Toyota Manila Bay Corp. v. Maramag

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 222791. September 16, 2020.]

TOYOTA MANILA BAY CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. MARIA LORETO G. MARAMAG, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 222791 — Toyota Manila Bay Corporation v. Maria Loreto G. Maramag.

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 29, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated January 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126967, ruling that Maria Loreto G. Maramag (respondent) was illegally dismissed from service by Toyota Manila Bay Corporation (petitioner).

The Relevant Antecedents

On June 1, 1995, respondent was hired by petitioner as financing assistant on a contractual basis. After some time, she became a regular employee with a position of Lending Staff 1. In due course, respondent was promoted to Lending Staff 2 and thereafter Lending Staff 3. 4 Eventually, she was promoted as Sales Administrative Assistant IV in Land Transportation Office (LTO) section of petitioner. 5

On September 27, 2010, respondent claimed that she was called for a meeting with respect to the liquidation of cash advances by Joel Gapusan (Gapusan). During the meeting, respondent was relieved of her LTO job and would now be reporting directly to Gapusan. 6

Less than a week after the meeting, respondent was informed of her new position as sales coordinator. She was informed that her transfer was effected as an exercise of discretion of petitioner's President Henry Sy (Sy). It was brought to her attention that Sy learned that respondent was receiving unauthorized incentives from an unidentified financing partner of Toyota Dasmariñas. 7

On October 8, 2010, respondent received a Memorandum 8 from human resources section which directed her to submit a written explanation as to the unauthorized receipt of commission or incentives. 9 Another memorandum, which informed respondent of her scheduled administrative investigation, was subsequently issued. 10

Complying with said directive, respondent submitted an explanation denying the charge against her. 11

After the administrative hearing took place, respondent was dismissed from employment for violation of Class IV-8 offense under the Handbook on Personnel Policies and Benefits. 12

Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of maternity benefits with prayer for payment of full backwages and separation pay against petitioner before the Labor Arbiter. The complaint was subsequently amended to include her claims for service incentive leave, backroom and performance bonus, attorney's fees. Respondent's prayer in initial complaint was changed from separation pay with backwages to reinstatement with backwages. 13

In their reply to respondent's position paper, 14 petitioner and Sy maintained respondent was dismissed for a just cause and that due process attended respondent's severance from employment.

In a Decision 15 dated April 28, 2011, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter found that respondent committed a violation of the company rules as it was established during the administrative hearing that she received commissions, evidenced by photocopies of Auto Loans Department Reconsideration Sheet/Final Terms and Conditions which showed that respondent was indeed a recipient of unauthorized commissions from the accounts of Annabelle Magalang and Sonia Ramos and deposit slips showing that the sums of money was deposited to respondent's account; and as such, her dismissal is justified. Thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the above captioned case for lack of merit.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed in toto the ruling of the Labor Arbiter in a Decision 16 dated June 15, 2012, thus:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban dated April 28, 2011 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution 17 dated July 30, 2012.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in sustaining the dismissal of her complaint. In reinforcing her claim, respondent averred that the NLRC committed reversible error in giving probative value to the evidence of the petitioner, which are mere photocopies of the original document; in not considering her length of service in imposing the penalty of dismissal; and in not ruling on her monetary claims. 18

In a Decision 19 dated June 29, 2015, the CA granted the petition. In ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed from service, the CA declined to give credence to the evidence submitted by the petitioner as they were mere photocopies. Thus, the CA ruled that the culpability of respondent was not proven so as to substantiate her valid dismissal from service.

As a consequence, the CA ordered the reinstatement of respondent from service with back wages. The dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on June 15, 2012 in NLRC NCR CN 11-169393-10 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Maria Loreto G. Maramag is declared illegally dismissed and Toyota Manila Bay Corporation is ordered to reinstate the petitioner to her former position or to a substantially equivalent one, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits attendant to the position. Toyota Manila Bay Corporation is directed to pay petitioner full backwages computed from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the time of her reinstatement, with interest at six percent (6%) per annum and six percent (6%) legal interest thereafter until fully paid, and to pay attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the monetary award.

SO ORDERED.

Consequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution 20 dated January 29, 2016.

Hence, this petition.

In essence, the issue in this case is the validity of respondent's dismissal from service.

The petition must be denied.

It is the spirit and intention of labor legislation that the NLRC and the labor arbiters shall use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, provided due process is duly observed. 21 Thus, in furtherance of substantial justice, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required in labor cases.

Reliant on this dictum, petitioner argues that although the documents presented were not the original copies thereof, the same must be given probative value by this Court.

This Court pronounces that the lenient application of technical rules in labor cases does not apply as a matter of course as it should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before labor tribunals, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. 22

On this note, the examination of the evidence presented is in order.

Records divulge that the evidence presented by petitioner to imprint liability upon respondent constitutes these photocopied documents, namely: (1) Auto Loans Department Reconsideration Sheet/Final Terms and Conditions 23 (Sheet) which pertained to the account of Sonia Ramos and Anabelle Susa Magalang having a notation of "0.5% — Maria Loreto Maramag" and "0.35% — Maria Loreto Maramag," respectively; and (2) a machine validated receipt of a deposit 24 in the amount of P4,036.00.

On this note, this Court agrees with the conclusion of the CA in that there was no evidence which prove that respondent was indeed a receiver of unauthorized commissions. The alleged commission from the accounts of Sonia Ramos and Annabelle Magalang were not proven to be subject of the deposit slips for said amounts do not tally. While the deposit slip contained the amount of P4,036.00, the commissions stated in the Sheet is in the amount of P3,432.00 and P2,360.40 (the total of which is P5,792.40). Even treated independently, there is no basis to conclude that the amounts subject of the deposit slips came from the alleged unauthorized commissions.

More so, the notation of respondent's name with corresponding amount of commission was merely superimposed therein and there were variations in the marking such as the strokes of handwriting and the pens used. Such several irregularities engender doubt upon this Court as to the documents' fabrication. It is likewise noted that the identity of the person/s who executed the Sheet is unclear. Aside from the aforementioned, no other proof was offered by petitioner to substantiate its claim that respondent committed a violation of the company policy.

In failing to produce the original documents, the petitioner effectively deprived the respondent of the opportunity to examine and controvert the same. This Court is thus left with no option but to rule that petitioner's failure to present the originals raises the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 25

It is jurisprudentially established that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. The quantum of proof required is substantial evidence. 26

In this case, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof. Thus, this Court finds no reason to overturn the ruling of the CA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 29, 2015 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126967 are AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED." Hernando, J., designated as Additional Member in lieu of Lopez, J., per Raffle dated September 9, 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. 10-41.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Mario V. Lopez (now a member of the Court), concurring; id. at 43-54.

3.Id. at 75-76.

4.Id. at 204.

5.Id. at 44.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 156.

9.Id. at 44.

10.Id. at 206.

11.Id. at 157.

12.Id. at 208.

13.Id. at 45.

14.Id. at 181-189.

15. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban; id. at 203-214.

16. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida, with Commissioners Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, concurring; id. at 301-309.

17.Id. at 335-336.

18.Id. at 46-47.

19.Supra note 2.

20.Supra note 3.

21.Malixi v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 208224, November 22, 2017.

22.Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia (TPMA), 718 Phil. 33, 45-46 (2013).

23.Rollo, pp. 103-104.

24.Id. at 102.

25.Supra note 20.

26.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, G.R. No. 194001, November 22, 2017.