THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9827. June 21, 2017.]
REYNALDO B. VILLARIS, JR., TOLENTINO B. LIM, JIMMY V. MALUNAS, and ALAN B. VILLARIS, complainants,vs. ATTY. ARTURO P. APONESTO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 21, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 9827 (Reynaldo B. Villaris, Jr., Tolentino B. Lim, Jimmy V. Malunas, and Alan B. Villaris v. Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto). — This resolves the disbarment complaint against Labor Arbiter Atty. Arturo Aponesto (respondent) arising from a motion to include him as additional respondent in a previous case against Atty. Raul Josefino F. Miguel. 1 Considering that the original disbarment complaint has been referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), we resolved to refer the motion to it for investigation, report, and recommendation. 2
Acting on the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Atty. Rogelio N. Wong submitted the following Report and Recommendation:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Facts of the Case
The scope of this report covers the case of respondent Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto, a government lawyer and an Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of the Regional Arbitration Branch No.[ ]12 (RAB 12) based in General Santos City. This case is in conjunction with the case of respondent, Atty. Raul Josefino F. Miguel, in which in the latter case was already delved by the report and recommendation by the Honorable Commissioner Leo Cleto A. Gamolo, on September 22, 2014.
The complainants hereof filed a "Motion to Include Labor Arbiter Atty. Arturo Aponesto as []Respondent" subject to disciplinary action. The said motion was then referred for appropriate action to the Supreme Court. Thereupon and pursuant to the resolution of the Third Division [of] the Honorable Supreme Court dated October 15, 2014 and per its ORDER dated March 17, 2015, the said case was referred back to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. Hence, this report and recommendation.
According to complainants, Reynaldo B. Villaris, Jr., Tolentino B. Lim, Jimmy V. Manlunas[,] and Alan B. Villaris, they were employees of R.H. Agro-Industrial Corporation owned and managed by Roberto C. Herana. That the complainants were terminated without just and authorized cause. Thereupon a complaint for illegal dismissal was initiated with prayer for payment of separation pay, backwages, and other monetary claims against their employer [R.H.] Agro-Industrial Corporation and/or ROBERTO C. HERANA, with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, General Santos City. Their case was docketed as RAB-XII-04-50114.
Respondent Executive Labor Arbiter, Atty. Arturo Aponesto, handled the case and directed the parties to file their respective position papers. Complainants further alleged that it took almost one (1) year for the respondent company represented by respondent Atty. Raul Josefino F. Miguel, to submit their position paper. Notwithstanding, respondent Labor Arbiter Aponesto admitted the position paper of the respondents although filed out of time.
On January 18, 2008, the respondent Executive Labor Arbiter, Atty. Aponesto, rendered his decision. The dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding that the complainants were dismissed from employment without just and authorized cause and without due process, hence illegal, respondent [R.H.] Agro Industrial Development Corporation is ordered to pay complainants their separation pay computed at the legal rate at the time of their termination as well as attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent[ ](10%) of the total monetary award.
Complainants' money claim for wage differentials, allowance (COLA), overtime, service incentive leave pay, holiday and holiday premium pay are however, dismissed for failure to substantiate and other reasons aforecited.
Also to go (sic) are the prayers for backwages and moral [and] exemplary damages for lack of merit and lack of sufficient factual basis.
Respondent [R.H.] Agro[-]Industrial Corporation is, however, further ordered to pay complainants money claim for 13th month pay differentials.
As stated, the total monetary awards to complainants, including separation pay and attorney's fees is [T]wo Hundred Twenty[-]Nine [Thousand] Five Hundred Fifty[-]Nine ([P]229,559.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED."
That the complainants contested the subject decision for having denied their prayers for backwages, claiming that the case law and jurisprudence of "International Travel Corp. vs. NLRC,[ ]G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986[,"] cited by respondent Labor Arbiter in his decision is a non-[existent] jurisprudence and have confirmed the same and have diligently searched the decided cases of the Supreme Court, more particularly the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)[,] internet website[,] and the Lex Libris. aScITE
Complainants not satisfied with the decision dated January 18, 2008, appealed to the Eighth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Cagayan De Oro City. The Commission modified the decision of L.A. Aponesto and further [awarded] the complainants' claim for backwages which entitles them monetary award of Two Million Seven Hundred Thirty[-]Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy[-]Four Pesos and Sixty[-]Six Centavos (Php[ ]2,735,174.66) instead of only the sum of [T]wo Hundred Twenty[-]Nine Five Hundred Fifty[-]Nine [Pesos (P229,559.00)], as held in the January 18,[ ]2008 [D]ecision of [] respondent L.A. Aponesto.
As the decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued against respondent R.H. Agro[-]Industrial Corporation. However, the same was not satisfied as the said company cannot be located anymore. Complainants through counsel filed a motion that the Writ of Execution be modified to include respondent Roberto C. Herana, as President and general Manager of [R.H.] Agro[-]Industrial Corporation and which motion was denied by respondent L.A. Aponesto.
Complainants further alleged that the Labor Arbiter denied the Motion to Include Roberto C. Herana and for such reason the complainants are not able to collect their separation pay and backwages after they have won the case. Such that due to the falsehood and machinations committed by respondents Atty. Miguel and Atty. Aponesto, the complainants were deprived of their monetary claims and awards in the total amount of [P]2,735,174.66.
THE CHARGE
That the herein respondents, particularly L.A. Atty. Aponesto have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the lawyer's oath, with the underlying principles:
"1. The do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court;
2. To delay no man for money or malice[;] and
3. Disbarment from the practice of law for the falsehood and in employing delaying strategy in the practice of the profession which deprive the lowly and poor litigants."
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
Respondent L.A. Arturo P. Aponesto denied the allegations of the complainants and cited the following in support of his defense:
a) Respondent Aponesto countered that as illustrated in page 1, 2nd paragraph of the assailed decision, respondent Roberto C. Herana is sued in such official capacity and that unless specified[,] the word "respondent" shall hereinafter refer to the respondent [c]orporation, [R.H.] Agro[-Industrial]. In the proceedings of the case, particularly in the complainants' position paper, the issue of personal liability of Mr. Herana (the President of the respondent [c]orporation) was never raised[;] neither [was it] prayed for in the prayer portion of complainant's position paper.
b) That the issue of allowing the filing of the delayed position paper on the part of the respondent had already been resolved not only in the Decision of respondent Labor Arbiter but more particularly in the resolution of the NLRC 8th Division dated June 17, 2009.
c) That the alleged omission in the title of the case of the name of Roberto C. Herana as co-respondent in the Writ of Execution was a mere typographical error on the part of the clerk and was not intentional and did not affect the validity of the writ;
d) When the complainants appealed their case to the 8th Division of the NLRC, their Memorandum of Appeal dated March 7, 2008, did not raise as assignment of error in its arguments and discussion, and in the prayer portion thereof, the personal liability of Mr. Roberto C. Herana in the appeal. That the resolution of the NLRC 8th Division dated June 17,[ ]2009 in resolving the complainants' appeal made no discussion or reference [to] Mr. Herana's personal liability.[]
e) As the decision became final and executory, the dispositive portion thereof cannot be modified[] to include Roberto C. Herana, as personally [and] jointly liable with the respondent corporation, on the ground that [a] corporation[] has its own personality separate and distinct from the stockholders/officers comprising it. And that the liability of the corporation is not the liability of the stockholders/officers of the corporation. As the said resolution had become final and executory on January 31, 2011 and per entry of judgment on March 30, 2011, it becomes imperative that the final judgment decrees in the dispositive portion of the Decision should be implemented according to its terms and cited the well-established case of Suyat vs. Gonzales-Tesoro[,] G.R. No.[ ]162277, December 7[, 2005], 476 SCRA 615, 624[.] "Such that any attempt to change or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the rule on immutability of judgment[."]Furthermore, respondent Labor Arbiter also cited the case of Fulgencio v. NLRC, 457 Phil. 868, 883 (2003) which held that "it is the dispositive portion which the entities charged with the execution of a final judgment that must be enforced to ensure the validity of the execution. The writ of execution cannot go outside of the parameters of the dispositive portion of the decision."
f) As regards the allegations of citing non-[existent] case law, respondent L.A. Aponesto denies the accusation. He pointed out that the source of the alleged non-[existent] case law did not originally come from him but rather from the June 26, 2001 decision of the 2nd Division of the [NLRC] in the case of Nissan North EDSA Balintawak, Quezon City v. Angelito Serrano[,] Jr. and Edwin Tagulao, per NLRC Case No.[ ]00-3-02755-99. In this case, the decision of L.A. Sol Del Rosario, in awarding backwages to complainants was reversed by the NLRC ruling on the ground that the granting of backwages by L.A. Sol Del Rosario was an error and the said NLRC decision cited the case of "International Travel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986" in its decision. Copy of the NLRC decision is attached in the respondent's position paper as Annexes ["B"] to "B-9". Material portion of which reads: HEITAD
["]Considering the fact that the herein complainant never decide[d] to be reinstated as evidenced by the failure or non-inclusion of the same in the reliefs they prayed for in their complaint, it is error on the part of the Labor Arbiter to award backwages in the absence of and prayer for reinstatement. For where the employee has manifested that he is not anymore interested in reinstatement, award of backwages is improper. (International Travel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986). Hence the award of backwages made by the Labor Arbiter to the complainants is null and void it having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction[.]"
g. Respondent Labor Arbiter further averred that in view of the earlier citations by the NLRC of the said case law, it could not be said that he made up and concocted the controversial case of International Travel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986.
h. That when Nissan North EDSA Balintawak, Quezon City vs. Angelito Serrano, Jr. and Edwin Tagulao, per NLRC Case No. 00-3-02755-99, was elevated to the Court of Appeals and eventually to the Honorable Supreme Court, the jurisprudence in question was mentioned in part in the Honorable Supreme Court Resolution promulgated on June 4, 2009 in the case of Nissan North Edsa Balintawak, Quezon City vs. Angelito Serrano Jr. and Edwin Tagulao (G.R. No. 162538). Respondent L.A. Aponesto, attached the pertinent computer printout pages of the Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. 162538-June 4, 2009, as Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-3" in his position paper. The material portions of said Supreme Court resolution referring to the NLRC is reproduced hereunder:
[]The Ruling of the NLRC
"In its Decision promulgated on June 25, 2001,[ ]x x x.["] "Considering the fact that the herein complainant never decide[d] to be reinstated as evidenced by the failure or non-inclusion of the same in the reliefs they prayed for in their complaint, it is error on the part of the Labor Arbiter to award backwages in the absence of [a] prayer for reinstatement. For where the employee has manifested that he is not anymore interested in reinstatement, award of backwages is improper. (International Travel Corp. v. NLRC,[ ]G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986)[."] x x x
i. Likewise respondent Labor Arbiter attached in his position paper copy of the NLRC's Second Division decision [in] the case of Angelito Serrano, Jr. and Edwin Tagulao vs. Nissan North EDSA Balintawak. Quezon City, Inc. per NLRC Case No. 00-3-02755-99, as Annexes "B-[" and]"B-9" promulgated on June 15, 2001, reflecting the above ruling.
j. That respondent L.A. Aponesto's decision denying the complainant's backwages was based on his honest belief and made in good faith, that as complainants have categorically stated in page 6 of their position paper that they do not want to be reinstated and opted for separation pay, the award of backwages was not proper.
k. That the respondent Labor Arbiter started his career in the government since October 1986 and his employment records show that he has no derogatory record and is in fact recipient of several certificates of recognition from the NLRC for various excellent work performances in different categories.
RECOMMENDATION
The compelling facts show that the complaint against the respondent Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto, should be DISMISSED for lack of merit as could be gleaned from the following:
1. The imputation of malice as regards the omission of Respondent Roberto C. Herana in the Writ of Execution is without basis and not supported by evidence. While it appears in the title and caption of the decision that the respondents named therein were [R.H.] AGRO[-]INDUSTRIAL DEV'T CORPORATION and/or "Roberto Herana" as co-respondents, with the conjunctive verb "and/or" preceding the name of Robert Herana as respondents, an apparent qualification was made in the second paragraph of the Decision that the inclusion of Roberto Herana as respondent is anchored in his capacity as President of [the] corporation. "That unless specified however, the word [']respondent['] shall hereinafter refer to respondent corporation, RH Agro[-Industrial."] Hence, the complainants through [their] counsel could have already been alerted of the implication and consequence of this qualification that the word "Respondent["] as used [therein], pertains only to RH Agro. Complainants have only themselves to blame for not contesting the "qualification" made in the decision within the reglementary period and [] only after the decision has become final and executory. ATICcS
2. There is no showing in the records on the part of the complainants to include Roberto C. Herana as respondent in his personal capacity at the earliest opportunity and the legal basis and grounds thereof. Corporate officers, like the "general manager of a corporation should not be made personally answerable for the payment of an illegally dismissed employee's monetary claims arising from the dismissal unless he had acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the services of the employee[."]
3. Moreover, other telling facts in the decision particularly in the dispositive portion thereof, made no reference as to the personal liability or jointandseveral liability of Roberto C. Herana as President or General Manager of [R.H.] Agro[-Industrial], to justify the piercing of corporate veil that as "officer of the corporation, [he] has used the corporate fiction to defraud a third party or that he has acted negligently, maliciously or in bad faith, then the corporate veil shall be lifted and he shall be held personally liable for the particular corporate obligation involved[."]
4. What was raised as an issue by the Complainants in their appeal was only the payment of backwages which was corrected and given due course by the NLRC awarding them backwages as prayed for and thus increasing the monetary award from Two Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty[-]Nine [Pesos (P229,559.00)], to Two Million Seven Hundred Thirty[-]Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy[-]Four Pesos and Sixty[-]Six Centavos (Php[ ]2,735,174.66).
5. However, the efforts to modify or correct the assailed decision [were] only limited to the backwages issue[]. It failed and overlooked to assail the issue of the alleged personal and the alternative liabilities of Respondent Roberto C. Herana with the respondent corporation and the factual and legal basis thereof. The issue of personal liability was raised only by complainants after assailed decision has become final and executory.
6. That there is no evidence presented in support of the claim that that respondent L.A. Aponesto conspired with respondent Atty. Raul Josefino F. Miguel and with malice and evil motive to defeat the payment of complainant's award. The presumption of regularity in the performance and discharge of official duties prevails over allegations of malice sans any evidence in support of such allegations. "Presumption of regularity of official duty is rebutted only by clear and convincing affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty[."]
7. The allegation that respondent ELA Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto, committed falsehood by making up a non-[existent] case law particularly in the case of "International Travel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.[ ] 70859, December 12, 1986" is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent Labor Arbiter presented proof that as early as June 25, 2001, the Second Division of the [NLRC] in the case of Angelito Serrano, Jr. and Edwin Tagulao vs. Nissan North EDSA Balintawak, Quezon City, Inc., cited the case of International Travel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R.[ ]No. 70859, December 12, 1986. However, when the Nissan case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and then to the Honorable Supreme Court[] in G.R. No. 162538[, ]June 4, 2009, in the case of Nissan North EDSA Balintawak, Quezon City[, Inc.] vs. Angelito Serrano[, ]Jr. and Edwin Tagulao, the said decision of the NLRC was mentioned in part[, ]thus[,] debunking the allegations of the complainants that respondent Labor Arbiter made[ ]up or concocted the cited case of International Travel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.[ ]70859, December 12, 1986 in his decision.
Nonetheless and even considering that an error was made in the decision in not awarding the backwages in favor of the complainants, it is a settled rule that a "judge cannot be held to account civilly, criminally or administratively for an erroneous decision in good faith[."]
8. That respondent as public officer since October 1986 and as alleged in his verified position paper and comments filed before this office, made reference that he has no derogatory records in his entire career.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto be dismissed for lack of merit. 3 (Citations omitted.)
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-230 4 dated March 17, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation.
After a review of the case, we affirm the IBP Board of Governors' findings of fact and conclusions of law. TIADCc
It is settled that in disbarment cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving his allegations with substantial evidence. 5 Absent such proof, the presumption of innocence in favor of respondent lawyer prevails.
In the present case, we find complainants' evidence insufficient to sustain a finding of administrative liability on the part of the respondent. Apart from their bare assertions of misconduct, they failed to show that respondent's denial of their application for a modified writ of execution and citation of the alleged non-existent case of International Travel Corp. v. NLRC were tainted with bad faith. We concur with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors, that respondent cannot be held administratively liable for rendering even an erroneous decision if done in good faith.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XXII-2016-230 of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby AFFIRMED and the complaint against Atty. Arturo P. Aponesto is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 21-24.
2.Id. at 40.
3.Id. at 107-116.
4.Id. at 105-106.
5.Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016.