FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-52056. August 10, 1981.]
BONIFACIO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., ALFREDO U. BENEDICTO and GWENDOLYN H. GUSTILO, Respondents.
Bito, Misa and Lozada for Petitioner.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr., and Solicitor Luisito P. Escutin for Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
A motion was filed by private respondents for reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision of October 30, 1980 in this case, which ordered the reinstatement of petitioner with full back wages. Private respondents alleged, that there was no clear denial of due process in petitioner’s severance from the company and that, even assuming that there was such denial, said severance was nonetheless legal, petitioner being a managerial employee who could be terminated for mere lack of confidence apart from the fact that petitioner was legally retrenched.
The Supreme Court, observing that no new matters were raised, finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the Labor Arbiter and to merit a reconsideration as prayed for.
Motion for reconsideration, denied.
The Supreme Court, observing that no new matters were raised, finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the Labor Arbiter and to merit a reconsideration as prayed for.
Motion for reconsideration, denied.
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE; GENERALIZED STATEMENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN ALLEGED ANOMALIES, NOT SUFFICIENT. — Where the Commission failed to clearly establish by substantial evidence the involvement of petitioner with the alleged anomalies, a mere generalized statement "that the evidence collated by the team of auditors established the involvement of Appellee [petitioner] in the above-said irregularities . . . will not suffice to hold petitioner liable as charged.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACT SHOWING INVOLUNTARINESS OF RETIREMENT; CASE AT BAR. — If petitioner voluntarily retired from the service, it would be strange from him to thereafter file a complaint for illegal dismissal as it would be more consistent with normal human behavior if retirement was not forced upon him, to have, at least, expressed some words of gratitude to private respondents, considering that he had work for them for more than twenty (20) years.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACT SHOWING INVOLUNTARINESS OF RETIREMENT; CASE AT BAR. — If petitioner voluntarily retired from the service, it would be strange from him to thereafter file a complaint for illegal dismissal as it would be more consistent with normal human behavior if retirement was not forced upon him, to have, at least, expressed some words of gratitude to private respondents, considering that he had work for them for more than twenty (20) years.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE CASTRO, **, J.:
Before Us is the Motion of private respondents for reconsideration of Our Decision of October 30, 1980 which ordered the reinstatement of petitioner with full backwages.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
In support of the said motion for reconsideration, the following were alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. There was no clear denial of due process because what the auditors did was merely to conduct a preliminary review of the records to ascertain whether there were anomalies.
2. Upon being informed by the auditors of the anomalies involving the petitioner, Mr. Benedicto privately confronted the petitioner about those anomalies preparatory to a formal investigation where he could be heard, but instead of going through with the investigation, the petitioner agreed to avail of the company’s retrenchment program going on at that time and collect, in connection therewith, his retirement benefits in full.
3. Even assuming arguendo that there "was denial of due process", petitioner’s severance from the company was nonetheless legal and proper because: (a) being a managerial employee, the petitioner could be terminated for mere lack of confidence and (b) the petitioner was legally retrenched.
We observe that no new matters were raised herein which would warrant a reconsideration, since the issues adduced above were already considered and thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision. There are no compelling reasons shown to warrant disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter, and to merit a reconsideration as prayed for.
As We have previously pointed out, the Commission failed to clearly establish by substantial evidence the involvement of petitioner with the alleged anomalies. A mere generalized statement "that the evidence collated by the team of auditors established the involvement of Appellee [petitioner] in the above-said irregularities . . ." will not suffice to hold petitioner liable as charged.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
If petitioner voluntarily retired from the service, it would be strange for him to thereafter file a complaint for illegal dismissal. What would be more consistent with normal human behavior, if retirement was not forced upon him, is for him to have, at least, expressed some words of gratitude to private respondents, considering that he had worked with them for more than twenty (20) years.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C. J., Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Hererra, JJ., concur.
In support of the said motion for reconsideration, the following were alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. There was no clear denial of due process because what the auditors did was merely to conduct a preliminary review of the records to ascertain whether there were anomalies.
2. Upon being informed by the auditors of the anomalies involving the petitioner, Mr. Benedicto privately confronted the petitioner about those anomalies preparatory to a formal investigation where he could be heard, but instead of going through with the investigation, the petitioner agreed to avail of the company’s retrenchment program going on at that time and collect, in connection therewith, his retirement benefits in full.
3. Even assuming arguendo that there "was denial of due process", petitioner’s severance from the company was nonetheless legal and proper because: (a) being a managerial employee, the petitioner could be terminated for mere lack of confidence and (b) the petitioner was legally retrenched.
We observe that no new matters were raised herein which would warrant a reconsideration, since the issues adduced above were already considered and thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision. There are no compelling reasons shown to warrant disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter, and to merit a reconsideration as prayed for.
As We have previously pointed out, the Commission failed to clearly establish by substantial evidence the involvement of petitioner with the alleged anomalies. A mere generalized statement "that the evidence collated by the team of auditors established the involvement of Appellee [petitioner] in the above-said irregularities . . ." will not suffice to hold petitioner liable as charged.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
If petitioner voluntarily retired from the service, it would be strange for him to thereafter file a complaint for illegal dismissal. What would be more consistent with normal human behavior, if retirement was not forced upon him, is for him to have, at least, expressed some words of gratitude to private respondents, considering that he had worked with them for more than twenty (20) years.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C. J., Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Hererra, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
** Mr. Justice de Castro was designated to sit with the First Division under Special Order No. 225.
