THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 183129, May 30, 2016
COCOPLANS, INC. AND CAESAR T. MICHELENA, Petitioners, v. MA. SOCORRO R. VILLAPANDO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated February 4, 2008 and Resolution2 dated May 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 88759, which reversed the Decision3 dated July 30, 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case CA No. 039310-04 and NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-11-7279-02-B, which, in turn, reversed the Decision4 dated January 30, 2004 of the Labor Arbiter NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-11-7279-02-B.
The factual antecedents are as follows.
Respondent Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, began working as a financial Advisor for petitioner Cocoplans, Inc., (Cocoplans) in 1995. On October 11, 2000, she was eventually promoted to Division Head/Senior Sales Manager. On November 4, 2002, however, her employment was terminated by Cocoplans, through its President, Caesar T. Michelena, on the alleged ground that she was deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company thereby breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to her by Cocoplans.5 Consequently, Villapando filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that she was dismissed without the just cause mandated by law. In her Position Paper,6 Villapando alleged the following pertinent facts:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2. On September 25, 2002, respondent Michelena talked to complainant and accused the latter of ordering her subordinates to "stop selling" and of influencing them to "leave the company" by way of sympathy to Dado B. Martinez who was compelled to resign from the company due to a personal quarrel with respondent Michelena. In the said conversation, respondent Michelena told complainant that "we cannot work together" and "I want your resignation tomorrow."Thus, Villapando maintained that she was illegally dismissed for her employment was terminated on baseless and untruthful grounds. According to her, Michelena simply wanted to oust her from the company because he felt that she was sympathizing with the Vice-President for Marketing, Dario B. Martinez, an officer with whom Michelena had a personal quarrel.8 That she was influencing the company's employees to transfer to another company, particularly, Pioneer Allianz, was improbable and preposterous for she never invited nor encouraged anyone to leave the company. In fact, up until the present time, not a single subordinate nor Villapando, herself, has transferred to said other company.
3. In a written statement signed by a number of officers of COCOPLANS, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "B," it was attested that complainant did not order a "stop selling" and that complainant did not influence her subordinates to leave the company.
4. On September 26, 2002, and September 27, 2002, Jaclyn Yang, the Secretary of respondent Michelena persistently followed up from complainant the resignation letter being required by respondent Michelena.
5. Harassed and pressured, complainant wrote a letter dated October 3, 2002 to Atty. Alfredo Tumacder, Jr., the Managing Director of COCOPLANS, INC., a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "C." In said letter, complainant categorically denied that she ordered "stop selling." She also denied that she influenced her subordinates to leave the company. She also expressed that she is resigning as required by respondent Michelena.
6. On October 4, 2002, respondent Michelena sent a letter to complainant, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "D," changing his original position. Surprisingly, respondent Michelena did not accept the resignation that he originally asked for and instead convened a Committee on Employee Discipline. Complainant was also placed under preventive suspension in said letter. Obviously, respondents realized that they erred in not investigating the issues first before asking complainant to resign.
7. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "E," complainant stated -"x x x I also do not understand why you want an investigation while you have effectively convicted me and terminated me during the said meeting on September 25, 2002. As far as I know, I have already been terminated.8. COCOPLANS sent a letter to complainant on October 22, 2002, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "F," asking complainant to submit a written explanation and extending the preventive suspension. She was then furnished with a Sworn Statement of Mila Perez and David Sandoval, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "G." There was no explanation given as to the imposition of preventive suspension, much less for the extension thereof.
In any event, may I know what are the accusations against me and who are accusing me. May I also know your reason and basis for the preventive suspension."
9. In response, complainant submitted an explanation letter dated October 25, 2002, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "H." She denied the accusations that she ordered to stop selling and that she was influencing her subordinates to leave COCOPLANS and transfer to Pioneer Allianz.
10. Thereafter, complainant was furnished with a letter dated October 28, 2002, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "I" and an Affidavit of respondent Michelena, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "J." Respondent Michelena alleged that complainant was the one who wanted to resign although he admitted that he asked his secretary to follow up the resignation letter from complainant.
11. In response, complainant sent a letter dated October 29, 2002, copy hereto attached as Annex "K," denying the allegations of respondent Michelena and reiterating her previous statement that she was being forced to resign.
12. In a letter dated November 4, 2002 signed by respondent Michelena, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "L," complainant was formally terminated.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It has been discovered by herein respondents that the Complainant has instigated the Sales Force of COCOPLANS in her area of responsibility, to either slow down sales production or completely stop selling, then join a mass resignation and transfer to a competitor company which was allegedly much better than COCOPLANS.Based on the aforequoted set of facts, together with the supporting evidence submitted, petitioners insist that Villapando's suspension and eventual termination was for just cause due to the fact that she wilfully breached petitioners' trust in her when she deliberately encouraged her very own sales staff to move to another company.14
This sinister plot started sometime in the middle of February 2002, when a meeting was presided by the then First Vice-President for Marketing of COCOPLANS, who instead of discussing new trends in marketing strategies and how to improve sales production, concentrated more on his sentiments and personal problems with the company. One month thereafter, the Complainant called a Managers' meeting and informed them that the said First Vice-President for Marketing and his group, will transfer to another company. As a member of that group, the Complainant was motivating the Sales Managers to join the said transfer as the other company was purportedly better than COCOPLANS. The Complainant was also convincing the Sales Managers to join the mass resignations nationwide thereby paralyzing sales production for COCOPLANS. Attached hereto as Annex "A" and made integral part of this position paper is the joint affidavit of two (2) sales managers who attended that crucial meeting and attested to the truth of what transpired thereat.
Again, in March 2002, the Complainant officiated a division meeting in Lipa City, together with the said First Vice-President for Marketing, attended by sales associates from Lipa, Lucena, Mindoro and San Pablo branches of COCOPLANS, as well as by the Branch Cashier, Ms. Sharon Gurango. In that meeting, the cashier, Ms. Gurango was told that 70-80% of the Sales Force will move out of COCOPLANS and the Complainant asked her if [she] was willing to join the group, and her answer was yes. Thereafter, Ms. Gurango was kept constantly updated on the developments on the said plan by the Complainant and that the group might leave COCOPLANS either June or July 2002. Attached also hereto as Annex "B" and made integral part hereof is the sworn report of the said Branch Cashier, Ms. Sharon Gurango, dated September 19, 2002.
Because of the persistent flow of information that the Sales Force will proceed with their planned mass resignations as agitated by the Complainant, the President of COCOPLANS confronted her on September 20, 2002 and when asked -
"Did you at any time during this year tell your people of leaving COCOPLANS for another company?"
The Complainant replied "Yes Sir!" thereby directly admitting the truth of the information received by the President himself. Attached as Annex "C" and made integral part hereof is the affidavit of the President of COCOPLANS. Having been embarrassed, the Complainant later on filed a resignation letter, which was not accepted, as the Committee on Employee Discipline was already convened to conduct a hearing on the alleged acts committed by the complainant, and to receive any further explanation on the matter.
Attached hereto and marked as Annex "D" and likewise made integral part of this position paper, is the notice to the Complainant dated October 4, 2002 regarding the meeting scheduled by the Committee on Employee Discipline setting the date, October 10, 2002 for Complainant to give her explanation, and putting her on preventive suspension for three (3) weeks. Notwithstanding receipt of said notice, the Complainant, for reasons known only to her, did not attend said meeting. However, the witnesses who submitted their sworn statements attended the meeting, as shown in the minutes of the meeting, hereto attached marked as Annex "E" and made integral part hereof. Still, the complainant was given another opportunity to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her deliberate attempt to encourage sales staff to move to another company. Attached hereto and marked as Annex "F" is another notice to the Complainant giving her until October 25, 2002 to explain her position.
While the Complainant did file a written explanation, the Committee on Employee Discipline decided to schedule another meeting for further clarification, and notice about this meeting was duly received by the Complainant. Attached hereto as Annex "G" and made integral part hereof is said notice of hearing. However, on said date of hearing, Complainant again failed to appear. Consequently, on November 4, 2002 the Committee on Employee Discipline rendered a final recommendation, a copy of which is also hereto attached marked as Annex "H," and thereupon the President of COCOPLANS advised the Complainant of her termination for cause. x x x13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to pay complainant her full backwages to until the finality of this decision which partially computed as of this date in the amount of P678,291.92 and to pay her separation pay equivalent to one month salary per year of service in the amount of P336,000.00.On July 30, 2004, however, the NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter in its Decision holding that the matter of resignation is a non-issue as the termination of Villapando's employment was affected for reasons other than her resignation.17 According to the NLRC, the two essential elements of a lawful termination of employment, namely: (1) that the employee be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) that the dismissal must be for valid cause, are present in this case.
Respondent is likewise ordered to pay 10% of the total monetary award as attorney's fees in the amount of P101,429.19.
All other claims are hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Petitioners ask the Court to give due course to its petition and review the factual scenario of the instant case considering the disparity in the findings of the tribunals below. They essentially argue that contrary to the ruling of the CA, the pieces of evidence they presented sufficiently prove that Villapando is guilty of instigating its employees to engage in a mass resignation and to transfer to a competitor company. First, they claim that the Joint Affidavit of Mr. Sandoval and Ms. Perez cannot be said to be doubtful by the mere fact that Ms. Perez is a signatory to an earlier letter which contradicts her sworn statement. This is because, on the one hand, said earlier written statement was not notarized nor affirmed by Ms. Perez during the administrative investigation.23 On the other hand, the Joint Affidavit was notarized and affirmed by its affiants before the investigating panel. Thus, as between the two pieces of evidence, the Joint Affidavit should be given probative weight and credence. Petitioners add that even assuming that the contradiction of statements put in doubt the Joint Affidavit, this should not be the case as to Mr. Sandoval who did not make any prior inconsistent statement. Hence, as to him, at least, his statements therein should be given credence.I.
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT MAY PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF FACT OF THE CASE CONSIDERING THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE NLRC.II.
PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS TERMINATED FOR JUST CAUSE.
x x x (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the CA goes beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.27ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn light of the fact that the findings of the CA and the Labor Arbiter are contrary to those of the NLRC, the Court deems it necessary to make its own evaluation of the findings of fact of the instant case.
Regarding the Affidavit of Sharon H. Gurango, dated September 19, 2002, the Court notes that this affidavit was never presented during the time that the Committee on Employee Discipline was still investigating the charges against the petitioner as the said affidavit surfaced only during the proceedings before the labor arbiter. The Court further notes that the said affidavit's date (September 9, 2002) is even way before the convening of the Committee on Employee Discipline (October 10, 2002), thus, the Court is curious as to why the said affidavit was never presented during the committee's investigatory hearings. In fact, based on the final report of the said committee entitled "Final Recommendation on the Case of Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, Senior Sales Manager - South Tagalog Operations," dated November 4, 2002, the affidavit of Ms. Gurango was never considered by the committee since all that was brought before it was only the joint affidavit of Milagros Perez and David Sandoval and the affidavit of private respondent Michelena. Having not been brought before the committee, therefore, the petitioner never had the opportunity to answer the charges against her in the Gurango affidavit. As such, the said affidavit should not be considered.Thus, in view of the irregularities identified by the CA, the Court cannot take Ms. Gurango's affidavit into account. In dismissing an employee for just cause, it must be shown that the employer fairly made a determination of just cause in good faith, taking into consideration all of the evidence available to him. But as the appellate court noted, the affidavit of Ms. Gurango was never presented before the investigation panel, merely surfacing only during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, in spite of the fact that the same was supposedly executed as early as September 9, 2002, an entire month before the time the Committee on Employee Discipline convened. Thus, not only is there no showing that said affidavit was considered by petitioners in arriving at their decision to dismiss Villapando, Villapando never had the opportunity to address the accusations stated therein. As such, the Court cannot consider the same.
At any rate, even if the Gurango affidavit would be considered, the said affidavit does not, in any way, prove that the petitioner influenced people to join another company. All that the affidavit proves is that it was the First Vice-President Dario B. Martinez who tried to influence Sharon H. Gurango to move to another company and not the petitioner [Socorro] R. Villapando. While the said affidavit appears to show that the petitioner knew of Mr. Martinez's plans of moving to another company, mere knowing and deliberately influencing people to leave the company are two very different things.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, concurring; rollo, pp. 31-56.
2Id. at 66.
3 Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go, with Commissioners Roy V. SeƱeres and Ernesto S. Dinopol, concurring; id. at 150-162.
4 Penned by Labor Arbiter Numeriano D. Villena, id. at 120-132.
5Rollo, p. 32.
6Id. at 89-99.
7Id. at 90-92.
8Id. at 92.
9Id. at 106-107.
10Id. at 133.
11Id. at 93.
12Id. at 67-71.
13Id. at 68-69.
14Id. at 70.
15Id. at 129.
16Id. at 132.
17Id. at 154.
18Id. at 157.
19Id. at 159.
20Id. at 49.
21Id. at 50.
22Id. at 52.
21Id. at 16.
24Id. at 19.cralawred
25Id. at 15.
26Manarpiis v. Texan Philippines, Inc. et. al., G.R. No. 197011, January 28, 2015.cralawred
27Id.
28Lima Land, Inc. et. al. v. Cuevas, 635 Phil. 36, 44-45 (2010).
29Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Reyes, G.R. No. 208321, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 516, 533.
30e Pacific Global Contact Center, Inc. v. Cabansay, 563 Phil. 804, 821 (2007).
31Loon, et al. v. Power Master, Inc., and/or Sison, G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 440, 442.
32Lima Land, Inc. et. al. v. Cuevas, supra note 28, at 49.
33Rollo, pp. 50-51. (Emphasis ours)
34Id. at 52.
35Id. at 7
36Id. at 115.
37Lima Land, Inc. et. al. v. Cuevas, supra note 28, at 50.
38Id. at 53
39Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative (MORESCO II) v. Cagalawan, 694 Phil. 268, 283 (2012).cralawred
40Rollo, p. 133.