SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 219059, February 12, 2020
GAUDIOSO ISO, JR. AND JOEL TOLENTINO PETITIONERS, v. SALCON POWER CORPORATION (NOW SPC POWER CORPORATION) AND DENNIS VILLAREAL, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 451 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision2 dated October 9, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated May 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP Nos. 02781 and 06429.
In CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02781, Gaudioso Iso, Jr., together with his fellow petitioners,4 challenge the October 11, 2006 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. V-000562-2006, RAB Case No. VII-01-0132-2006 and its March 6, 2007 Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration. However, on June 10, 2009, William J. Yap, Allan A. Balugo, Glenn E. Comendador, Mario S. Amaya, Josefino U. Cuchara, Wilson M. Pogoy, Felix C. Cabigon, Zosimo A. Abao, Efrenilo N. Garcia, Oscar G. Cañete, Eduardo T. Roble and Mariano Y. Blanco, Jr. entered into a Compromise Agreement with [respondent] SPC Power Corporation (formerly Salcon Power Corporation). Thereafter, on June 11, 2010, the rest of the petitioners also executed a Compromise Agreement with [respondent]. Thus, on April 25, 2012, this Court rendered a Decision approving said Compromise Agreements and dismissing the instant Petition. On May 30, 2012, petitioner Iso filed his Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the dismissal of the case should not affect him as he was not a signatory to any of the Compromise Agreements. In response, the [respondent] stressed, in its Comment dated August 28, 2012, that the Compromise Agreements do not concern the validly dismissed petitioner as his monetary claims are directly connected or intertwined with his continued employment with the company. On July 24, 2013, petitioner Iso filed his Reply asserting that since his case for illegal dismissal [i.e., CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 06429] is still pending with this Court, it is premature to render his claims moot as there is a possibility that his dismissal would be declared illegal, thus entitling him to the benefits he claims.
In CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 06429, petitioner Gaudioso Iso, Jr. and Joel Tolentino allege that they are the union officers of Salcon Power Independent Union (SPIU). They assert that since [respondent] refused to recognize their union, they filed a petition for certification election. On March 2007, a certification election was conducted wherein SPIU won as the employees' collective bargaining agent. On September 2007, the SPIU submitted a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposal to [respondent]. However, [respondent] refused to submit a counterproposal. It also refused to bargain with SPIU pending its appeal with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) concerning the cancellation of SPIU's union registration. On March 24, 2008, the BLR dismissed [respondent's] appeal. Thereafter, SPIU filed a notice of strike on the ground of [respondent's] refusal to bargain. On March 2, 2008, respondent gave in and agreed to bargain collectively with SPIU.
Petitioners aver that [respondent's] petition for cancellation of SPIU's union registration was a plot to remove them from the union. Likewise, petitioners assert that [respondent's] petition to purge and automatically remove supervisory employees from SPIU was filed for the same sinister purpose. Hence, SPIU decided to call a press conference on May 27, 2009. [Respondent] alleges that during the press conference, petitioners and Dr. Giovanni Tapang uttered false and malicious accusations against it. Worse, their statements were published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Visayas. Consequently, on July 27, 2009, [respondent] filed a criminal complaint for libel against petitioners and Dr. Tapang. Moreover, [respondent] filed a civil case for damages against them. On February 3, 2010, [respondent] issued show-cause notices to the petitioners, informing them that they are charged with serious misconduct, dishonesty, breach of trust and serious disobedience. Thereafter, hearings were conducted. On April 5, 2010, the petitioners were found guilty of the charges against them, which then prompted their dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.5
A CAUSE-ORIENTED group urged the government to audit SPC Power Corp. in Naga, Cebu to validate its claim that the power firm must refund consumers P738 million in excess payments that it received from the National Power Corp. (NPC).
Dr. Giovanni Tapang, chairman of Samahan ng Nagtataguyod ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Sambayanan (Agham) said Cebuano power consumers have been overcharged.
Tapang and Gaudioso Iso Jr., president of Salcon Power Independent Union (SPIU), called a press conference to announce that the SPC Power Corp. has profited roughly P738 million in the past 15 years. The NPC got the amount from increased rates, they said.
Tapang and Iso said this is the reason they are supporting the call of Fr. Francisco "Paking" Silva for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to jointly conduct an external audit on SPC Power, formerly Salcon Power.Forum
Silva, in a DOE forum early this month, said an external audit will inform the government and the public about the situation of the Naga Power Plant Complex, which has two thermal plants, two gas turbines and six diesel plants.
Silva urged the DOE and ERC to review the contract between the SPC Power and NPC to protect the interest of the public.
In explaining how they came up with the figure, Iso and SPIU Secretary Joel Tolentino said NPC has paid SPC Power an amount equivalent to the salaries of 354 employees for 15 years already. But there are only 190 employees hired by SPC Power, or a difference of 164 employees.
At an average of P25,000 a month in salary per employee, the amount would reach P4.1 million a month. For 15 years, that means a total of P738 million which should be returned to the power consumers.
They said the P738 million is on the labor side only. If there is an external audit, it will be known that the SPC Power's "silent profit" could reach billions of pesos in terms of purchases of coal and other fuel products needed by the plant.Profits
The SPIU leaders alleged that SPC Power raked in profits at the expense of the govenm1ent because they only manage the plant without spending money for its operations.
"They (SPC Power) are paid by the NPC for the 354 employees, of which they only absorbed and hired 190. The NPC supplied the fuel and still paid SPC Power the capacity and energy fees," Iso said.
Iso and Tolentino said this may be the reason SPC Power was able to buy NPC diesel plants in Bohol and Panay for US$5.9 million.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court renders the following judgment in the Petitions at bar:
1) In CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02781, the Court DENIES petitioner Gaudioso Iso, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Our April 25, 2012 Decision.
2) In CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 06429, the Court DENIES the Petition for Certiorari of Gaudioso Iso, Jr. and Joel Tolentino for lack of merit. It AFFIRMS the assailed June 24, 2011 Decision of the public respondent NLRC and its August 31, 2011 Resolution. Costs on petitioners.
SO ORDERED.16
From the evidence presented, this Arbitration Branch finds substantial evidence to sustain the validity of [petitioners'] employment termination. It has to be clarified that [petitioners] were not terminated because of union activities. What triggered the termination of [petitioners] were their utterances of libelous statements against respondent company.
After the Makati City Prosecution Office resolved on December 28, 2009 x x x that [petitioners'] utterances constitute libelous statements thereby recommending the filing of the corresponding criminal case for libel, and that Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 150, Makati City issued an Order dated January 28, 2010 x x x for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against [petitioners] and Giovanni Tapang, respondent company issued [petitioners] separate Show-Cause Notices dated February 02, 2010 x x x charging them with serious misconduct, dishonesty (for purportedly uttering, assisting in the and/or causing the publication of false and malicious statements. charges and rumors against the company and management) breach of trust and willful disobedience arising from supposed violation of the Company's Uniform Code of Conduct.
x x x x
Evidently, despite [petitioners'] insistence that they did not make libelous statements during the press con on May 28, 2009, the response of Sun Star Cebu writer Elias Baquero destroyed whatever smokescreen that [petitioners] created. Writer Elias Baquero with certainty responded that he interviewed [petitioners] along with Dr. Tapang. They were the ones who supplied the figures and the details of the alleged "anomalies" at respondent company.
To this Arbitration Branch, the very evidence against (petitioners] is the news item written by Sun Star Cebu writer Elias Baquero which outlined the purported anomalies at respondent company at the expense of the government through the National Power Corporation. While [petitioners] denied by asserting that "these statements were not made by us" and that "(W)e did not tackle the profiting of SPC and we didn't have control over the content of said article" x x x, there is the response of writer Elias Baquero pointing to [petitioners] as the source of his news item. (Emphasis omitted.)
For obvious reason, the writer was in no position to personally come-up with the figures which appeared on his news item. The writer had no knowledge on the intricacies of the alleged anomalies. In fact, the writer identified [petitioners] as his source of information. It is off-tangent for [petitioners] to contend that respondent company should have charged writer Elias Baquero of libel because the latter merely wrote the information fed to him by [petitioners].
x x x x
Suffice it to say, [petitioners] who are officers of the union have the freedom to do acts in the furtherance of their right to self-organization. However, [petitioners] do not have the freedom to malign and make statements that would destroy the business reputation of respondent company. The malicious imputations of [petitioners] against respondent company constitute serious misconduct.48
Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that serious misconduct is a valid cause for the employer to terminate an employee. x x x
x x x x
We take note of [petitioners'] conscious and willful act of publishing derogatory statements against respondent Salcon Power Corporation. There can be no doubt that [petitioners'] statements undermine the authority and credibility of the management of respondent company. [Petitioners'] actions likewise displayed the propensity to act against management's will. [Petitioners'] feat is inimical to the interest of their employers as it vilified their reputation. It must be noted that [petitioners] publicly hurled imputations upon respondent company during a press conference which was aired on television and for which a news report was published. Obviously, [petitioners] have committed an act which, by no stretch of the imagination, is considered serious misconduct. It bears stressing likewise that [petitioners] were ready with their statements during the press conference called by them and intended the publication and airing of the same as evidenced by the invitation of media outfits.
By their acts [petitioners] have also committed a breach of the trust reposed in them by respondent.
x x x x
x x x As employees upon whom trust and confidence were reposed by respondent, [petitioners] were expected to discharge of their functions with utmost professionalism and uprightness. However, [petitioners] betrayed this expectation.49
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per Raffle dated February 3, 2020 in lieu of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) who penned the CA Decision.
** Designated as additional member per Raffle dated February 3, 2020 in lieu of Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of the Court) who recused from the case due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals.
1Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 12-34.
2Id. at 38-49, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of the Court), concurring.
3Id. at 51-53, penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of the Court and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
4 William J. Yap, Ronilo N. Alferez, Allan A. Balugo, Federico M. Villanueva, Roberto T. Teleron, Raul C. Gonzaga, Jaime D. Saavedra, Samuel P. Arreglo, Mario Clint Longakit, Ray Manacat, Glenn E. Comendador, Arturo T. Tamarra. Jr., Mario S. Amaya, Pablito N. Cañete, Rufino B. Gasok, Mario R. Mendez, Aida Basilon, Silvestre C. Ceniza, Josefino U. Cucharo, Benjamin L. Rosellosa, Leviticus Barazon, Felixberto E. Labra, Mariano P. Carreon, Gil G. Orillo, Wilson M. Pogoy, Gilbert T. Aligato, Tranquilino C. Fiel, Jr., Dosomaru Ragaza, Roger Booc, Medardo V. Gacho, Eugenio A. Dela Corte, Amador R. Matin-Ao, Patricio Canoy, Edison M. Barinque, Zosimo A. Abao, Raymundo G. Villasencio, Isagani J. Canque, Edwin De Guma, Renato M. Oporto, Felix C. Cabigon, Benjamin Q. Susan, Jaime E. Villareal, Victor C. Calvo, Efrenilo N. Garcia, Eduardo E. Cobol, Crisostomo D. Panimdim, Wendel P. Castro, Rolando L. Maratas, Edgar M. Rivera, Oscar G. Cañete, Eduardo T. Roble, Celso A. Adlawan, Renato B. Abella, Catalino Cantalejo, Emmanuel F. Catingub, Nicolas Q. Bayabos, Jr., Salvador T. Besabella, Eduardo A. Repollo, Urbano Abelo, Mariano Y. Blanco. Jr., Edgar T. Ylanan and Noel P. Tura.
5Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 39-40.
6Id. at 520-535; penned by Labor Arbiter Emiliano C. Tiongco, Jr.
7Id. at 535.
8Id. at 252.
9Id.
10Id. at 81-98; penned by Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug with Commissioners Aurelio D. Menzon and Julie C. Rendoque,concurring.
11 Art. 297. [282) Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment 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;
x x x
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
x x x.
12Rollo.Vol. 1, pp. 102-113.
13Id. at 100- 101.
14Id. at 54-79.
15Id. at 38-49.
16Id. at 48.
17Id. at 45.
18Id.
19 See Resolution dated December 28, 2009 penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Lorelai Andrea C. Dulig (id. at 270-275) and Information dated December 15, 2009 (id. at 276-277).
20Id. at 278.
21Id.
22Id. at 45.
23Id.
24 544 Phil. 71 (2007).
25Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 45.
26Id.
27Id. at 45-46.
28Id. at 46.
29Id. at 51 -53.
30Id. at 23.
31Id. at 22.
32Id. at 24.
33Id.
34Id. at 25.
35Id.
36Id. at 28-29.
37Id. at 30.
38Id. at 670-800.
39Id. at 746.
40Id. at 747.
41Id. at 749.
42Id. at 770.
43Id. at 786.
44Id. at.790.
45Grande v. Philippine Nautical Training Colleges, 806 Phil. 601, 612 (2017).
46Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v KMM-Katipunan et al., 815 Phil. 425, 435 (2017).
47Id. at 436.
48Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 527-534.
49Id. at 93-96.
50Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera. Jr., G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 416, 435, citing General Milling Corporation v. Viajor, 702 Phil. 532, 540 (2013).
51Grande v. Philippine Nautical Training Colleges, supra note 45.
52Doctor v. NII Enterprises, G.R. No. 194001, November 22, 2017, 846 SCRA 53, 65.
53Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v. KMM-Katipunan, et al., supra note 46 at 437, citing Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. v. Angelo, 673 Phil. 150, 160 (2011). See also De La Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission, 258 Phil. 432 (1989): Autobus Workers' Union v. NLRC, 353 Phil. 419 (1998); Asian Design and Mfg. Corp. v. Hon. Deputy Minister of Labor, 226 Phil. 20 (1986); and Reynolds Phil. Corp. v. Eslava, 221 Phil. 614 (1985).
54Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., supra note 50.
55 810 Phil. 704, 723 (2017).
56Id. at 723, citing Career Philippines Shipmanagement Inc. v. Serna, 700 Phil. 1, 9 (2012).
57Id. at 724.
58Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 97.
59Id. at 95.
60Id.
61 792 Phil. 336 (2016).
62Id. at 364, citing Santos v. San Miguel Corporation, 447 Phil. 264, 276-277 (2003).
63Id.
64The Orchard Golf and Country Club v. Francisco, 706 Phil. 479, 500 (2013), citing Philippine Singapore Transport Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 343 Phil. 284, 290-293 (1997).
65Visayan Electric Co. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et al. v. Visayan Electric Company, Inc., 764 Phil. 608, 626 (2015).
66Id.
67 See PJ Lhuillier, Inc. v. Camacho, 806 Phil. 413, 430 (2017).
68Distribution & Control Products, Inc./Tiamsic v. Santos, 813 Phil. 423, 436 (2017), citing New Puerto Commercial, et al. v. Lopez, et al., 639 Phil. 437, 445 (2010).
69Id.
70Id.
71Rollo, Vol. 1. p. 533.
72Id.
73Id. at 91.