Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Building Care Corp. v. NLRC (1997)
Building Care Corp. v. NLRC (1997)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997
BUI!ING C"RE CORPOR"TION, petitioner,
vs.
N"TION" "BOR RE"TIONS COMMISSION, FIRST !I#ISION, a$% ROGEIO
RO!I, respondents.
P"NG"NIB"N, J.:
In disissin! this petition, the "ourt reiterates the #ell$entrenched doctrines that %&' a
otion for reconsideration, as a rule, is an indispensable precondition to the filin! of a
petition for certiorari, and %(' findin!s of facts of the National )abor Relations
"oission %N)R"', affirin! those of the )abor *rbiter, are bindin! upon the
Supree "ourt.
This petition for certiorari under Rule +, of the Rules of "ourt see-s to annul the
Decision
1
proul!ated on Ma. /, &//0, of the 1irst Division
2
of public respondent in
N)R" "ase No. N"R$00$02$0&+0,$33 #hich affired the decision of )abor *rbiter
4uintin ". Mendo5a. The dispositive portion of the affired decision of the )abor *rbiter
reads6
3
7H8R81OR8, decision is hereb. rendered for the coplainant
declarin! his suspension and disissal ille!al and orderin! the
respondent to reinstate hi plus bac-#a!es fro tie his %sic'
disissal at the ad9usted rate under R.*. ++20 and retainin! #hatever
seniorit. ri!hts in the 9ob he has %sic' plus his le!al holida.s pa. of
P&,&:3.00 and differential pa. of P;+/.20 and attorne.<s fees of not
ore than ten %&0=' of the total a#ard.
The Facts
The facts found b. public respondent are as follo#s6
4
"oplainant %herein private respondent' alle!ed that his #a!es, &;th
onth pa. and service incentive leave pa. #ere unpaid> that he #as
not paid for #or- rendered durin! le!al holida.s> that on 1ebruar. &&,
&/33, he #as suspended for one #ee- b. his supervisor, H. Silvestre,
for no apparent reason> that the suspension #as ille!al because of
the absence of 9ust cause and respondent<s %herein petitioner' non$
copliance #ith the re?uireents of due process> that thereafter, he
#as not !iven an. assi!nent, despite repeated follo#$ups,
suari5ed as follo#s6
Date Person Approached Result
($&/$33 Supervisor H. Silvestre Re?uired
coplainant to
return %on' ($(0$33
($(0$33 18@T" 7or-ed for one pa.
%should be da.'> no
tie card A pa.
($(;$33 Mr. *driatico Referred to
Silvestre not !iven
#or-
($(;$33 Mr. @arbosa, 18@T" Told to !o hoe>
proise%d' to tal- to
Silvestre
($(2$33 H. SilvestreBMr. *driatico Scolded> not !iven
#or-
($(+$33 Supervisor Ms. "arol Told to return the
follo#in! da.
($(:$33 Supervisors Not !iven #or-
SilvestreBMs. "arol
($(/$33 Silvestre Not !iven #or-
1
;$02$33 Supervisors Silvestre, No results
Vira., Melanie
;$(;$33 Silvestre No results
;$(,$33 Ms. Mali! Proised to as-
supervisors #hat
happened
;$(3 A (/$33 Ms. Mali! Told supervisors
not around
2$02$33 Ms. Mali! Infored he #ould
no lon!er be !iven
7or-.
Respondent contended that coplainant #as paid his #a!es and holida. pa. in
accordance #ith la#> that it #as unable to copl. #ith R.*. ++20 iediatel.
because of its client<s dela. in approvin! the ad9usted contract rates> that it #as
read. to pa. coplainant P;+/.20 representin! salar. differentials fro Deceber
&2, &/3: to 1ebruar. &&, &/33> that on 1ebruar. /, &/33, 18@T" coplained that
coplainant<s area of responsibilit. #as iproperl. cleaned> that coplainant #as
t#ice instructed to report to respondent<s ni!ht shift supervisor, but on both ties, he
failed to do so> that because of such defiance, he #as verball. #arned that drastic
disciplinar. action #ould be ta-en a!ainst hi should he persist in failin! to report as
directed> that on 1ebruar. &&, &/33, the assistant supervisor erroneousl. noted on
the lo!boo- that coplainant #as bein! suspended> that the suspension #as not
carried out as coplainant #as allo#ed to #or- the follo#in! da., as sho#n b. his
dail. tie record> that he #as advised to report to respondent<s office the follo#in!
da.> that, instead, coplainant too- a lon! absence #ithout leave startin! on
1ebruar. &(, &/33> that he sho#ed up at respondent<s office onl. on March (3,
&/33> that he #as re?uired to subit a #ritten eCplanation of his lon! absence
#ithout leave, fre?uent absences in the post and deterioratin! perforance> that
coplainant #rote that he failed to report because his supervisor suspended hi for
no apparent reason> that he #as told that an investi!ation of his alle!ed suspension
#ould be conducted and, in vie# of the forthcoin! non$#or-in! holida.s, advised
to report on *pril 2, &/33> that, in the eantie, respondent<s supervisor reported
that 18@T" had indicated that it #ould no lon!er accept coplainant> that
coplainant #as advised of 18@T"<s decision on *pril 2, &/33> that for huanitarian
reasons, coplainant #as advised that he #as !oin! to be teporaril. assi!ned as
reliever at respondent<s office #hile there #as no available post in its other clients>
that coplainant re?uested for a #ee-$lon! leave, alle!edl. because he had to brin!
his fail. to 4ue5on Province> that coplainant a!ain failed to report for #or- on
*pril &3, &/33> that he #as sent a letter advisin! hi to report to respondent<s office>
that he never #ent bac- to respondent<s office> but instead, filed the instant case.
"oplainant aintained that he did his #or- properl.> that he #as absent fro
Danuar. &3$(( %&/33' because he #as sic-, and he dul. advised respondent of his
sic-ness> that he #as absent fro 1ebruar. &$3 %&/33' because he had to ta-e care
of his #ife #ho #as sic-, as sho#n b. her edical certificate> that he #as absent
a!ain for one #ee- startin! 1ebruar. &(, &/33 because he #as ille!all. suspended>
that thereafter, he #as never !iven another assi!nent, contrar. to respondent<s
untruthful averents> that he #as denied due process of la# b. respondent> that
respondent a. have sent hi a letter after *pril 2, &/33, but it #as too late
because he had alread. instituted the instant case.
Respondent subitted the affidavits of 7endel Vira., Hernani Silvestre and Eerel
Villaor, its over$all Supervisor and 9anitor, respectivel., statin! that instead of
ipleentin! the suspension, coplainant #as transferred fro the ni!ht shift to the
da. shift> that coplainant re?uested to be returned to the ni!ht shift, but his re?uest
#as not !ranted> that he #as !iven a chance to #or- at respondent<s office, but he
failed to report there as instructed. %"itations oitted'.
Hence, on *pril &/, &/33, private respondent filed #ith the *rbitration @ranch of the
N)R" a coplaint for ille!al disissal, underpa.ent and non$pa.ent of le!al holida.
pa. a!ainst petitioner. *t the initial hearin!, private respondent #as offered
reinstateent, but he insisted on bein! paid his bac-#a!es because of his alle!ed
un9ustified disissal. Petitioner did not a!ree. Thus, after the parties subitted their
respective position papers and other docuentar. evidence, the )abor *rbiter issued a
decision in favor of private respondent.
&
The Issue
Petitioner raises a sin!le issue in its petition, to #it6
6
7ith all due respects to the Hon. National )abor Relations
"oission, 1irst Division, petitioner subits that in affirin! the
decision of the Hon. )abor *rbiter and %in' disissin! petitioner<s
appeal, public respondent coitted !rave abuse of discretion and
acted arbitraril. and capriciousl. as the ?uestioned %Decision' is
contrar. to la# and evidence.
Petitioner alle!es that the labor arbiter relied onl. on coplainant<s affidavit. Public
respondent failed to consider that the )abor *rbiter !ave ver. little or no probative value
to evidence adduced b. petitioner, both docuentar. and testionial. Petitioner further
2
clais that both public respondent and the )abor *rbiter issed the antecedent and
ost iportant issue of #hether or not private respondent had reall. been disissed b.
petitioner.
7
*ccordin! to petitioner, the eplo.er is tas-ed #ith the burden of provin!
9ust cause for disissal but Fthe primary burden of proving the fact of dismissal itself
rests upon the complaining employee.F
'
Petitioner states that even if it is assued that private respondent #as disissed, there
#ere 9ust causes for the terination of his service,
9
the conduct of private respondent
#as inconsistent #ith proper subordination.
1(
Petitioner alle!es too that private respondent failed to prove that he had not been paid
aounts correspondin! to the le!al holida.s> and there bein! no erit to private
respondent<s coplaint, attorne.<s fees should not be a#arded either.
11
Public respondent in affirin! the decision of the labor arbiter reasoned as follo#s6
12
"ontrar. to respondent<s %herein petitioner' ar!uent on appeal, the
burden of proof in disissal cases is borne b. the eplo.er, #ho has
to prove the eCistence of a 9ust cause %*sphalt A "eent Pavers, Inc.
vs. )eo!ardo, Dr., &+( S"R* ;&('. This is even ore true if, li-e the
respondent, the eplo.er puts up the defense of abandonent. The
rule is that the defense of abandonent should be proved %Penaflor
vs. N)R", &(0 S"R* +3> Pol.edic Eeneral Hospital vs. N)R", &;2
S"R* 2(0'.
7e have perused the entire records, and 7e are inclined to conclude
that respondent<s theor. of abandonent has not been sufficientl.
proven.
"oplainant<s %herein private respondent' clai that he #as
suspended for no apparent reason for one #ee- is borne out b. the
lo!boo- entr. for 1ebruar. &&, &/33 and b. his letter$eCplanation
dated March (3, &/33. It should also be noted that coplainant stood
pat on this clai throu!hout the entire proceedin!s.
On the other hand, respondent, in its position paper filed on Dul. &;,
&/33, sipl. contended that coplainant failed, #ithout prior leave, to
report for #or- despite respondent<s repeated instructions. In the
affidavits subitted on Septeber (&, &/33, three of respondent<s
eplo.ees averred that coplainant #as transferred to the da. shift
and he ?uit his 9ob because he #as a!ainst such transfer. This is an
entirel. ne# t#ist #hich did not appear in the eoranda and
lo!boo- entries earlier subitted b. respondent, nor even in its
position paper. 1or this reason, said averent appears to be an after$
thou!ht, #hich cannot be !iven uch #ei!ht.
CCC CCC CCC
1inall., 7e find no copellin! reason to disturb the a#ard of holida.
pa. aountin! to P&,&:3.00 and salar. differentials aountin! to
P;+/.20. If respondent had reall. paid coplainant holida. pa., it
could easil. have presented its pa.rolls, #hich constitute the best
proof of pa.ent. These are necessaril. in the possession of
respondent, so coplainant cannot be blaed for their non$
production. Moreover, respondent aditted its failure to copl. #ith
the #a!e increase andated b. R.*. ++20. %"itations oitted'.
The Court's Ruling
The contention of petitioner is #ithout erit. 7e totall. support the Decision of the
National )abor Relations "oission.
*t the outset, #e note that the petition suffers fro a procedural defect that #arrants its
outri!ht disissal. Petitioner preaturel. acted. It did not file a otion for
reconsideration #ith public respondent before availin! of the special civil action of
certiorari. This preature action constitutes a fatal infirit. as ruled in a catena of
cases, ost recentl. in the case of Interorient Maritime nterprises! Inc., et al., vs.
"ational #abor Relations Commission! et al.
13
in this #ise6
. . .The un?uestioned rule in this 9urisdiction is that certiorari #ill lie
onl. if there is no appeal or an. other plain, speed. and ade?uate
reed. in the ordinar. course of la# a!ainst the acts of public
respondent. In the instant case, the plain and ade?uate reed.
eCpressl. provided b. the la# #as a otion for reconsideration of the
assailed decision, based on palpable or patent errors, to be ade
under oath and filed #ithin ten %&0' calendar da.s fro receipt of the
?uestioned decision.
%T'he filin! of such a otion is intended to afford public respondent an
opportunit. to correct an. actual or fancied error attributed to it b.
#a. of a re$eCaination of the le!al and factual aspects of the case.
Petitioner<s inaction or ne!li!ence under the circustances is
tantaount to a deprivation of the ri!ht and opportunit. of the
3
respondent "oission to cleanse itself of an error un#ittin!l.
coitted or to vindicate itself of an act unfairl. iputed. . . .
. . . *nd for failure to avail of the correct reed. eCpressl. provided b.
la#, petitioner has peritted the sub9ect Resolution to becoe final
and eCecutor. after the lapse of the ten da. period #ithin #hich to file
such otion for reconsideration.
On the erits, petitioner #ants this "ourt to deterine if private respondent #as reall.
disissed. This is a ?uestion of fact #hich cannot be raised in a petition for certiorari
under Rule +,.
It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule +, of the Revised Rules of
"ourt. *n eCtraordinar. reed., its use is available onl. and
restrictivel. in trul. eCceptional cases G those #herein the action of
an inferior court, board or officer perforin! 9udicial or ?uasi$9udicial
acts is challen!ed for bein! #holl. void on !rounds of 9urisdiction. The
sole office of the #rit of certiorari is the correction of errors of
9urisdiction includin! the coission of !rave abuse of discretion
aountin! to lac- or eCcess of 9urisdiction. It does not include
correction of public respondent N)R"<s evaluation of the evidence
and factual findin!s based thereon, #hich are !enerall. accorded not
onl. !reat respect but even finalit..
14
The recitation of facts evidentl. sho#s that public respondent did not rel. onl. on the
evidence presented b. private respondent. *ll the evidence presented for or a!ainst the
position of private respondent have been dul. considered in arrivin! at its conclusion.
@oth the )abor *rbiter and the respondent N)R" !ave credence to
the evidence of the private respondent that he #as ille!all. disissed.
7e are not free to taper #ith their calibration of the #ei!ht of
evidence in the absence of a clear sho#in! that it is arbitrar. and
bereft of an. rational basis.
1&
Indeed if petitioner #anted to prove its pa.ent of holida. pa.s and salar. differentials,
it could have easil. presented proofs of such onetar. benefits. @ut it did not. It had
failed to copl. #ith the andate of the la#. *s public respondent ruled, the burden of
proof in this re!ard belon!s to the eplo.er not to the eplo.ee.
7e also sustain the a#ard of attorne.<s fees. FIt is settled that in actions for recovery of
$ages or $here an employee $as forced to litigate and incur e%penses to protect his
rights and interest! he is entitled to an a$ard of attorney's fees.F
16
7H8R81OR8, preises considered, the Petition is DISMISS8D and the assailed
Decision is *11IRM8D. Double costs a!ainst petitioner.
SO ORD8R8D.
4