKYCABLE also withdrew its initial acceptance of Chua's application for early retirement. 10

Chua submitted his written explanation on May 12, 2017. An administrative hearing was conducted on May 30, 2017 during which Chua disclosed that the validation report for his territory was prepared by one of the team leaders under his supervision, and that he did not verify the report himself. 11

On June 13, 2017, Chua reported back to work. SKYCABLE informed him that his preventive suspension was extended. Consequently, Chua filed a Request for Assistance at the DOLE Single Entry Approach (SEnA) office. SKYCABLE received a Notice of Conference for SEnA on June 21, 2017. Eventually, Chua's case was endorsed for compulsory arbitration. Conciliation conferences were held between Chua and SKYCABLE. Afterwards, Labor Arbiter Raul M. Luna (LA Luna) directed the parties to file their position papers. 12

SKYCABLE submitted a Position Paper dated August 7, 2017 declaring that Chua was terminated on August 1, 2017 after a thorough investigation revealed his participation in the fraudulent transactions. 13 On the other hand, in his position paper, Chua averred that he was illegally terminated on June 13, 2017. 14

On September 5, 2018, SKYCABLE received, through counsel, a copy of Chua's Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Decree of Finality and/or Entry of Judgment dated 04 September 2018 (Motion). SKYCABLE was surprised to receive the Motion because it had not yet received a copy of the Decision 15 dated July 10, 2018 (Decision) wherein Chua's dismissal was declared illegal because the evidence failed to implicate Chua as a participant in the fraudulent scheme. LA Luna also found that Chua was constructively dismissed because SKYCABLE suspended him for more than 30 days, without any proof that he was paid his wages and other benefits. Chua was awarded backwages, 13th month pay, retirement pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 16 cSEDTC

On September 10, 2018, SKYCABLE filed its Opposition to the Motion, asserting that its counsel, Santos Paruñgao Aquino & Santos Law (SPAS Law), had not yet received a copy of the Decision. 17

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

In an Order 18 dated September 13, 2018 (Order) LA Luna granted Chua's Motion because a copy of the Decision — sent to Atty. Kathlyn Nadia D. Baldonado (Atty. Baldonado) of SPAS Law, and sent to SPAS Law's address — was "rejected [by SPAS Law] on [July] 17, 2018." 19 In a Certification 20 dated September 13, 2018 (Certification), LA Luna attested that the Decision had become final and executory on September 11, 2017 for failure of SKYCABLE to appeal therefrom. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents Sky Cable Corporation, Ricky Almeda and Edwin Pahate to:

Reinstate the complainant to his position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and to pay jointly and solidarily the following:

1. Monthly backwages amounting to PhP51,700.00 until such time that he is reinstated, which as of this date amounts to PhP672,100.00;

2. 13th month pay for calendar year 2017 in the amount of PhP51,700;

3. Retirement pay equivalent to 1.5 months for every year of service in the total amount of PhP1,861,200.00 (PhP51,700 x 24 years x 1.5);

4. As complainant's dismissal is tainted with malice and bad faith, an award of PhP100,000.00 as moral damages and PhP100,00.00 as exemplary damages; and,

5. Attorney's fees in the amount of ten (10) percent of the total monetary award. 21

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Resolution 22 dated November 29, 2018 affirmed the Order of the LA because Petitioners had been duly notified of the Decision. 23 The NLRC also upheld the Certification issued by LA Luna and declared the Decision final and executory. 24

The NLRC stressed that Petitioners' counsel is SPAS Law, and not Atty. Baldonado herself. 25 Therefore, the latter's resignation could not be used as an excuse to refuse receipt of the Decision. 26 Furthermore, due diligence would caution SPAS Law from disregarding packages from persons exercising adjudicatory functions such as a Labor Arbiter. 27

The NLRC also refused to give credence to the claim of Rochelle M. Jumetilco (Jumetilco), receptionist of SPAS Law, that the person who delivered the Decision "immediately left when [he] was told that [Atty. Baldonado] had already resigned." 28 According to the NLRC, the delivery personnel would not have been able to note Jumetilco's name and designation had he immediately departed. Ultimately, the NLRC found Petitioners' assertions "to be nothing more than an excuse, or in the vernacular, 'palusot.'" 29

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 30 dated December 14, 2018 which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution 31 dated December 28, 2018.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Resolution 32 dated May 21, 2019, the CA found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Order and the Certification. The CA underscored the responsibility of law offices to adopt a system of distributing and receiving pleadings and notices so that lawyers are informed of the status of their cases. In particular, the CA opined that SPAS Law should have instructed Jumetilco to determine whether letters or packages addressed to resigned lawyers, such as Atty. Baldonado, are being sent in their individual capacities or as associates or employees. If staff are unable to make a determination, they should have been instructed to refer the matter to a higher officer. 33

Because Petitioners failed to timely appeal the Decision due to their negligence, 34 the CA concluded that the Decision had become final and executory. Consequently, the NLRC's resolutions, which upheld the finality of the Decision, were proper. 35

Proceedings before this Court

SKYCABLE assailed the CA Resolution with this Court through an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. SKYCABLE contends that the NLRC's resolutions are contrary to law and jurisprudence. In particular, SKYCABLE avers that the Decision only attained finality due to a technicality, 36 and that that the NLRC's resolutions would cause them grave injustice and substantial damage because Chua is complicit in an "intricate and evil fraudulent scheme." 37 Finally, SKYCABLE claim that the merits of their petition must be heard in the interest of substantial justice. 38

Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied. SDAaTC

Essentially, petitioners assert that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's resolutions because the Decision, which was addressed to Atty. Baldonado, did not constitute notice to their counsel, SPAS Law. 39

We disagree.

The 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended provides that decisions must be served on both parties and their counsel. 40 When a party is represented by counsel, service shall be made on such counsel or upon any one of them. 41 In NAPOCOR v. Sps. Laohoo, 42 We held that when a party's attorneys belong to the same law firm, notice may be made upon any one of them. 43 Hence, there is nothing objectionable in LA Luna addressing the parcel containing the Decision to Atty. Baldonado. Moreover, SPAS Law cannot fault LA Luna for addressing the Decision to Atty. Baldonado because it was not his duty to inquire whether the latter was still employed by SPAS Law. 44

Lawyers are bound to diligently protect the rights of their clients and monitor receipt of notices from adjudicatory bodies. 45 SPAS Law was remiss in its duty because its staff (i.e., Jumetilco) did not exert any effort to inspect the package 46 so that she could ascertain if the parcel was intended for the law firm, and not Atty. Baldonado in her personal capacity. To avoid such incidents, We have admonished law offices to adopt a system of receiving pleadings and notices to ensure that lawyers are promptly informed of the status of their cases. 47 SPAS Law was negligent for failing to adopt such a system.

Negligence of counsel, which could have been prevented by ordinary diligence and prudence, binds the client. 48 There is no compelling reason to relax this rule, especially because Petitioners are not entirely blameless. Petitioners received a copy of the Decision on July 13, 2018. Yet, they failed to timely communicate their receipt of the Decision to SPAS Law. 49

Time and again, We have ruled that litigants represented by counsel are not allowed to merely relax and await the outcome of their case for what is at stake is ultimately their interest. 50 Besides, We find it highly incredible that a litigant who had just received a decision imposing substantial pecuniary liability would fail to inform his counsel of the unfavorable development.

The foregoing notwithstanding, We find LA Luna's order for reinstatement inconsistent with the award of retirement pay. Retirement benefits arise from a mutual agreement between an employer and employee that the latter will sever his employment upon reaching a certain age, or upon meeting certain criteria. 51 Once the employer and the employee voluntarily sever their relationship, there is nothing left to reinstate.

It is undisputed that SKYCABLE accepted Chua's application for early retirement before it unilaterally withdrew such acceptance on the premise that Chua was guilty of misconduct. However, as found by LA Luna, the charges against Chua were unsubstantiated. Therefore, SKYCABLE's unilateral withdrawal of its acceptance of Chua's retirement application is unjustified. 52 As a result, the agreement between SKYCABLE and Chua to sever their relationship subsists. Consequently, the order for Chua's reinstatement must be deleted.

Because Chua's reinstatement is no longer viable, monthly backwages shall be counted from June 13, 2017, the date of Chua's constructive dismissal, until the finality of this Resolution. The rest of the awards granted in the Decision are sustained as they have attained finality. 53 All awards shall be subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Court's Resolution. 54

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated May 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 160130 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the order to reinstate respondent Joel Go Tan Chua is DELETED. Petitioners are ORDERED to pay the amounts awarded in the Decision dated July 10, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CN 06-08987-17 subject to the MODIFICATION that monthly backwages shall be counted until the finality of this Resolution. All amounts due shall be subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Court's Resolution until full satisfaction.

The Labor Arbiter is hereby DIRECTED to compute the amounts due in accordance with the Court's ruling. acEHCD

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, pp. 3-72.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.; id. at 78-88.

3.Id. at 9.

4.Id. at 94-95.

5.Id. at 474.

6.Id. at 176.

7.Id. at 474.

8.Id. at 475.

9.Id. at 172-174.

10.Id. at 174-176.

11.Id. at 176-177.

12.Id. at 475, 488.

13.Id. at 180-181.

14.Id. at 474.

15.Id. at 474-488.

16.Id. at 485-488.

17.Id. at 489-491.

18. Penned by Raul M. Luna; id. at 601-605.

19.Id. at 603.

20.Id. at 599-600.

21.Id. at 488.

22. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Julia Cecily Coching Sosito, with the concurrence of Commissioners Erlinda T. Agus and Dominador B. Medroso, Jr.; id. at 149-162.

23.Id. at 155.

24.Id. at 162.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27.Id. at 158.

28.Id. at 159.

29.Id. at 160.

30.Id. at 627-640.

31.Id. at 164-168.

32.Supra note 2.

33.Rollo, pp. 671-672.

34.Id. at 673.

35.Id. at 669.

36.Id. at 47.

37.Id. at 60.

38.Id. at 71-A-72.

39.Id. at 42.

40. Section 4, Rule III, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

41. Section 2, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in relation to Section 3, Rule I of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

42. 611 Phil. 194 (2009).

43.Id. at 212-213.

44.O. Ventanilla Enterprises Corp. v. Tan, 704 Phil. 421, 429 (2013), citing Mojar v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc., 689 Phil. 589, 599 (2012).

45.Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 330 Phil. 678, 714 (1996); Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.

46.Rollo, p. 672.

47.Sarraga, Sr. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 442 Phil. 55, 63 (2002).

48.Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 413, 427 (1997).

49.Rollo, pp. 38, 155, 672.

50.Lao v. Special Plans, Inc., 636 Phil. 28, 42 (2010).

51.Robina Farms Cebu/Universal Robina Corp. v. Villa, 784 Phil. 636, 649 (2016).

52. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 1191.

53.Mitac Overseas Manpower Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 249040, May 3, 2021.

54.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).