TodayisThursday,June18,2015

Search

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.163431August28,2013

NATHANIELN.DONGON,PETITIONER,vs.RAPIDMOVERSANDFORWARDERSCO.,INC.,AND/ORNICANORE.JAO,JR.,RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

The prerogative of the employer to dismiss an employee on the ground of willful disobedience to companypoliciesmustbeexercisedingoodfaithandwithdueregardtotherightsoflabor.

TheCase

Bypetition for reviewoncertiorari,petitionerappeals theadversedecisionpromulgatedonOctober24,2003,1wherebytheCourtofAppeals(CA)setasidethedecisiondatedJune17,2002of theNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inhisfavor.2TheNLRChadtherebyreversedtherulingdatedSeptember10,2001oftheLaborArbiterdismissinghiscomplaintforillegaldismissal.3

Antecedents

ThefollowingbackgroundfactsofthiscasearestatedintheCAsassaileddecision,viz:

Fromtherecords, itappearsthatpetitionerRapidisengagedinthehaulingandtruckingbusinesswhileprivaterespondentNathanielT.Dongonisaformertruckhelperleadman.

Private respondentsareaofassignment is theTanduayOtisWarehousewherehehasa jobof facilitating theloadingandunloading [of the] petitioners trucks.On23April 2001, private respondent andhis driver,VicenteVillaruz,wereinthevicinityofTanduayastheytriedtogetsomegoodstobedistributedtotheirclients.

Tanduays security guard called the attention of private respondent as to the fact thatMr. Villaruz[s] was notwearing an Identification Card (I.D. Card). Private respondent, then, assured the guard that he will secure aspecialpermissionfromthemanagementtowarranttheorderlyreleaseofgoods.

Insteadofcomplyingwithhiscompromise,privaterespondentlenthisI.D.CardtoVillaruzandbyreasonofsuchmisrepresentation , private respondent and Mr. Villaruz got a clearance from Tanduay for the release of thegoods.However, the security guard,whosaw themisrepresentation committedbyprivate respondentandMr.Villaruz,accostedthemandreportedthemattertothemanagementofTanduay.

On 23May 2001, after conducting an administrative investigation, private respondentwas dismissed from thepetitioningCompany.

On01June2001,privaterespondentfiledaComplaintforIllegalDismissal.xxx4

In his decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, and ruled that respondent Rapid Movers andForwardersCo.,Inc.(RapidMovers)rightlyexerciseditsprerogativetodismisspetitioner,consideringthat:(1)hehadadmittedlendinghiscompanyIDtodriverVicenteVillaruz(2)hisacthadconstitutedmentaldishonestyanddeceitamountingtobreachoftrust(3)RapidMoversrelationshipwithTanduayhadbeenjeopardizedbyhisact

and (4) he had been banned from all the warehouses of Tanduay as a result, leavingRapidMovers with noavailablejobforhim.5

Onappeal,however, theNLRCreversed theLaborArbiter,andheld thatRapidMovershadnotdischarged itsburden toprove the validityof petitionersdismissal fromhisemployment. It opined thatRapidMoversdidnotsuffer any pecuniary damage fromhis act and that his dismissalwas a penalty disproportionate to the act ofpetitionercomplainedof.Itawardedhimbackwagesandseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement,towit:

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisREVERSEDandSETASIDEandanewoneENTEREDorderingthepaymentofhisbackwagesfromApril25,2001upto thefinalityof thisdecisionand in lieuofreinstatement,heshouldbepaidhisseparationpayfromdateofhireonMay2,1994uptothefinalityhereof.

SOORDERED.6

RapidMovers brought a petition for certiorari in theCA, averring grave abuse of discretion on the part of theNLRC,towit:

I.

x x x IN STRIKING DOWN THE DISMISSAL OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT [AS] ILLEGALALLEGEDLY FOR BEING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE OFFENSE COMMITTED INTHAT NEITHER THE PETITIONERS NOR ITS CLIENT TANDUAY SUFFERED ANY PECUNIARYDAMAGETHEREFROMTHEREBY IMPLYINGTHATFORADISHONESTACT/MISCONDUCTTOBE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE, THE SAME MUST AT LEAST HAVERESULTEDINPECUNIARYDAMAGETOTHEEMPLOYER

II.

x x x INEXPRESSINGRESERVATIONONTHEGUILTOFTHEPRIVATERESPONDENT INTHELIGHT OF ITS PERCEIVED CONFLICTING DATES OF THE LETTER OF TANDUAY TO RAPIDMOVERS(JANUARY25,2001)ANDTHEOCCURRENCEOFTHE INCIDENTONAPRIL25,2001WHEN SAID CONFLICT OF DATES CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WAS MOREAPPARENTTHANREAL.7

RulingoftheCA

OnOctober24,2003,theCApromulgateditsassaileddecisionreinstatingthedecisionoftheLaborArbiter,andupholdingtherightofRapidMoverstodisciplineitsworkers,holdingthusly:

There is nodispute that theprivate respondent lent his I.D.Card to another employeewhoused the same inenteringthecompoundofthepetitionercustomer,Tanduay.ConsideringthatthisamountstodishonestyandisprovidedforinthepetitioningCompanysManualofDiscipline,itsimpositionisbutproperandappropriate.

It is basic in any enterprise that an employee has the obligation of following the rules and regulations of itsemployer.Morebasicfurtheristheelementaryobligationofanemployeetobehonestandtruthfulinhiswork.Itshouldbenotedthathonestyisoneoftheforemostcriteriaofanemployerwhenhiringaprospectiveemployee.Thus,weseeemployersrequiringanNBIclearanceorpoliceclearancebeforeformallyacceptinganapplicantastheiremployee.Suchrulesandregulationsarenecessaryfortheefficientoperationofthebusiness.

Employeeswhoviolatesuchrulesandregulationsareliableforthepenaltiesandsanctionssoprovided,e.g.,theCompanysManualofDiscipline(asinthiscase)andtheLaborCode.

The argument of the respondent commission that no pecuniary damagewas sustained is offtangentwith thefactsofthecase.TheactoflendinganIDisanactofdishonestytowhichnopecuniaryestimatecanbeascribedfor thesimple reason thatnomonetaryequation is involved.What is involved isplainandsimpleadherence totruthandviolationof the rules.Theactof utteringor themakingof a falsehooddoesnotneedanypecuniaryestimatefortheacttogestatetoonepunishableunderthelaborlaws.Inthiscase,theillegaluseoftheI.D.Cardwhileitmayappeartobeinitiallytrivialisofcrucialrelevancetothepetitionerscustomer,Tanduay,whichdealswith drivers and leadmen withdrawing goods and merchandise from its warehouse. For those with criminalintentionscanuseanothersIDtoasportgoodsandmerchandise.

Hence,while itcanbeconceded that there isnopecuniarydamage involved, the fact remains that theoffensedoes not only constitute dishonesty but also willful disobedience to the lawful order of the Company, e.g., to

observeatalltimethetermsandconditionsoftheManualofDiscipline.Article282oftheLaborCodeprovides:

"TerminationbyEmployerAnemployermayterminateanemploymentforanyofthefollowingcauses:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer orrepresentativeinconnectionwithhiswork

xxx."(Emphasis,supplied)

The constitutional protection afforded to labor does not condone wrongdoings by the employee and anemployers power to discipline its workers is inherent to it. As honesty is always the best policy, the Court isconvinced that the ruling of the Labor Arbiter is more in accord with the spirit of the Labor Code. "TheConstitutionalpolicyofprovidingfullprotectiontolaborisnotintendedtooppressordestroymanagement(Capilivs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 488[1997]." Also, in Atlas Fertilizer Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 549 [1997], theHighestMagistratedeclaredthat"Thelaw,inprotectingtherightsofthelaborers,authorizesneitheroppressionnorselfdestructionoftheemployer."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed 17 June 2002 Decision ofrespondentCommission inNLRCCA02993701isherebySETASIDEandthe10September2001DecisionofLaborArbiterVicenteR.LayawenisorderedREINSTATED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.8

Petitionermovedforareconsideration,buttheCAdeniedhismotiononMarch22,2004.9

Undaunted,thepetitionerisnowonappeal.

Issue

Petitionerstillasserts the illegalityofhisdismissal,anddeniesbeingguiltyofwillfuldisobedience.Hecontendsthat:

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONINSUSTAININGTHEDECISIONDATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2001 OF LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN WHERE THE LATTER RULEDTHATBYLENDINGHISIDTOVILLARUZ,PETITIONER(COMPLAINANT)COMMITTEDMISREPRESENTATIONANDDECEITCONSTITUTINGMENTALDISHONESTYWHICHCANNOTBEDISCARDEDAS INSIGNIFICANTORTRIVIAL.10

PetitionerarguesthathisdismissalwasdiscriminatorybecauseVillaruzwasretainedinhisemploymentasdriverand that theCAgravelyabused itsdiscretion indisregardinghisshowing thathedidnotviolateRapidMoversrules and regulations but simply performed his work in line with the duties entrusted to him, and in notappreciatinghisgoodfaithandlackofanyintentiontowillfullydisobeythecompanysrules.

Initscomment,11RapidMoverspraysthatthepetitionforcertioraribedismissedforbeinganimproperremedyandapparentlyresortedtoasasubstituteforalostappealandinsiststhattheCAdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion.1 w p h i1

Inhisreply,12petitionersubmitsthathisdismissalwasapenaltytooharshanddisproportionatetohissupposedviolation and that his dismissal was inappropriate due to the violation being his first infraction that was evencommittedingoodfaithandwithoutmalice.

Basedonthepartiesforegoingsubmissions,theissuestoberesolvedare,firstly:Wasthepetitionimproperanddismissible?and,secondly: If thepetitioncouldprosper,wasthedismissalofpetitioneronthegroundofwillfuldisobediencetothecompanyregulationlawful?

Ruling

Thepetitionhasmerit.

1.

Petitionshouldnotbedismissed

InSt.MartinFuneralHomev.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,13theCourthasclarifiedthatpartiesseekingthereviewofdecisionsoftheNLRCshouldfileapetitionforcertiorariintheCAonthegroundofgraveabuseofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. Thereafter, the remedy of theaggrievedpartyfromtheCAdecisionisanappealviapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.14

Thepetition filedhere is selfstyledasa petition for reviewon certiorari, butRapidMoverspoints out that thepetitionwasreallyoneforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtduetoitsbasisbeingthecommissionbytheCAofagraveabuseof itsdiscretionandbecausethepetitionwasfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiodofappealunderRule45.Hence,RapidMoversinsiststhattheCourtshoulddismissthepetitionbecausecertiorariunderRule65couldnotbeasubstituteofalostappealunderRule45.

Ordinarily,anoriginalaction forcertiorariwillnotprosper if the remedyofappeal isavailable, foranappealbypetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtandanoriginalactionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtaremutuallyexclusive,notalternativenorsuccessive,remedies.15Onseveraloccasions,however,theCourthastreatedapetitionforcertiorariasapetitionforreviewoncertiorariwhen:(a)thepetitionhasbeenfiledwithinthe15dayreglementaryperiod16(b)publicwelfareandtheadvancementofpublicpolicydictatesuchtreatment(c) thebroader interestsof justicerequiresuchtreatment(d) thewrits issuedwerenullandvoidor(e)thequestioneddecisionororderamountstoanoppressiveexerciseofjudicialauthority.17

TheCourtdeemsitpropertoallowduecoursetothepetitionasoneforcertiorariunderRule65inthebroaderinterestofsubstantialjustice,particularlybecausetheNLRCsappellateadjudicationwassetasidebytheCA,andinordertoputatrestthedoubtthattheCA,insodoing,exerciseditsjudicialauthorityoppressively.WhetherthepetitionwasproperornotshouldbeoflessimportancethanwhethertheCAgravelyerredinundoingandsettingasidethedeterminationoftheNLRCasareviewingforumvisvistheLaborArbiter.WenoteinthisregardthattheNLRChaddeclaredthedismissalofpetitionertobeharshandnotcommensuratetotheinfractioncommitted.Given thespirit and intentionunderlyingour labor lawsof resolvingadoubtful situation in favorof theworkingman,wewillhavetoreviewthejudgmentof theCAtoascertainwhethertheNLRChadreallycommittedgraveabuseofitsdiscretion.Thiswillsettlethedoubtsontheproprietyofterminatingpetitioner,andatthesametimeensurethatjusticeisservedtotheparties.18

2.

Petitionerwasnotguiltyofwillfuldisobediencehence,hisdismissalwasillegal

Petitionermaintains thatwillful disobedience could not be a ground for his dismissal because he had acted ingoodfaithandwiththesoleintentionoffacilitatingdeliveriesforRapidMoverswhenheallowedVillaruztousehiscompanyID.

Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is oneof the valid grounds to terminate an employeeunderArticle296(formerlyArticle282)oftheLaborCode.19Forwillfuldisobediencetobeaground,itisrequiredthat:(a)theconductoftheemployeemustbewillfulorintentionaland(b)theordertheemployeeviolatedmusthavebeen reasonable, lawful,madeknown to theemployee,andmustpertain to theduties thathehadbeenengagedtodischarge.20Willfulnessmustbeattendedbyawrongfulandperversementalattituderenderingtheemployeesactinconsistentwithpropersubordination.21Inanycase,theconductoftheemployeethatisavalidgroundfordismissalundertheLaborCodeconstitutesharmfulbehavioragainstthebusinessinterestorpersonof his employer.22 It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undueadvantagedetrimentaltothebusinessinterestoftheemployer.

Undertheforegoingstandards,thedisobedienceattributedtopetitionercouldnotbejustlycharacterizedaswillfulwithinthecontemplationofArticle296oftheLaborCode.Heneitherbenefittedfromit,northerebyprejudicedthebusinessinterestofRapidMovers.HisexplanationthathisdeedhadbeenintendedtobenefitRapidMoverswascredible. There could be nowrong or perversity on his part thatwarranted the termination of his employmentbasedonwillfuldisobedience.

Rapid Movers argues, however, that the strict implementation of company rules and regulations should beaccorded respect as a valid exercise of its management prerogative. It posits that it had the prerogative toterminatepetitionerforviolatingitsfollowingcompanyrulesandregulations,towit:

(a) "Pagpayag sa paggamit ng iba o paggamit ngmaling rekord ng kumpanya kaugnay sa operations,maintenanceormateryalesotrabaho"(AdditionalRulesandRegulationsNo.2)and

(b) "Pagkutsaba sa pagplano o pagpulong sa ibang tao upang labagin ang anumang alituntunin ngkumpanya"(Article5.28).23

WecannotsustaintheargumentofRapidMovers.

Itistruethatanemployerisgivenawidelatitudeofdiscretioninmanagingitsownaffairs.Thebroaddiscretionincludestheimplementationofcompanyrulesandregulationsandtheimpositionofdisciplinarymeasuresonitsemployees.Buttheexerciseofamanagementprerogativelikethisisnotlimitless,buthemmedinbygoodfaithandadueconsiderationoftherightsoftheworker.24Inthislight,themanagementprerogativewillbeupheldforaslongasitisnotwieldedasanimplementtocircumventthelawsandoppresslabor.25

Tous,dismissalshouldonlybealastresort,apenaltytobemetedonlyafteralltherelevantcircumstanceshavebeenappreciatedandevaluatedwiththegoalofensuringthatthegroundfordismissalwasnotonlyseriousbuttrue.Thecauseoftermination,tobelawful,mustbeaseriousandgravemalfeasancetojustifythedeprivationofameans of livelihood. This requirement is in keepingwith the spirit of our Constitution and laws to lean overbackwardsinfavoroftheworkingclass,andwiththemandatethateverydoubtmustberesolvedintheirfavor.26

Althoughwerecognizethe inherentrightof theemployertodiscipline itsemployees,weshouldstillensurethattheemployerexercisestheprerogativetodisciplinehumanelyandconsiderately,andthatthesanctionimposediscommensuratetotheoffenseinvolvedandtothedegreeoftheinfraction.Thedisciplineexactedbytheemployershouldfurtherconsidertheemployeeslengthofserviceandthenumberofinfractionsduringhisemployment.27Theemployershouldnever forget thatalwaysatstake indisciplining itsemployeearenotonlyhispositionbutalsohislivelihood,28andthathemayalsohaveafamilyentirelydependentonhisearnings.29

Considering thatpetitionersmotive in lendinghis company ID toVillaruzwas tobenefitRapidMoversas theiremployer by facilitating the loading of goods at theTanduayOtisWarehouse for distribution toRapidMoversclients, and considering also that petitioner had rendered seven long unblemished years of service to RapidMovers, his dismissal was plainly unwarranted. The NLRCs reversal of the decision of the Labor Arbiter byholding that penalty too harsh and disproportionate to the wrong attributed to him was legally and factuallyjustified,notarbitraryorwhimsical.Consequently, for theCA topronounce that theNLRChad therebygravelyabused its discretion was not only erroneous but was itself a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ofjurisdictionfornotbeinginconformitywiththepertinentlawsandjurisprudence.Wehaveheldthataconclusionorfindingderivedfromerroneousconsiderationsisnotamereerrorofjudgmentbutonetaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.30

WHEREFORE, theCourtGRANTS thepetitionREVERSESandSETSASIDE thedecisionpromulgatedby theCourtofAppealsonOctober24,2003REINSTATES thedecisionof theNationalLaborRelationsCommissionrenderedonJune17,2002andORDERSrespondentstopaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.

LUCASP.BERSAMINAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOChiefJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROAssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA*AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYESAssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheconstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOChiefJustice

Footnotes

*ViceAssociateJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.,whoisonleave,perSpecialOrderNo.1502datedAugust8,2013.

1Rollo,at2130pennedbyAssociateJusticeAndresB.Reyes,Jr.(nowPresidingJustice),andconcurredin byAssociate JusticeBuenaventura J.Guerrero (retired/deceased) andAssociate JusticeRegaladoE.Maambong(retired/deceased).

2 Id. at 4655 penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay, and concurred in by PresidingCommissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan (now a Member of the Court ofAppeals).

3Id.at6270.

4Id.at2223.

5Id.at6270.

6Id.at54.

7Id.at3940.

8Id.at2730.

9Id.at31.

10Id.at9.

11Id.at145150.

12Id.at152158.

13G.R.No.130866,September16,1998,295SCRA494,503504.

14SeeTalidanov.FalconMaritime&AlliedServices,Inc.,G.R.No.172031,July14,2008,558SCRA279,291 IloiloLaFilipinaUygongcoCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.170244,November28,2007,539 SCRA 178, 187188 Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.165910,April10,2006,487SCRA78,96.

15Tible&TibleCompany,Inc.v.RoyalSavingsandLoanAssociation,G.R.No.155806,April8,2008,550SCRA562,575MadrigalTransport,Inc.v.LapandayHoldingsCorporation,G.R.No.156067,August11,2004,436SCRA123,136.

16Nuezv.GSISFamilyBank,G.R.No.163988,November17,2005,475SCRA305,316Tichangcov.Enriquez,G.R.No.150629,June30,2004,433SCRA324,333.

17Leyte IVElectricCooperative, Inc.v.Leyeco IVEmployeesUnionALU,G.R.No.157775,October19,2007,537SCRA154,166.

18DaltonReyesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.149580,March16,2005,453SCRA498,509510.

19Renumberedpursuant toRepublicActNo.10151(AnActAllowingTheEmploymentofNightWorkers,Thereby Repealing Articles 130 and 131 of Presidential Decree Number Four Hundred FortyTwo, AsAmended,OtherwiseKnownAsTheLaborCodeofthePhilippines).

20CocaColaBottlers,Phils., Inc.v.KapisananngMalayangManggagawasaCocaColaFFW,G.R.No.148205, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 480, 497 Dimabayao v. National Labor Relations Commission,G.R.No.122178,February25,1999,303SCRA655,659CarlosA.GothongLines, Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.

No.96685,February15,1999,303SCRA164,170Lagaticv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.121004,January28,1998,285SCRA251,257.

21 LakpueDrug, Inc. v. Belga, G.R. No. 166379,October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 617, 624 St.MichaelsInstitutev.Santos,G.R.No.145280,December4,2001,371SCRA383,393Escobinv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.118159,April15,1998,289SCRA48,67.

22 Separate Opinion of J. Tinga in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158693,November17,2004,442SCRA573,693.

23Rollo,p.78.

24JuliesBakeshopv.Arnaiz,G.R.No.173882,February15,2012,666SCRA101,115.

25Mendiola v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No. 159333, July 31, 2006, 497SCRA 346, 360Unicorn SafetyGlass,Inc.v.Basarte,G.R.No.154689,November25,2004,444SCRA287,297.

26HongkongandShanghaiBankingCorp.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.116542,July30,1996,260SCRA49,56.

27CocaColaBottlersPhils.,Inc.v.Daniel,G.R.No.156893,June21,2005,460SCRA494,509510.

28PioneerTexturizingCorp.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.118651,October16,1997,280SCRA806,816.

29Almirav.B.F.GoodrichPhilippines,Inc.,No.L34974,July25,1974,58SCRA120,131.

30Variasv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.189078,March30,2010,617SCRA214,229.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation