FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 243768. September 05, 2022
G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. REYNALDO A. MEDINA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the April 27, 2018 Decision2 and the December 17, 2018 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149247. The CA held that respondent Reynaldo A. Medina (Medina) was illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner G & S Transport Corporation (G & S).
Factual Antecedents
G & S, more popularly known as "Avis Rent-A-Car," is a corporation engaged in the business of renting cars to the public.4 On September 15, 2008, G & S hired Medina for the position of driver.5 Medina was primarily responsible for fetching tourists to and from the airport and onward to their next destination.6 Medina was in the employ of G & S for seven years with no derogatory record.7 However, on the night of February 12, 2015, Medina was involved in misconduct for the first time in his career.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Based on the records, Medina was engaged in a heated argument with a co-employee.9 Medina averred that he was on his shift from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on February 12, 2015.10 At around 5:00 p.m., Medina left the premises of G & S.11 However, at around 10:00 p.m. on the same day, Medina returned to G & S to retrieve his personal belongings.12 At the gate, Medina chanced upon his co-employee, Felix Pogoy (Pogoy), who was staring sharply at him.13 Medina accosted Pogoy and asked if there was a problem.14 Pogoy fired back and asked Medina the same question.15 A heated argument with shoving then ensued.16 Another employee, Jose Viggayan (Viggayan), broke up the melee and led Medina away from Pogoy.17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G & S, however, countered that Medina was drunk when he assaulted Pogoy to the point of boxing and strangling the latter.18 In fact, Medina and Pogoy had to be restrained by G & S' security guards.19 However, Medina allegedly "refused to be controlled, until [Viggayan] arrived, and led [Medina] outside the garage."20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
After the submission of various written explanations,21 Medina was placed under preventive suspension.22 An administrative hearing was conducted.23 G & S concluded that Medina violated the Code of Discipline when he fought with a co-employee inside the work premises.24 Thus, Medina was terminated from employment on March 20, 2015.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Aggrieved, Medina filed a Complaint26 for illegal dismissal, actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
Based on the respective Position Papers27 of the parties, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision28 dated April 29, 2016. In dismissing Medina's Complaint, the LA found that there was no illegal dismissal because fighting with a co-employee within work premises is considered serious misconduct and a valid ground for termination of Medina's employment.29 There was no discussion on Medina's monetary claims.30chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, a decision is hereby rendered dismissing the present complaint.Aggrieved, Medina appealed32 the LA Decision before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
SO ORDERED.31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of merit and the [LA]'s Decision dated April 29, 2016 is affirmed.Medina sought reconsideration36 of the NLRC Decision but it was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution37 dated November 17, 2016.
SO ORDERED.35chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. [Medina] is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment of full backwages corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. ACCORDINGLY, the case is REMANDED to the [LA] for computation of backwages.The CA reversed the findings of the labor tribunals and found that Medina was illegally dismissed from employment since "what transpired between [Medina] and Pogoy x x x was a petty quarrel that merely involved shoving or slight pushing. The incident did not cause bodily harm, except a minor scratch in [Medina's] knee, nor did it in any manner interfere with fellow employees, or the operations of the business."43 For this reason, the CA found the penalty of dismissal too harsh and not commensurate with the act committed.44chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Factual findings of the NLRC are accorded great respect, but the appellate court is not precluded from reviewing evidence alleged to be arbitrarily considered or otherwise disregarded by the former |
[The CA can grant this prerogative writ] when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. To make this finding, the CA necessarily has to view the evidence if only to determine if the NLRC ruling had basis in evidence.65 (Emphasis supplied)In the case at bar, the appellate court exercised its awesome power of review to appreciate the evidence previously presented by the parties in their respective Position Papers. The testimony of the security guard on duty66 as well as the transcript of the administrative hearing67 were attached to G & S' Position Paper. On the other hand, the testimony of Viggayan68 was attached to Medina's Position Paper.
Noong x x x February 12, 2015 pasado 10:00 ng gabi[,] x x x. Agad akong pumunta doon sa malapit sa gate at nakita ko ang pagtutulakan nina Ginoong [Pogoy] at [Medina] kung saan si Ginoong Medina ay natumba. Agad kong niyakap si Ginoong Medina at inilayo kay Ginoong Pogoy para di na magkasakitan pa.70 (Emphasis and italics supplied)The statement that there was no boxing or strangling is consistent with Medina's statements during the administrative hearing. The transcript revealed:
PRB: Sinabi mo ano problema mo, sumagot din siya ikaw anong problema mo. Sinong unang nanapak?By appreciating the respective testimonies of the security guard on duty72 and Viggayan,73 as well as the transcript of the administrative hearing,74 the CA was able to arrive at a just decision of the case and correctly concluded that "what transpired between [Medina] and Pogoy x x x was a petty quarrel that merely involved shoving or slight pushing. The incident did not case bodily harm, except a minor scratch in [Medina's] knee, nor did it in any manner interfere with follow employees, or the operations of the business."75 This finding of fact by the appellate court is crucial in determining whether Medina was illegally dismissed.
Medina: Tumulak lang po ko sa kanya, humawak lang po ko sa balikat niya hindi ko naman po siya sinakal at kung sinapak ko po siya dapat meron siyang bukol sa mukha.
PRB: So hindi totoo yung sinabi ng guard na nagsuntukan kayo?
Medina: Maari hong gumalaw yung isa kong kamay na akala niya sapak kasi nagtutulakan ho kami iba na ho kasi ang tendency ng patutulukan sa suntukan. Ang suntukan ho talaga magkakayakapan yan eh kami ho ay nagkahiwalay ibig sabihin yung tulukan naming yung pagganon ng isang kamay ko akala ng guard sinusuntok ko siya.71 (Emphasis and italics supplied)
Serious misconduct, as a just cause for termination of employment under the Labor Code of the Philippines (Labor Code),76 is absent in the case at bar |
Art. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:In labor cases, misconduct, as a ground for dismissal, must be serious or of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.78 To justify termination on the ground of serious misconduct, the following requisites must concur: (1) the misconduct must be serious; (2) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties, showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (3) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.79chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
Procedural due process, though complied with in the case at bar, does not validate termination of employment |
The penalty of dismissal is not commensurate with the act committed |
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 20-33.
2 Id. at 34-42. Penned by Associate Just.ice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan.
3 Id. at 43-44. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan.
4 Id. at 46.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 40.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 47.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 47-48.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 58, 64-65.
27 Id. at 66-95, 96-116.
28 Id. at 56-63. Penned by Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido.
29 Id. at 60-62.
30 Id. at 62.
31 Id. at 63.
32 Id. at 124-137.
33 Id. at 45-52. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles (on leave) and Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto.
34 Id. at 52.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 138-145.
37 Id. at 53-55. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto.
38 Id. at 146-163.
39 Id. at 11-14.
40 Id. at 15-17.
41 Id. at 34-42.
42 Id. at 42.
43 Id. at 40.
44 Id. at 41.
45 Id. at 168-171.
46 Id. at 43-44.
47 Id. at 20-33.
48 Id. at 25-26.
49 Id. at 26.
50 Id. at 207.
51 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, G.R. No. 209437, March 17, 2021, citing Stanfilco – A Division of DOLE Philippines, Inc. v. Tequillo, G.R. No. 209735, July 17, 2019.
52 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra, citing Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio, 818 Phil. 321, 333 (2017).
53 Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. v. Noche, G.R. No. 202392, October 4, 2021.
54 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra, citing Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, 711 Phil. 576, 585 (2013).
55 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra.
56 Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300, 307-308 (2003); Vda. De Bacaling v. Laguna, 153 Phil. 524, 533-534 (1973).
57 Benito v. Commission on Elections, 402 Phil. 764, 773 (2001); Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998).
58 Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735, 774 (2001).
59 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra, citing Gabriel v. Petron Corporation, 829 Phil. 454, 462 (2018).
60 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra.
61 Id.
62 Id., citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Canja, 771 Phil. 169, 176 (2015).
63 Id., citing Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 443 (2015).
64 Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. v. De Luna, supra note 51.
65 Id., citing Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 434-435 (2015).
66 Rollo, p. 78.
67 Id. at 83-93.
68 Id. at 107.
69 Id. at 78.
70 Id. at 107.
71 Id. at 86.
72 Id. at 39, 78.
73 Id. at 39, 107.
74 Id. at 39-40, 83-93.
75 Id. at 40.
76 Presidential Decree No. 442 of 1974, as Amended and Renumbered. Entitled "LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES." Approved: May 1, 1974.
77 Empas v. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., G.R. No. 246176 (Notice), December 7, 2021, citing Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v. KMM-Katipunan, 815 Phil. 425, 435 (2017).
78 Empas v. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., supra, citing Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172, 181 (2014).
79 Empas v. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., supra, citing Sy v. Neat, Inc., 821 Phil. 751, 770 (2017).
80 Rollo, p. 40.
81 Id.
82 Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. National labor Relations Commission, 345 Phil. 1057, 1066 (1997), citing Oania v. National Labor Relations Commission, 314 Phil. 655, 655-656 (1995).
83 King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 114 (2007).
84 See LABOR CODE, Art. 292 [277]. It provides:
ARTICLE 292. [277] Miscellaneous Provisions. — x x x x(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself [or herself] with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. x x x (Emphasis supplied)x x x x85 See also Book V, Rule XXIII, Sec. 2 (I) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Approved: February 16, 1976. It provides:
Section 2. Standard of due process; requirements of notice. – In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed.I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in [Art] 282 of the Labor Code:86 Rollo, pp. 79, 81, 108, 113.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryx x x x
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his [or her] side; (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his [or her] evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him [or her]; and (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his [or her] termination.
87 Id. at 80, 82, 109, 114.
88 Id. at 83-93.
89 Id. at 94-95, 110-111, 115-116.
90 Sagales v. Rustan's Commercial Corporation, 592 Phil. 468, 482 (2008), citing Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), 316 Phil. 335, 343 (1995).
91 Rollo, p. 41.
92 Id. at 40.
93 Id. at 41.
94 Id.
95 Id.
96 ART. 294 [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. (Emphasis supplied)
97 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013). See also Dela Fuente v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 214419, November 17, 2021; Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. 204060, September 15, 2020.cralawredlibrary