SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 225125, June 06, 2018
MARLON L. ARCILLA, Petitioner, v. ZULISIBS, INC., PIANDRE SALON, AND ROSALINDA FRANCISCO, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
WHEREFORE, the complaint[s] for illegal dismissal and x x x money claims [are] DISMISSED for lack of merit.8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainants-Appellants' appeal is hereby DENIED. The March 9, 2015 Decision of Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr. is hereby AFFIRMED.9
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolutions dated April 30, 2015 and June 26, 2015 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, in NLRC LAC No. 04-001028-15/NLRC NCR No. 10-12582-14 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, in that the private respondents are ORDERED to pay MARICEL ARCILLA the following:
1) Backwages and all other benefits from September 26, 2014 until finality of this Decision; 2) Separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service; 3) Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of Php 50,000.00 4) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award; and 5) Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary awards from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.
The appropriate Computation Division of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ordered to COMPUTE and UPDATE the award as herein determined WITH DISPATCH.
All other aspects of the assailed Resolutions STAND.
SO ORDERED.13
Article 297. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer may terminate an employee for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
From the facts and circumstances obtaining with respect to petitioner Marlon Arcilla, there exists a valid cause in terminating his employment. It was clearly stated in paragraph 8 of the Agreement or "Kasunduan" signed by petitioners that they are prohibited from setting up or being involved in a business similar to that of private respondents' during the course of their employment. Considering that the petitioners have neither controverted nor denied the existence of the Kasunduan, they are therefore bound by the terms and conditions thereof. Petitioners cannot likewise deny the existence of the Code of Discipline and feign ignorance of the offense they committed and its corresponding penalty by holding that the private respondents did not present a copy of said Code in the proceedings below. They are deemed to have acknowledged the existence of said Code and presumed to have understood the provisions contained therein when they signed the Kasunduan and agreed to abide by the Code of Discipline and the rules and regulations of the company in paragraph 2 of their agreement. As private respondents' trusted Senior Hairstylists for quite a number of years, it is incumbent upon them to have read and understood its provisions and be fully aware of the prohibitions and penalties imposed upon erring employees.
Collorarily, as briefly summed up by the public respondent, petitioners were later discovered to be involved in setting up another salon near the private respondents' salon in Alabang, albeit the involvement was only indirect by means of extending a Php50,000.00 financial assistance to the owner of the new salon who happens to be the brother-in-law of Marlon or his wife Maricel's brother. We agree with public respondent that it is immaterial whether the new salon was under the petitioners' name or not, or that they established a salon of their own. The important fact remains that petitioner Marlon made an admission that he gave funds to his brother-in-law for the new salon in Alabang which directly competes with the business of his employer. It is not disputed that the new beauty salon is located less than a kilometer away from Piandre Salon in Alabang.
Furthermore, Marlon's admission susbtantially proves two things: 1) that a new salon has indeed been established; and 2) that he willfully disobeyed his contract of employment with the private respondents. His involvement in setting up a competing salon, which albeit indirect, constitutes serious misconduct because of his blatant disregard [of] the terms and conditions of his contract/agreement with the private respondents. His act of allowing himself to be involved with his brother-in-law's business displays an act of disloyalty to the company which is likewise sufficient to warrant his dismissal for loss of trust and confidence. To our mind, his apology in his written letter to private respondent Francisco [was] a mere afterthought after realizing the gravity of his offense after he became the subject of an investigation by the private respondents. Substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is a sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct that renders the latter unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his or her position.18 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 213-224. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan concurring.
2 Id. at 185-189. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., with Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez concurring.
3 Id. at 202-203.
4 Id. at 215.
5 Id. at 215-216.
6 Id. at 56-58.
7 Id. at 132-147.
8 Id. at 145.
9 Id. at 189.
10 Id. at 202-203.
11 Id. at 202.
12 Id. at 213-224.
13 Id. at 223-224.
14NDC Tagum Foundation, Inc. v. Sumakote, 787 Phil. 67 (2016), citing Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies and/or Uy, 663 Phil. 121, 127 (2011).
15 Section 5.1, Rule 1-A of Department Order No. 147-15 (Amending the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Book VI of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended) reads:As defined in Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended, the requirement of two written notices served on the employee shall observe the following:
(a) The first written notice should contain:
1. The specific causes or grounds for termination as provided for under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended, and company policies, if any;
2. Detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employee. A general description of the charge will not suffice; and
3. A directive that the employee is given opportunity to submit a written explanation within a reasonable period.
"Reasonable period" should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employee an opportunity to study the accusation, consult or be represented by a lawyer or union officer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses against the complaint.
(b) After serving the first notice, the employer should afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself/herself with the assistance of his/her representative if he/she so desires; as provided in Article 292 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended.
"Ample opportunity to be heard" means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him/her and submit evidence in support of his/her defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way. A formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it.
(c) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employer shall serve the employee a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employee have been considered; and (2) the grounds have been established to justify the severance of [his/her] employment.
The foregoing notices shall be served personally to the employer or the employee's last known address.
16Sy v. Neat, Inc., G.R. No. 213748, 27 November 2017, citing Raza v. Daikoku Electronics Phils. Inc., 765 Phil. 61, 75 (2015) and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Estrañero, 745 Phil. 543, 550 (2014).
17 Formerly numbered as Article 282 of the Labor Code.
13Rollo, pp. 218-220.