FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 212070, January 20, 2016
CEBU PEOPLE'S MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE AND MACARIO G. QUEVEDO, Petitioners, v. NICERATO E. CARBONILLA, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated June 25, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated March 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 05403, which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated April 29, 2010 and the Resolution5 dated June 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. VAC-10-000977-2009, and accordingly, declared respondent Nicerato E. Carbonilla, Jr. (Carbonilla, Jr.) to have been illegally dismissed by petitioner Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CPMPC).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CPMPC S MEMORANDA: | CARBONILLA, JR.'S REPLIES: |
HRD 202 File 2008.02.19.017 dated February 19, 20089 - Memorandum relative to his non-attendance to the CLIMBS HOME PROTEK Dinner Meeting. | He claimed that he was belatedly informed and was not given any written notification of the said meeting, and that he did not find any relation of the said meeting to his job as a Legal Officer.10 |
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.034 dated February 26, 200811 - Memorandum relative to his non-submission of Weekly Executive Summary Reports and Itinerary for the months of January and February. | No reply. |
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.035 dated February 26, 200812 - Memorandum on why he allowed Joelito Aguipo (Aguipo), a contractual collector for the Bantayan Branch, to drive a motorcycle without a driver's license and not being the owner thereof. | He stated that there was no policy requiring field collectors to own - in a strict legal sense - a motorcycle, but merely to possess the same so he can effect collections more efficiently. Besides, Aguipo was allowed to drive due to the urgency of collecting from the Bantayan Branch. In any case, there is an Affidavit of Undertaking13 exonerating CPMPC from any liability.14 |
HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.036 dated February 26, 200815 - Memorandum on why he failed to: (a) account for a motorcycle being used by a former employee under his branch; and (b) reclassify the vehicle of another employee. | He sought clarification of the charges against him, and at the same time, threatened HRD Manager Marquez that if this Memorandum is "proven malicious, [she] might be answerable to a certain degree of civil liability which the 1987 Constitution has given to individuals."16 |
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.086 dated June 26, 200817 - Memorandum on why he insulted his superior, CPMPC Chief Operation Officer Agustina L. Bentillo (COO Bentillo), in front of her subordinates, with the statement: "Ikaw ra may di mosalig ba, ka kwalipikado adto niya, maski mag contest pa mo, lupigon gani ka"18 or "You're the only one who doesn't trust her, she is very qualified, you even lose in comparison to her."19 | He dismissed the charge as made with malicious intent and aimed to discredit his person, claiming that he only had a discussion with his superior, particularly, about Alfonso Vasquez (Vasquez), who was unsystematically pulled out from his department without his consent. He added that if COO Bentillo was indeed offended by his remarks, then it should not have taken almost a month before his attention was called regarding the matter.20 |
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.087 dated June 26, 200821 - Memorandum on his alleged acts of insubordination and gross disrespect when he questioned the authority of HRD Manager Marquez to refuse the hiring of a new staff. | Citing the Philippine Law Dictionary, he explained that "[ijnsubordination means a quality or state of being insubordinate to a person in authority." He maintained that he did not commit insubordination as he merely sought clarification about the deferment of the hiring of a working student by HRD Manager Marquez despite having prior approval of CPMPC Chief Executive Officer (CEO), petitioner Macario G. Quevedo (CEO Quevedo).22 |
HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.088 dated June 26, 200823 - Memorandum on his alleged acts of insubordination and gross disrespect when he insisted before CEO Quevedo that he had the authority as Legal and Collection Manager to hire a new staff. | Reiterating the definition of "insubordination" in Philippine Law Dictionary, he maintained that his act of clarifying with the CEO the policy on hiring working students did not constitute insubordination, but rather, was made in the exercise of his right to express.24 |
HRD 202 File 2008.06.27.091 dated June 27, 200825 - Memorandum asking Carbonilla, Jr. to turn-over to the officer-in-charge custody of the following documents: Banco de Oro contract on staff loans, CPMPC firearm contracts and licenses, branch offices rentals, and others.26 | He only reviewed the subject documents and they were never entrusted to him for safekeeping.27 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.03.094 dated July 3, 200828 - Memorandum on his alleged acts of gross negligence in: (a) failing to submit the employment assessment of one Marcelina M. Remonde (Remonde); (b) promoting one Mary Grace R. Batain (Batain) despite lack of any performance appraisal; (c) failing to report the shortage of Batain amounting to P108,254.55; (d) disseminating a wrong schedule of mediation activity which caused confusion and pressure among branch managers; (e) failing to annotate the encumbrance on the certificate of title offered as collateral to CPMPC; (f) failing to review and verify its contract with the BISDA Security Agency (agency) which exposed CPMPC to third-party liability for failure of the agency to remit the Social Security System, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG premiums of its security guards to the government; (g) failing to inform the branch managers of any settlements or compromise agreements entered into by the head office resulting in confusion as to payments; and (h) failing to submit to HRD Manager Marquez the status of the firearms and licenses assigned to the branch managers. | He interposed the following defenses:29 (a) he was not responsible for employment assessments having been transferred to the Legal Department; (b) as then HRD Manager, it was within his discretion to promote Batain whose appointment has been previously concurred in by the CEO; (c) he was not informed of the shortage committed by Batain nor was it within his primary obligation to disclose the same; (d) the printing of invitation was managed only by his legal assistant, Joel Semblante (Semblante) and Vasquez. However, the latter was unexpectedly transferred to another job assignment, leaving only Semblante to do the job, which may have caused the unintentional mistake;30] (e) a certain Brenda Dela Cruz was the one responsible for the annotation of the encumbrances of real and personal properties; if) he was not responsible for the review of the contract between the agency and its security guards as CPMPC had no employer-employee relationship with them; (g) he was unaware of the complaints of the branch managers regarding the payment confusion as a result of settlements or compromise agreements; and (h) it was not his duty to determine the status, custody, and licenses of the firearms.31 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.04.095 dated July 4, 200832 - Memorandum on the allegations he made against the CEO during the Board of Directors' inquiry hearing, which constituted gross misconduct, gross disrespect, and loss of trust and confidence. | His acts did not constitute gross misconduct, gross disrespect, or loss of trust and confidence as he only questioned the suspicious transactions of CEO Quevedo regarding the sale of a titled parcel of land owned by the cooperative for an inadequate consideration. He then added that as a member of CPMPC, he has the right to demand transparency of all the transactions made by CEO Quevedo, of which its consequences will affect the cooperative.33 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.098 dated July 8, 200834 - Memorandum on his failure to attend the management and operations committee meeting held on July 7, 2008 despite prior notices. | The said meeting was scheduled outside the regular meeting day and he was only informed about it on the day of the meeting at which time, he was personally handling collection cases.35 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.103 dated July 9, 200836 - Memorandum relative to the mediation settlements which were forwarded for notarization to one Atty. Miñoza who is not the authorized legal retainer of CPMPC. | He admitted that as head of the Legal Department, he endorsed the documents for notarization to his friend who only charged P50.00 per document as compared to the legal retainers who charged P100.00 per document. He added that "[t]he same is more advantageous and secured rather than having it notarized- by a 'murio-murio' notary public at the back of the Cebu City Hall."37 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.104 dated July 9, 200838 - Memorandum on his failure to update the CEO and management committee of the dismissal of the cases filed by CPMPC against Spouses Alex and Alma Monisit in Civil Case No. R-52633 and against Spouses Helen and Rogelio Lopez in Civil Case No. R-53274. | The two cases were re-filed before the Regional Trial Court on May 29, 2008 as the amounts involved were beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). He also explained that he was not aware of the filing of these cases before the MTC as he was occupying the position of the HRD Manager at that time.39 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.15.106 dated July 15, 200840 - Memorandum relative to Carbonilla, Jr.'s instruction to Semblante to pull out important records and vital documents, i.e., Compromise/ Settlement Agreement, Mediation Tracking Form, Agreement to Mediate, Mediator's Report, Evaluation of Mediation, among others, from the head office without the knowledge and approval of the management, which documents were later on returned tampered and altered. | He explained that as head of the Legal Department, he was responsible for the proper disposal of all legal documents and contracts, and the cancellation of said documents were done to protect the interest of the cooperative. Moreover, he claimed that the erasures were caused by the cancellation of the notarial subscription since Carbonilla, Jr. found the requirements of the notary public - which required all 125 respondents to appear personally and present their community tax certificates - impractical. Moreover, he claimed that the cancellation of the documents "was not for the purpose of falsifying or tampering the same[,] but merely to protect the interest of the cooperative against possible sanctions [or] circulating bogus documents."41 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.16.107 dated July 16, 200842 - Memorandum relative to the unliquidated cash advances of the notarial transactions of the mediation agreements.43 | The delay in liquidation was due to the "agreement" he had with the notary public about the disposition of the notarized documents. He claimed that in the afternoon of the same day, he turned over the amount of P6,250.00 to the Accounting Department.44 |
HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.111 dated July 19, 200845 - Memorandum on the alleged tampering and loss of CPMPC's vital records and documents, i.e., two (2) copies of the compromise settlement agreement. | No reply. |
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty[.] Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests.102 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 33-90.
2 Id. at 97-108. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Maria Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
3 Id. at 110-115.
4 Id. at 115-A-132. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug with Commissioners Aurelio D. Menzon and Julie C. Rendoque concurring.
5 Id. at 133-134.
6 Id. at 135. See also id. at 248.
7 Id. at 136. See also id. at 248.
8 Id. at 97-98.
9 Id. at 174.
10 Id. at 175.
11 Id. at 185.
12 Id. at 176.
13 Id. at 178.
14 Id. at 177.
15 Id. at 179.
16 Id. at 180.
17 Id. at 186.
18 See Incident Report dated June 20, 2008 signed by COO Bentillo; id. at 187.
19 See id. at 69.
20 Id. at 188.
21 Id. at 183.
22 Id. at 136-137. See also id. at 184.
23 Id. at 181.
24 Id. at 137. See also id. at 182.
25 Not attached to the rollo.
26Rollo, p. 138.
27 Id. at 138-139.
28 Id. at 189-191.
29 Id. at 192-194.
30 Id. at 193.
31 Id. at 141-143.
32 Id. at 195.
33 Id. at 196.
34 Id. at 197.
35 Id. at 198.
36 Id. at 202.
37 Id. at 203.
38 Id. at 199.
39 Id. at 200.
40 Id. at 207-208.
41 Id. at 209; emphasis and underscoring omitted.
42 Not attached to the rollo.
43Rollo, pp. 146-147.
44 Id. at 147-148.
45 Id. at 210-211.
46 See HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.102 (id. at 212), HRD 202 File 2008.07.14.105 (id. at 213), and HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.110 (id. at 214).
47 Id. at 242. Except HRD 202 File 2008.07.08.102 (id. at 212), which scheduled hearing was cancelled despite Carbonilla, Jr.'s attendance (see id. at 145).
48 See id. at 101 and 125.
49 HRD 202 File 2008.05.112. Id. at 215-222.
50 Id. at 221-222.
51 See id. at 135.
52 Id. at 300.
53 See id. at 242-243.
54 Id. at 244.
55 Id. at 135-158. Penned by Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez.
56 Id. at 158.
57 Id. at 157.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 158.
60 See id. at 115A.
61 Id. at 115A-132.
62 Id. at 127-130.
63 Id. at 130.
64 Id. at 131.
65 Not attached to the rollo.
66Rollo, pp. 133-134.
67 Id. at 356-410.
68 Id. at 97-108.
69 Id. at 107.
70 Id. at 106.
72 Not attached to the rollo.
73Rollo, pp. 110-115.
74 See Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Hipe, Jr., G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014.
75 See id.
76 As amended and renumbered by Republic Act No. 10151, entitled "AN ACT ALLOWING THE EMPLOYMENT OF NIGHT WORKERS, THEREBY REPEALING ARTICLES 130 AND 131 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-TWO, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES," approved on June 21, 2011.
77 See rollo, pp. 221-222.
78 See Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014, citing Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, 679 Phil. 97, 110-111 (2012).
79 See Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, id.
80Rollo, p. 180.
81 Id. at 186.
82 Id. at 187.
83 See id. at 69.
84 Id. at 188.
85 Id. at 181.
86 Id. at 182.
87 Id. at 183.
88 Id. at 184.
89 Id. at 195.
90 Id. at 196.
91 Id. at 39.
92 See Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. v. Angelo, 673 Phil. 150 (2011). See also Garcia v. Manila Times, G.R. No. 99390, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 399; St. Mary's College v. NLRC, 260 Phil. 63 (1990); and Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. v. Lavarez, Jr., 226 Phil. 20 (1986).
93 See Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., G.R. No. 202158, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 406, 417-418, citing Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 227,235.
94 See Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., id. at 418, citing Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, id. at 235-236.
95Rollo, pp. 97-98.
96 Id. at 202.
97 Id. at 207-208.
98 Id. at 210-211.
99 Id. at 147.
100 Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, supra note 93, at 237, citing Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban, 594 Phil. 620, 631-632 (2008), further citing Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120030, June 17, 1997, 273 SCRA 551, 558.
101 686 Phil. 1110(2012).
102 Id. at 1120, citing Merin v. NLRC, 590 Phil. 596, 602 (2008).
103 See Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 202996, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 676, 692-693.
104 Article 1278 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other.
105 Article 1706 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1706. Withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the employer.
106 Article 113 (c) of the Labor Code provides:
Art. 113. Wage Deduction. -No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except: x x x x
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
107 See Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc., supra note 103, at 692-693.