SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 198066, June 07, 2017
YOLANDO T. BRAVO, Petitioner, v. URIOS COLLEGE (NOW FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY) AND/OR FR. JOHN CHRISTIAN U. YOUNG, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The employer must adduce proof of actual involvement in the alleged misconduct for loss of trust and confidence to warrant the dismissal of fiduciary rank-and-file employees. However, "mere existence of a basis for believing that [the] employee has breached the trust [and confidence] of [the] employer" is sufficient for managerial employees.1
Through this Petition for Review,2 Yolando T. Bravo (Bravo) challenges the Decision3 dated January 31, 2011 and Resolution4 dated July 14, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02407-MIN. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Executive Labor Arbiter's decision, which upheld petitioner's dismissal from service.5
Bravo was employed as a part-time teacher6 in 1988 by Urios College, now called Father Saturnino Urios University.7 In addition to his duties as a part-time teacher, Bravo was designated as the school's comptroller from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2002.8
Urios College organized a committee to formulate a new "ranking system for non-academic employees for school year 2001-2002." The committee was composed of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Aldefa Yumo; the Human Resources Department Head, Atty. Josefe C. Sorrera-Ty; and the Vice-President for Administration, Dr. Wilma Balmocena. "[U]nder [the proposed ranking] system, the position of Comptroller was classified as an office [h]ead while the position of Vice-President for Finance was classified as [m]iddle [management."9
The proposed ranking system for school year 2001—2002 was presented to Bravo for comments.10 Bravo recommended that "the position of Comptroller should be classified as a middle management position [because it was] . . . informally merged with . . . the position of [V]ice-[P]resident for [F]inance."11 In addition, the Comptroller and the Vice-President for Finance performed similar functions, which included follow up of payroll preparation, verification of daily cash vouchers, and certification of checks issued by the school. Moreover, they were responsible for the control of checkbooks issuance to the Cashier, preparation of departmental budget guidelines, supervision of reports and payments to various government agencies, and analysis and interpretation of financial statements.12 Bravo further suggested that since he assumed the duties of Comptroller and Vice-President for Finance, his salary scale should be upgraded.13
The committee allegedly agreed with Bravo and accepted his recommendations.14 Bravo was then directed to arrange a salary adjustment schedule for the new ranking system.15
Later, Bravo obtained his employee ranking slip which showed his evaluation score and the change of his rank "from office head to middle manager-level IV."16 The change, however, was merely superimposed. The employee ranking slip bore the signatures of the Human Resources Department Head, the Vice-President for Administration, and the President of Urios College.17
The implementation of the new ranking system for non-academic employees and administrators for school year 2001-2002 and the corresponding schedule of salary adjustments were reflected on the October 15, 2001 payroll. This was opposed by several individuals within the school.18
Urios College formed another committee to adopt a new ranking system for school year 2002-2003. After deliberation, the committee decided to maintain the ranking system used in the previous school year for school year 2002-2003. In the employee's ranking profile report, the position of Comptroller was classified as middle management.19
Meanwhile, Urios College decided to undertake a structural reorganization.20 During this period, Bravo occupied the Comptroller position in a "hold-over" capacity until May 31, 2003. He was reappointed to the same position, which expired on May 31, 2004. Bravo was then designated as a full-time teacher21 in the college department for school year 2004-2005.22
In October 2004, Urios College organized a committee to review the ranking system implemented during school year 2001-2002.23 In its report, the committee found that the ranking system for school year 2001-2002 caused salary distortions among several employees.24 There were also discrepancies in the salary adjustments of Bravo and of two (2) other employees, namely, Nena A. Turgo and Cherry I. Tabada.25 The committee discovered that "the Comptroller's Office solely prepared and implemented the [s]alary [a]djustment [s]chedule" without prior approval from the Human Resources Department.26
The committee recommended, among others, that Bravo be administratively charged for serious misconduct or willful breach of trust under Article 28227 of the Labor Code.28 Bravo allegedly misclassified several positions and miscomputed his and other employees' salaries.29
On March 16, 2005, Bravo received a show cause memo requiring him to explain in writing why his services should not be terminated for his alleged acts of serious misconduct:
The committee noted a discrepancy in the Schedule of Salary Adjustments, the implementation of which was entirely based on the computation that was then the responsibility of your office (Comptroller). For this reason, you are advised to explain or show cause why your employment with Urios College will not be terminated for Serious Misconduct due to intentional misclassification/miscomputation of your salary and some employees named hereunder, thereby causing prejudice not only to the school but also to said employees as well.A committee was organized to investigate the matter.31 Hearings were conducted on April 5, 2005, April 9, 2005, and once in May 2005, after which the parties submitted their respective position papers.32 In his Position Paper, Bravo alleged that he did not prepare the ranking system for school year 2001-2002. It was the ranking committee which categorized the position of Comptroller as middle management.33The foregoing actuations would necessarily affect your character as a teacher in the Commerce Program, and as an employee of the school, whose honesty and integrity ought to be beyond reproach to serve as role model for the students in this institution.
- As Comptroller then, you belong to Office Pleads classification. However, in the Schedule of Salary Adjustment, you are misclassified as Middle Manager, that resulted to overpayment in your salary by PhP 3,651.76 per month since June 2001.
Also, having passed the comprehensive exam and oral defense for your master's degree, your salary adjustment based on your educational qualification ought to be is (sic) PhP 800.00 only. However, what is reflected in the Schedule of Salary Adjustment is PhP 1,000.00, which amount is appropriately given to Master's Degree holders. Considering that you have not even finished the degree up to the present, such circumstance resulted to overpayment in your salary by PhP 200.00 per month since June 2001.
This means that you have been receiving a monthly salary more than what is due to you. The overpayment therefore of PhP 3,851.76 per month (PhP 3,651.76 plus PhP 200.00) from June 2001 up to February 2005 presently amounts to PhP 185,131.34.- As Community Extension Service Officer then, Mrs. Nena A. Turgo belongs to Office Heads classification. However, in the Schedule of Salary Adjustment, she was misclassified as Office Staff, which resulted to underpayment by PhP 2,888.99 on her monthly salary. From June 2001 to February 2005 the underpayment is in the total amount of PhP 140,356.76.
- Ms. Cherry I. Tabada only passed the comprehensive examination for Master of Arts in Educational Management in Urios College. This entitled her [to] PhP 500.00 adjustment in salary due to Educational Qualification (E.Q.). However, what is reflected in the Schedule of Salary Adjustment is PhP 1,000.00, which resulted to overpayment in salary by PhP 500.00 from June 2001 to March 2003, or in the total amount of PhP 11,000.00.
We are therefore requesting for your written explanation relative to these matters within three (3) days from receipt of this memorandum. Documentary evidence, if there be any, [may be] attached to the written explanation. You may avail the aid of a legal counsel.
Your failure to submit your written explanation as requested will be construed as a waiver on your part, as a consequence of which the school may take such appropriate action on the bases of the available records in connection with the matters made subject of this memorandum.
For your compliance.30
Article 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:To warrant termination of employment under Article 297(a) of the Labor Code, the misconduct must be serious or "of such grave and aggravated character."84 Trivial and unimportant acts are not contemplated under Article 297(a) of the Labor Code.85
(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 test for the fair procedure guaranteed under Article 277 (b) [now, Article 292(b)] cannot be whether there has been a formal pretermination confrontation between the employer and the employee. The "ample opportunity to be heard" standard is neither synonymous nor similar to a formal hearing. To confine the employee's right to be heard to a solitary form narrows down that right. It deprives him of other equally effective forms of adducing evidence in his defense. Certainly, such an exclusivist and absolutist interpretation is overly restrictive. The "very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation."Any meaningful opportunity for the employee to present evidence and address the charges against him or her satisfies the requirement of ample opportunity to be heard.123
. . . .
Significantly, Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code itself provides that the so-called standards of due process outlined therein shall be observed "substantially", not strictly. This is a recognition that while a formal hearing or conference is ideal, it is not an absolute, mandatory or exclusive avenue of due process.
An employee's right to be heard in termination cases under Article 277 (b) as implemented by Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code should be interpreted in broad strokes. It is satisfied not only by a formal face to face confrontation but by any meaningful opportunity to controvert the charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof.
. . . "To be heard" does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a formal hearing only. In other words, the existence of an actual, formal "trial-type" hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the employee's right to be heard.122 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 399, 406 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
2Rollo, pp. 14-50, Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended.
3 Id. at 52-74. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
4 Id. at 76-78. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Special Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
5 Id. at 73.
6 Id. at 53.
7 Id. at 21.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 22.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 34-35.
13 Id. at 22.
14 Id. at 22-23.
15 Id. at 23.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 86.
18 Id. at 23.
19 Id. at 24.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 25.
22 Id. at 155.
23 Id. at 25.
24 Id. at 54.
25 Id. at 55-56.
26 Id. at 55.
27 Renumbered as Article 297 of the Labor Code.
28Rollo, p. 56.
29 Id. at 57.
30 Id. at 57-59.
31 Id. at 26.
32 Id. at 26-27.
33 Id. at 27.
34 Id. at 63-64.
35 Id. at 66-67.
36 Id. at 65-67.
37 Id. at 66.
38 Id. at 66-67.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 67.
41 Id. at 59-60.
42 Id. at 59.
43 Id. at 27.
44 Id. at 68-69.
45 Id. at 28.
46 Id. at 97-102. The Decision was penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Benjamin E. Pelaez.
47 Id. at 102.
48 Id. at 99-100.
49 Id. at 103.
50 Id. at 103-111. The Resolution, docketed as NLRC CA No. M-008932-06, was penned by Commissioner Jovito C. Cagaanan and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Salic B. Dumarpa and Commissioner Proculo T. Sarmen of the Fifth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Cagayan de Oro City.
51 Id. at 107.
52 Id. at 108.
53 Id. at 109.
54 Id. at 110-111.
55 Id. at 29.
56 Id. at 52-74.
57 Id. at 67-68.
58 Id. at 68.
59 Id. at 70-71.
60 Id. at 76-78.
61 Id. at 14.
62 Id. at 146-178, Comment of Respondents on the Petition for Review.
63 Id. at 181-182.
64 Id. at 37.
65 Id. at 39.
66 Id. at 33-35.
67 Id. at 41-42.
68 Id. at 42.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 44.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 26.
74 Id. at 163-166.
75 Id. at 163-164.
76 Id. at 166.
77 Id. at 170.
78 Id. at 164.
79 Id. at 166.
80 Id. at 167.
81 Id. at 36.
82 Id. at 44.
83 Id. at 30.
84Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 513 Phil. 731, 736 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
85Woodridge School v. Benito, 591 Phil. 154, 170 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
86Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 513 Phil. 737, 736 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
87Universal Canning, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215047, November 23, 2016 [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
88Imasen v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
89Villarama v. National Labor Relations Commission, 306 Phil. 310 (1994) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
90Tomada, Sr., v. RFM Corp., 615 Phil. 449 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
91Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 513 Phil. 731 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
92Imasen v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172, 181 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Albay, G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 6 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; Gurango v. Best Chemicals and Plastics, Inc., 643 Phil. 520, 531 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; Woodridge School v. Benito, 591 Phil. 154, 170 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; Moreno v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, 573 Phil. 533, 547 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
93 573 Phil. 533 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
94 Id. at 548.
95 Id. at 547.
96 G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
97 Id. at 7.
98Imasen v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172, 181 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
99Baguio Central University v. Gallente, 722 Phil. 494, 505 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Id.
103 Id.
104Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Trajano, 712 Phil. 254, 268 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
105Lagahit v. Pacific Concord Container Lines, G.R. No. 177680, January 13, 2016 12 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
106 Id.
107Baguio Central University v. Gallente, 722 Phil. 494, 505 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
108Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Trajano, 712 Phil. 254, 267 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
109Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 399, 406 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
110Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 399 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
111 Id. at 406.
112Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas, 635 Phil. 36, 53-54 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
113 Id.
114Rollo, pp. 14-50.
115See Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corporation, 540 Phil. 516, 526-527 (2006) [Per J. Quisumbing, Third Division].
116King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 115-117 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Second Division].
117 Id.
118Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co., 602 Phil. 522, 537-538 (2009) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
119 Id. at 542.
120King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 115-118 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Second Division].
121 602 Phil. 522 (2009) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
122 Id. at 538-539.
123 Id. at 542.
124Rollo, p. 59.
125 Id. at 26.
126 Id. at 71.
127 Id.
128 Labor Code, art. 294 provides:
Article 294. [279] Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
129Buhain v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 94, 102 (2002) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
130 LABOR CODE, art. 294.
131Hinatuan Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 335 Phil. 1090, 1093-1094 (1997) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].