THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 194686, September 23, 2015
TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, Petitioner, v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO, ROMEO E. MAGNO AND ELVIRA B. LAVIÑA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal.1
For resolution of this Court is a petition for review on certiorari, dated December 23, 2010 of petitioner Tri-C General Services, seeking the reversal of the Decision2 dated June 17, 2010 and Resolution3 dated December 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111644 reversing the Decision4 and Resolution5 dated June 30, 2009 and September 22, 2009, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division, Quezon City in LAC No. 12-003297-07 which affirmed the Decision6 dated July 26, 2007 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-12-20177-04-C. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA declared that respondents Nolasco B. Matuto, Romeo E. Magno and Elvira B. Laviña were illegally dismissed, and ordered their reinstatement and payment of full backwages.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Tri-C General Services, Inc. is a manpower agency engaged in the business of supplying services to all PLDT Business Offices in Laguna.7
Respondents Nolasco Matuto (Matuto), Romeo Magno (Magno) and Elvira Laviña (Laviña) were hired by petitioner as janitors/janitress assigned at the PLDT Business Office in Calamba City. Magno was hired on August 1, 1993 while Matuto was hired on June 5, 1995 and Laviña on February 4, 1996.8
On November 3, 2004, Matuto and Laviña were barred from their work place in PLDT-Calamba, while Magno was denied entry on November 26, 2004.9
Thus, respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioner on December 15, 2004.10 Carmela Quiogue, the owner of Tri-C General Services, Inc., was impleaded in the complaint.11
For their part, respondents averred that sometime in January 1997, they spearheaded the first complaint of several janitors against petitioner for underpayment of wages and violation of labor standards before the Department of Labor and Employment. The LA decided on September 1, 2003 in their favor and ordered the petitioner to pay their underpaid salaries. However, petitioner did not pay the respondents with the mandated minimum wage but merely increased their salaries by P5.00 every year. They alleged that since then, they earned the ire of petitioner and experienced harassment and intimidation.12
Respondents further alleged that assuming that petitioner had valid ground to terminate them, their termination was still deemed illegal since petitioner failed to furnish them with the two notices required by law. They only received a notice informing them that their services had already been terminated effective on the same date of the notice.13
In its defense, petitioner denied dismissing respondents. Sometime in October 2004, PLDT-Laguna informed petitioner that it would implement cost-cutting measures and that it would discontinue, after careful assessment, the services of respondents.14 Petitioner further claimed that it had no other recourse but to temporarily put the respondents on "floating status" upon termination of client's contract since their work was entirely dependent on the need for janitorial services of its clients. It alleged that the complaint for illegal dismissal was premature since the six months legal period for placing an employee on a "floating status" has not yet lapsed.15 It insisted that it was a legitimate exercise of its management prerogative.
In its reply to respondents' position paper, petitioner insisted that respondents abandoned their posts. It averred that its Personnel Department sent a series of letters to the respondents• from October 2004 to November 2004.16 On October 14, 2004, Matuto and Laviha received similar letters, reading as follows:
From: PMI Personnel Department
Subject: Requested to Report at the Office
You are hereby requested to report on Saturday, October 16, 2004, 8:00 AM at our office #45 Zorra St., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.
In regards to the on going re-shuffling or Notice of transfer.
Thank you.17
From: Personnel Department
Subject: Failure to Report at the Office
You were given ample time to report at the office since October 16, 2004 at our office at #45 Zorra St., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, but you did not appear at all. Therefore, we took action that you are hereby terminating your services with this company voluntarily.
Due to this, we were left with no recourse but to delete you from our active roster of employees effective today November 16, 2004.
We wish you the best of luck.
Thank you.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit except that TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, INC. is ordered to pay complainants their separation pay as follows:
Nolasco Matuto - P 42,432.00
Romeo Magno - 45,968.00
Elvira Laviña - 38,896.00
GRAND TOTAL - P127,296.00
SO ORDERED.21ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as Our order for the monetary award of separation pay to be DELETED from the subject Decision, for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring the petitioners Nolasco B. Matuto, Romeo E. Magno and Elvira B. Lavifia were illegally dismissed from their employment by private respondent Tri-C General Services and, accordingly, ordering said private respondent to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with payment of full backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal on 03 November 2004 (for petitioners Matuto and Lavifia) and on 26 November 2004 (for petitioner Magno).
Private respondent is further ordered to pay petitioners the amounts equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary awards as and for attorney's fees.
This case is thus REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation, within 30 days from receipt hereof, of the backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits due to petitioners, computed from the time their compensation was withheld up to the time of their actual reinstatement, as well as the award of attorney's fees in their favor.
SO ORDERED.25cralawredChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION-SECOND DIVISION.
- WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY TRI-C EVERLASTING FOR THE REVIEW OF ITS DECISION ISSUED ON JUNE 17, 2010.
- WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING MATUTO, MAGNO AND LAVIÑA AS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY TRI-C.
- WHETHER THE HONORABLE,COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE: REINSTATEMENT OF MATUTO, MAGNO AND LAVIÑA AND TO PAY THE LATTER'S BACKWAGES INCLUSIVE OF ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS DUE THEM AS WELL AS ATTORNEY'S FEES.27
xxx Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there need, not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.41ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2112 dated July 16,2015.
1Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., et al, G.R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 570,579.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 140-149.
3 Id. at 161-163.
4 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul J. Aquino, with Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; rollo, pp. 96-102.
5 Id. at 109-111.
6 Penned by Labor Arbiter Renell Joseph R. Dela Cruz, id. at 67-77.
7Rollo, p. 5 1. .
8 Id.
9 Id at 141.
10 Id. at 53.
11 Id. at 51.
12 Id. at 52.
13 Id. at 68-69.
14 Id. at 38.
15 Id. at 40.
16 Id. at 73.
17 NLRC records, pp. 107, 112. (Emphasis ours)
18 Id. at 116.
19 Id. at 111. (Emphasis ours)
20 Id. at 118-120.
21Rollo, p. 77.
22 Id. at 76.
23 Id. at 101.
24 Id.
25Rollo, pp. 147-1 48 (Emphasis on the original).
26 Id. at 145.
27 Id. at 18.
28Diamond Taxi v. Llamas; Jr., G.R. No. 190724 March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 10, 19.
29De Jesus v. Aquino, NLRC and Supersonic Services, Inc., G.R. No. 164662, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 71, 81.
30Acebedo Optical v. NLRC, 554 Phil. 524, 541 (2007).
31Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 182072, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 88, 98.
32Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, Jr., supra note 29, at 2 I.
33Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., el al, supra note 1.
34Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City v. Escudero, G.R. No. 188711, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA 583, 593.
35 Exodus International Construction Corporation, et al. v. Biscocho, et al., 659 Phil. 142, 155 (201 1).
36MZR Industries, et. alvs. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 150, 157.
37 Id
38 Art. 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.
39Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene S. Espiritu. G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014.
40 623 Phil. 511 (2009).
41RTG Construction, et al. v. Facto, supra, at 521-522. (Citation's omitted)
42Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., et al., supra note 1, at 581.
43 MZR Industries, et. al v. Colambot, supra note 37, at 162.
44Leopard Security and Investigation Agency v. Quitoy et al., G.R. No. 186344, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 440, 452.