SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 232194, June 19, 2019
ALVIN M. DE LEON, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND ANNA MARIA MORALEDA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) filed by Alvin M. de Leon (de Leon), assailing the Decision2 dated July 19, 2016 and Resolution3 dated May 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138932, which affirmed the Resolution4 dated November 28, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 10-002342-14.
E. Employees Behaviour, Relationship with Co-employees/SuperiorsOne of the two written memoranda served on de Leon was regarding an incident on October 11, 2010, caught on PTC's closed-circuit television (CCTV) where he appeared to have violated the policy of receiving "pasalubong" which was prohibited under the written instruction of the company.12 De Leon served replies to the memoranda issued to him, in which he explained that he merely assisted a crewmember in giving a gift to a relative. PTC found his explanations honest and justified, so he was given a mere verbal reprimand to discourage any similar suspicious behavior.13
2. It is the duty and obligation of every employee to comply faithfully and strictly with every rule, [regulation], instruction, notice or directive of the company relative to or in connection with his work or employment. This includes strict compliances with notices to appear on investigation to shed light on matter being investigated by or of interest of the company.11
Section O. CONCERTED ACTIONS AGAINST COMPANY & OTHER OFFENSESDe Leon was served a copy of PTC s revised Code of Discipline on September 7, 2012.15 Incidentally, FMSSI —the PTC-owned company where de Leon was seconded — also had the exact same policy.16
5. No employee shall offer or accept directly or indirectly any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 and above. Any item worth Php 500.00 and above should be returned or surrendered to HR Department. In addition, an employee who accepts any amount of money or any gift in kind from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member shall be dismissed.
Offering or accepting any gift with collective value of P500.00 and above should be dealt with DISMISSAL.
1st Offense - DISMISSAL14
xxx Thinking in all honesty that Mr. Acar's surprise gift as harmless, de Leon instructed Mr. Adefuin to give the gift instead to Mr. Aaron T. Brillantes in the far end of the office knowing that there is a CCTV camera trained on their work area. He informed the crew to give the gift in the far end of the work area so as not to arouse curious stares and create misunderstandings about the liquor sent by Mr. Acar considering that they are at the Crewing Operations Center and in front of a lot of crewmembers waiting.20The next day, he was confronted about the incident and he readily admitted that he and Brillante did accept a gift.21 On October 25, 2013, de Leon and Brillante were served with a memorandum to explain the October 9, 2013 incident. They were also served a 30-day Suspension Notice.22
This matter and statement is just to bring to your notice that recently I had gifted our previous scheduler Alvin [d]e Leon 2 bottles of whiskey worth $36 US dollars as a goodwill gesture and token of friendship. This gift was sent through one of my Filipino waiters Adefuin, Fred Rikko Bernardin to be given to Alvin [d]e Leon. However there was a whole lot of misunderstanding and it seems like the bottle was being given to Alvin [d]e Leon by the crew member Adefuin, Fred Rikko Bernardin as a favor[.]On November 22, 2013, de Leon received a written resolution from PTC notifying him of the termination of his employment.27 Meanwhile, PTC also terminated the employment of Brillante.
I just wanted to let you know that there is no personal favor behind this gift that was extended except for the friendship that we still share till date.
Kindly understand the above matter and I can assure that there is no personal favor involved from Alvin [d]e Leon nor the crew member (Adefuin, Fred Rikko Bernardin) and the whole situation has been misunderstood.
Mustafa Acar
Maitre'D
Oasis of the Seas.26
Records reflect that petitioner received on 3 December 2014 a copy of the assailed Resolution of the NLRC. Conformably with Sections 1 and 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner had 60 days from 3 December 2014 within which to file his Petition for Certiorari, or, on 1 February 2015. As it happened, on 1 February 2015, the impugned Resolution became final and executory and was ordered recorded in the NLRC Book of Entries of Judgment. Plain as a pikestaff, when the instant Petition was filed on 2 February 2015, the repugned Resolution had already attained finality.34It then held that it nevertheless sieved through the records, and found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's Resolution.
A decision issued by a court becomes final and executory when such decision disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, such as when after the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, no appeal has been perfected.Verily, the CA erred in holding that de Leon's petition was filed out of time. De Leon therefore timely filed the Petition for Certiorari when he filed the same on the next business day, or on February 2, 2015.
The period or manner of appeal from the NLRC to the CA is governed by Rule 65, pursuant to the ruling of this Court in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended, states that the petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, or resolution sought to be assailed.
Record shows that Dela Rosa received a copy of the November 24, 2005 Resolution of the NLRC, denying his motion for reconsideration on December 8, 2005. He had sixty (60) days, or until February 6, 2006, to file his petition for certiorari. February 6, 2006, however, was a Sunday. Thus, Dela Rosa filed his petition the next working day, or on February 7, 2006. Undoubtedly, Dela Rosa's petition was timely filed.37 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Section O. CONCERTED ACTIONS AGAINST COMPANY & OTHER OFFENSESA plain reading of the above rule would reveal that what is punished are two separate acts: (1) offering or accepting, whether directly or indirectly, any gift with a collective value of P500.00 or more, regardless of who it came from, and (2) acceptance by an employee of any gift — regardless of value — from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member.
5. No employee shall offer or accept directly or indirectly any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 and above. Any item worth Php 500.00 and above should be returned or surrendered to HR Department. In addition, an employee who accepts any amount of money or any gift in kind from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member shall be dismissed.
Offering or accepting any gift with collective value of P500.00 and above should be dealt with DISMISSAL.
1st Offense - DISMISSAL38
Careful analysis of the said provision however will reveal that the same is utterly vague. From the Notice of Dismissal, it shows that petitioner was dismissed for violating the policy that "No employee shall offer or accept directly or indirectly any gift with a collective value of Php500.00 and above." It was his mere acceptance of the gift that he was meted with the supreme penalty of dismissal. Such provision was however noticeably couched in general and vague manner, without any qualification as to from whom the gift should come from and for what consideration. But based from the Notice of Dismissal itself, it is expressly stated the "the governing principles behind the PTC policy ... does not take into account the intent or the origin of the gift." From this admission by the respondents alone, the subject rule should have been declared to be unreasonable and unfair.39 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)De Leon's contention is bereft of merit.
PTC explains:PART V
RECRUITMENT VIOLATION AND RELATED CASES
RULE I
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES
Section 1. Acts Constituting Illegal Recruitment. Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Provided, that any such nonlicensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
It shall likewise include the following acts committed by any person whether or not a holder of a license or authority:a. Charging or accepting directly or indirectly any amount of money, goods or services, or any fee or bond for any purpose from an applicant seafarer;
x x x xRULE II
RECRUITMENT VIOLATIONS AND RELATED CASES
xxxx
Section 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions:
a. Charging, imposing or accepting directly or indirectly, any amount of money goods or services, or any fee or bond for any purpose from an applicant seafarer;
xxxxRULE V
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES
AND SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES
Section 1. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses are classified into serious, less serious and light, depending on their gravity. The Administration shall impose the appropriate administrative penalties for every recruitment violation.
A. The following are serious offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Engaging in act/s of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or renewal thereof, such as giving false information or documents
1st Offense - Cancellation of License
2. Engaging in the recruitment or placement of seafarers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines
1st Offense - Cancellation of License
3. Transfer or change of ownership of a single proprietorship licensed to engage in overseas employment
1st Offense — Cancellation of License
4. Charging or accepting directly or indirectly any amount of money, goods or services, or any fee or bond for any purpose from the seafarers.
1st Offense - Cancellation of License
The penalty shall carry the accessory penalty of refund of the fee charged or collected from the worker.(emphases and underscoring supplied)
In view of the POEA's strict requirements and the severity of the corresponding penalty imposed at the first instance, it is only just and reasonable for PTC to take measures to ensure that any act of its officials, employees and representatives that could possibly be construed as a violation of the rules above be given the same degree of importance and dealt with similarly.The Court agrees with the above explanation of PTC. Indeed, in light of the strict provisions of the POEA Rules, it was reasonable for PTC to protect itself by crafting its Code of Discipline that imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal for those who commit acts that, if construed to be PTC's, would merit the cancellation of its license. Thus, as it is recognized that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended,41 the dismissal of de Leon — hinged on a rule that provides for dismissal even on the first instance of violation — should therefore be upheld.
xxx Bearing in mind that PTC is accountable for the actions of its officials, employees and representatives and that the offenses underscored in the POEA Rules carry the corresponding penalty of cancellation of license for a single violation thereof, the strict implementation of company rules and regulations is indispensable.40
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-35.
2 Id. at 39-47. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
3 Id. at 49-50.
4 Id. at 91-99. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu Jr. concurring.
5 Id. at 5 and 338.
6 Id. at 338.
7 Id. at 5.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 6.
10 Id. at 7.
11 Id. at 339.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 340.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Also surnamed "Brillantes" in some parts of the record.
18 Id. at 7 and 340.
19 Id. at 7.
20 Id. at 7-8.
21 Id. at 8 and 340.
22 Id. at 340.
23 Id. at 7, 340-341.
24 Id. at 341.
25 Id. at 342.
26 Id. at 9-10. (Emphasis and underscoring removed)
27 Id. at 341-344.
28 Id. at 124.
29 Id. at 79-89. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu Jr. concurring.
30 Id. at 86.
31 Id.
32 Supra note 4.
33 Supra note 2.
34Rollo, p. 42.
35 Supra note 3.
36 664 Phil. 154 (2011).
37 Id. at 162.
38Rollo, p. 340.
39 Id. at 18.
40 Id. at 351.
41Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 96 106 (2000)
42 Id.
43Rollo, p. 7.