BELOW THIS DIGEST IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE CASE.
FACTS.
1. Because of the damage suffered by the petitioner in the alleged artificial sales of articles made by sales personel of libis under the instruction of the respondent, the petitioner charges the respondents for violation of the company’s rules and regulation commited as follows, falsification of document and records or knowingly using such falsified document and record, breach of trust and confidence, engaging in fraudulent transaction, misappropriation of company’s funds, serious disobedience of the lawful order of the employer.
2. After the hearing of the administrative investigation, the respondent was dismissed.
3. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter but on appeal, the case was remanded back to the LA for further proceedings.
4. the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners failed to satisfactorily prove the serious charges against respondent.
The only relevant evidence adduced by petitioners was the notice of termination which narrated what happened during the administrative investigation.
5. Petitioner elevated the case before the NLRC who affirmed the decision of the LA.
6. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA who affirmed the decision of the LA and NLRC.
7. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE.
Whether respondent was validly dismissed and whether a trial on the merits was necessary;
According to the Supreme Court, In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause. In the instant case, petitioners failed to present evidence to justify respondent's dismissal.
And on the second issue, the Supreme Court said that it is not violative of due process when the Labor Arbiter to resolve a case based solely on the position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.
[G.R. No. 165968, April 14, 2008]
PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. AND ERNESTO F. GOCHUICO, PETITIONERS, VS. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review under Rule 45 is the Decision[1] dated October 25, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71648, which affirmed the Decision[2] dated
January 31, 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 015665-98. The NLRC had affirmed the Decision[3] dated January 26,
2000 of the Labor Arbiter which ordered petitioners to pay respondent separation pay of P165,000, backwages of P180,000, and 10% attorney's fees, but deleted
the award of moral and exemplary damages.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Respondent Emmanuel V. Santos was employed by petitioner Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. sometime in July 1989. In March 1996, he was promoted as Acting
Regional Sales Manager at the Libis Sales Office.
On February 14, 1997, respondent received from petitioner Ernesto F. Gochuico a memorandum[4] charging him with violation of company rules and regulations
and Article 282(a)[5] of the Labor Code, as follows:
block quote
Group III FRAUD AND ACTS OF DISHONESTY
table with 2 columns and 9 rows
NO. 12
Falsifying company records or documents or knowingly using falsified records or documents.
NO. 8
Breach of trust and confidence.
NO. 4
Engaging in fictitious transactions, fake invoicing, deals padding and other sales malpractices.
NO. 5
Misappropriation or embezzlement of company funds or property and other acts of dishonesty.
Article 282 (a)
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience to the lawful orders of his employer.[6]
table end
block quote end
The charges arose out of alleged artificial sales by the sales personnel of the Libis Sales Office in March 1996 allegedly upon the instruction of respondent.
The alleged artificial sales resulted in damage to petitioners amounting to P795,454.54.
The memorandum also apprised respondent of his preventive suspension and the scheduled hearings of the administrative investigation.
After the termination of the hearings, petitioners found respondent guilty of the aforesaid charges with the exception of falsifying company records. As
a result, respondent was dismissed on June 27, 1997.[7]
Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal which the Labor Arbiter dismissed on April 30, 1998.[8] On appeal, the NLRC remanded the case to the Labor
Arbiter for further proceedings.
In a Decision[9] dated January 26, 2000, the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners failed to satisfactorily prove the serious charges against respondent.
The only relevant evidence adduced by petitioners was the notice of termination which narrated what happened during the administrative investigation. The
decretal portion of the decision reads:
block quote
WHEREFORE, premises above considered, a decision is hereby issued declaring the suspension and dismissal of complainant illegal. However, in view of the
already impaired relationship between complainant and respondent, and the non-feasibility of the relief of reinstatement, respondent Pepsi Cola Products,
Phil.[,] Inc. and/or Ernesto F. Gochuico is hereby ordered to pay complainant separation pay of P165,000.00 based on his eleven (11) years of service at
one-month salary for every year of service, plus one (1) year backwages in the amount of P180,000.00, all in the aggregate amount of Three Hundred Forty
Five Thousand [(]P345,000.00) pesos, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10) percent of the above monetary award.
In addition, as his suspension and dismissal is illegal, and apparently tainted with malice and bad faith, an award of P100,000.00 as moral damages and
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages is hereby granted.
SO ORDERED.[10]
block quote end
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal. It observed that after the case was remanded, the Labor
Arbiter immediately conducted hearings. Moreover, in the hearing dated September 7, 1999,[11] petitioners agreed to submit the case for resolution based
on the additional pleadings submitted by the parties. Nevertheless, the NLRC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages in the absence of evidence
that respondent's suspension and eventual dismissal were tainted with bad faith and malice. Thus, it ruled:
block quote
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 26, 2000 is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00
and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
The rest of the decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[12]
block quote end
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. On October 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the NLRC decision. It agreed with
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the charges in the memorandum of suspension and the notice of termination were not satisfactorily proven. The only
evidence submitted by petitioners was the notice of termination which narrated what happened during the administrative investigation. It also observed
that while petitioners discovered the alleged fictitious sales in April 1996, it was only on February 14, 1997 that petitioners placed respondent on preventive
suspension and commenced administrative investigation. It further ruled that the holding of a trial was discretionary on the Labor Arbiter especially where
the parties had already presented their documentary evidence, as in this case.
Petitioners now submit the following issues for our consideration:
block quote
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING AND AFFIRMING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT RESPONDENT'S DISMISSAL
WAS VALID.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE LABOR ARBITER BELOW NEED NOT CONDUCT A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES.[13]
block quote end
In essence, the issues are: (1) whether respondent was validly dismissed; (2) whether a trial on the merits was necessary; and (3) whether the award of
attorney's fees was proper.
Petitioners contend that the charges arose out of artificial sales by the sales personnel of the Libis Sales Office in March 1996 upon the direction of
respondent. The alleged artificial sales resulted in damage to petitioners amounting to P795,454.54. It is petitioners' view that since respondent never
denied these allegations, he is deemed to have admitted the same. Petitioners also aver that the Labor Arbiter should have conducted a trial on the merits
since the case involved vital factual issues. Petitioners finally dispute the award of attorney's fees since it is only allowed in case of unlawful withholding
of wages.
Respondent counters that petitioners can no longer raise before the Court questions of fact that have already been passed upon by the Labor Arbiter, the
NLRC, and the Court of Appeals.
The first issue involves a question of fact which the Court is not at liberty to review. Our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law
that may have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[14] Not being a trier of facts, the Court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of
evidence presented to the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals, which formed the basis of the questioned decision. Indeed, when their findings
are in absolute agreement, the same are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]
In any event, we have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of
an employee is for a valid cause.[16] In the instant case, petitioners failed to present evidence to justify respondent's dismissal. Save for the notice
of termination, we could not find any evidence which would clearly and convincingly show that respondent was guilty of the charges imputed against him.
There appears to be no compelling reason why petitioners would rather present their witnesses on direct testimony rather than reduce their testimonies
into affidavits. The submission of these affidavits appears to be the more prudent course of action particularly when the Labor Arbiter informed the parties
that no further trial will be conducted in the case.
Anent the second issue, we reiterate that it is not legally objectionable, for being violative of due process, for the Labor Arbiter to resolve a case
based solely on the position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[17] The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary
with the Labor Arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties
are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided
that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.[18]
Finally, on the matter of attorney's fees, we have ruled that attorney's fees may be awarded only when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith
and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer.[19]In this case, the NLRC deleted
the award of moral and exemplary damages precisely because of the absence of evidence that respondent's suspension and eventual dismissal were tainted
with bad faith and malice.
We note that although the Labor Arbiter awarded attorney's fees, the basis for the same was not discussed in the decision nor borne out by the records
of this case. There must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fees. This is consistent with the policy that no premium should be placed
on the right to litigate. For these reasons, we believe and so rule that the award of attorney's fees should be deleted.[20]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71648, which affirmed
the Decision dated January 31, 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA No. 015665-98, is MODIFIED. The award of 10% attorney's fees
made by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision dated January 26, 2000 is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ., concur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-36. Penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-21.
[3] Id. at 38-44.
[4] Records, pp. 29-30.
[5] ART. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
x x x x
[6] Records, p. 29.
[7] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 29-37.
[9] Id. at 38-44.
[10] Id. at 43-44.
[11] Id. at 20.
[12] Id. at 21.
[13] Rollo, p. 12.
[14] Amante v. Serwelas, G.R. No. 143572, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 348, 351.
[15] Domondon v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154376, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 559, 566.
[16] R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156104, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 263, 269.
[17] CMP Federal Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125298, February 11, 1999, 303 SCRA 99, 110.
[18] Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147125, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 354, 361.
[19] Pascua v. NLRC (Third Division), G.R. No. 123518, March 13, 1998, 287 SCRA 554, 580; see Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 124548,
October 8, 1998, 297 SCRA 508, 519.
[20] German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 142049, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 629, 649.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment