siete ans Republic of the Philippines LAL MARINES Department of Labor and Employment Received by ¢ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION ‘Quezon City Date:__02 MAR 2070 ‘SECOND DIVISION RACHEL ANNE DE CHAVEZ NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) PICART, NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 ‘Complainants, = versus ~ TRT GLOBAL LIMITED/DOMENIC ROMANELLI/JOAN SABLAZA Respondents. NOTICE OF DECISION/RESOLUTION/ORDER To: ‘THE PRESIDENT/MANAGER MS. RACHEL ANNE DE CHAVEZ PICART “TRT GLOBAL LIMITED/DOMENIC Complanant ROMANELL/JOAN SABLAZA Block 10 Lot 7 Phase 3 Respondents {sthon Fields, Mlagrosa, Calamba 16/F Trade and Finance Tower Laguna 32 Street, 7" Avenue, 8C, Taguig City | - ATTY, HARRY TRUMAN 8, TEMPERANTE ATTY, 20SE POCHOLO R. DEL ROSARIO Counsel for the Respondent Counsel for the Complainant Unit R, PSCOR Bulldng 5° Foc, PHIDAF Building “T.M, Kalaw Street, BF Homes Subdivision 407 Gi Puyat Avenve, Bear Porafaque City, Makati Cty Saray: a JAN 3.1 2020 You are ratified by these presents that on anfaz Order/Resolution/Decision was issued in the above-entitled case, a copy of which hereto attached. qn 020 Quezon City, Phillippines. FER 06 By Authority of Commissioner Julia Cecily Coching Sosito ETHEL JHOANIN T. REBAYLA Administrative Assistant V wiocatRepublic of the Philippines Department of Labor and Employment NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Quezon City E Divi: RACHEL ANNE DE CHAVEZ NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) PICART, NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 Complainants, SOSITO, Pres. Comm., AGUS, and - versus - NICOLAS, Comms. TRT GLOBAL LIMITED/ DOMENIC ROMANELLI/JOAN SABLAZA, Respondents. YESS w eet wmmyR RTE x PROMULGATED: JAN 3-1 202g SOSITO, J.C.C., Pres. Comm.: Respondents move for reconsideration of Our Decision promulgated on September 30, 2019, the dispositive portion of which, reads: “WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed decision Is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one issued ordering TRT GLOBAL LIMITED to pay complainant the following: 1, Backwages 2. Separation pay 3. Service incentive leave pay ML,Page 2 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN. 10-16897-18 4, 13° month pay 5 Attorney's fees. The award of nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is deleted. The computation of the judgment is hereto attached forming part of the Decision. SO ORDERED.” Hence, this motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents on the ground that the complainant did not present any new arguments In her Memo of Appeal. Said evidence on record, as well as the factual circumstances, show that the Labor Arbiter did not commit serious errors in finding that complainant failed to establish that she was dismissed from employment. When she fell short of her duties as for the reason she was hired, she should not claim that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh. Her violations cannot be considered simple as it constitutes the bulk of her job description. Despite several warnings, she did not improve her work performance. In her appeal, complainant justified her negligence by painting before the Commission that the Labor Arbiter did not consider her defenses against those charges. Complainant failed to see that the Labor Arbiter is not to adjudge whether or not her justifications for the errors she committed against the company were Obl,Page 3 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 coed acceptable or not. The role of the Lebor Arbiter in the proceedings Is to determine the order of presentation of evidence of the parties, The complainant's repeated fallure to do the work she was hired for consists of gross neglect of duty. She admitted to having committed the charges contained in the written warnings given to her. As found by the Labor Arbiter, complainant became heavy-handed and downright unpleasant when she was confronted with her shortcomings with her duties. Complainant showed her confrontational attitude in expressing her disgust over their action when her attention was called and impressed the significance of her performing her tasks. Complainant's indifferent attitude despite her attention being called upon with her numerous warnings and citations further shows that she is not fit to work with the respondent anymore. The motion is denied. Under Article 224 of the Labor Code, as amended, the NLRC may, in the exercise of its appellate powers, correct, amend or waive any error, defect, irregularity whether in substance 0: form, give all such directions as It may deem necessary or ‘expedient in the determination of the dispute before it. ObPage 4 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 Initially, respondents categorically denied having terminated the complainant from employment. Rather, complainant abandoned her job. However, when they were confronted with the Notice of Termination dated October 1, 2018 which the Labor Arbiter failed to discuss despite the clear allegation stating, that: "On 01 October 2018, Ms. Picart was called upon by Ms. Sabalza for @ meeting. When she arrived in the meeting place, which is the conference room, Ms. Picart wes handed a Notice of Termination, stating that she was being terminated for her "deficiencies on carrying the role as a Direct Marketing Associate’ (par. 7, Complainant's Position Paper, p. 39, Records), and the attachment of Exh. "G” (Complainant's Position Paper, P- 78, Records), respondents opted not to file their Reply to deny or confirm the existence and genuineness of the Notice of Termination. They kept mum about it and chose to remain silent, an admission and a clear proof that complainant was issued a Notice of Termination. Thereafter, respondents changed their defense of abandonment to “complainant’s repeated failure to do the work she was hired for which consists of gross neglect of duty; she admitted to having committed the Obl, asPage 5 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 charges contained in the written wamings given to her; complainant became heavy-handed and downright unpleasant when she was confronted of ner shortcomings with her duties; she showed her confrontational attitude in expressing her disgust over their action when her attention was called and impressed the significance of her performing her tasks; her indifferent attitude despite her attention being called upon with her numerous wernings and citations further shows that she in unfit to work with the respondent anymore.” We reiterate. The complainant's infractions, es enumerated by respondents, are not grave enough or sufficient to constitute any of the valid grounds for termination of employment. ‘These infractions such as failure to get accurate address, failure to updte TRT records, etc. are not gross in nature. They merely constitute simple negligence. If respondents find that her indifferent attitude makes her unfit to work for the respondent company, that is their management prerogative. However, It does not diminish or alter the fact that complainant OL,Page 6 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN. 10-16857-18 were x was illegally dismissed. Thus, they have to pay complainant the consequence of illegal dismissal as provided in Article 285 of the Labor Code. Just as it would be a case of injustice to force respondent company to re-employ complainant, neither can this Commission order her to report back to work. In fact, complainant expressed her unwillingness to be reinstated as indicated in her formal complaint. Thus, in Our Decision, We ordered respondent company to give her separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement. There being no new evidence or argument presented in the motion, as all the issues being raised again had been threshed out before promulgating the assailed Decision, there is no plausible reason to deviate from our earlier ruling. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No further Motion of the same tenor shall be entertained. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines. —7 eto wpe> JULIA CECILY COCHING SOSITO Presiding Commissioner Obl,Page 7 RESOLUTION NLRC LAC NO. 07-002645-19(4) NLRC NCR CN, 10-16857-18 CONCURRING: Commissioner Commissioner CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article 220 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution/Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission. wwita cecaty COCHING sosiTo Presiding Commissioner 3CCS/3an10-200E CHAVEZMR/cat/to*