ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
INC.
[RCPI],
G. R. No. 113178 July 5, 1996 -versus-NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
______________________________________
MARIO
DANILO B. VILLAFLORES,
G. R. No. 114777 July 5, 1996 -versus-NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
ROMERO, J.: The issue in these two consolidated[1] Petitions for Certiorari is whether or not Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. [RCPI] illegally terminated the services of its Assistant Vice-President for Management Services, Mario Danilo B. Villaflores, on the grounds of gross misconduct and loss of confidence. Villaflores was employed by RCPI on July 1, 1975. A Certified Public Accountant [CPA] who finished the law course while working, he also took units in Master of Laws at the University of Sto. Tomas. In the course of his employment, he became the Internal Auditor, Acting Assistant Vice President for Finance and Comptroller, and Assistant Vice President for Management Services. At the time of the incident here involved, Villaflores was receiving P8,200.00 as basic monthly salary and representation and transportation allowances of P5,300.00.cralaw:red As determined by Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec and affirmed on appeal by the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC], the facts which gave rise to these petitions are as follows: German Bernardo
Mattus was hired by RCPI on July
2, 1990 as manager of its Management Information System Department. He
was under the division of Villaflores but he was required to report
directly
to Norberto T. Braga, the Executive Vice President [EVP] for Corporate
Services.
On October 29, 1990, Mattus posted a copy of an invitation to a computer seminar on the bulletin board without having sought the permission of Villaflores. When the latter arrived and saw the poster, he asked his secretary, Lydia Henares, to remove it. When Mattus learned of its removal, he took the poster from Lydia Henares and sought out Villaflores.cralaw:red Mattus found Villaflores at work in the computer room. He said: "Ano ba ito, Danny?" Villaflores replied: "Hindi puede," at the same time, getting a stapler with the apparent intention of throwing it at Mattus. When a co-employee grabbed the stapler from Villaflores, the latter snatched the poster from Mattus, tore and crumpled it, and threw the pieces at Mattus but missed. Had it not been for the timely intervention of the other employees present, the two would have assaulted each other. As Mattus was leaving the room, Villaflores shouted invectives such as "bullshit ka," "baboy ka" and "gago ka" at him.cralaw:red On the same day, Mattus lodged a complaint against Villaflores for: [a] conduct unbecoming of an assistant vice-president of the company; [b] threatening a subordinate with physical injury; and [c] shouting invectives at a subordinate in the presence of the Management Services Staff.[2] The next day, EVP Braga asked Villaflores to explain why no administrative action should be taken against him "for provoking and instigating a fight within company premises, using abusive and dirty language directed to your Manager, and for threatening the MIS Manager."[3] In his explanation, Villaflores claimed that after he had instructed his secretary to remove all the publications posted on the bulletin board, Mattus rushed into the computer room and shouted at the top of his voice, "Ano ito, Danny?" Mattus, who was bigger than Villaflores, allegedly attempted to attack him but was prevented by co-employees from doing so. Villaflores admitted having uttered "shit, baboy" but these were mere expressions of disgust at, and by way of objecting to, the imminent attack against his person and dignity.[4] The RCPI management scheduled a formal investigation and summoned several employees who witnessed the incident. Both parties, however, agreed to forego the "trial-type" investigation opting instead to submit their formal explanations. Mattus submitted his explanation on November 13, 1990 while Villaflores submitted his own on November 26, 1990.cralaw:red On December 10, 1990, RCPI, through EVP Braga, placed Villaflores under preventive suspension, at the same time giving him a final chance to explain further "why no drastic administrative action should be taken against him for serious misconduct" and "for acts unbecoming of a company official."[5] On December 13, 1990, Villaflores submitted his final explanation.[6] After investigation and personally evaluating all the evidence presented by both parties, EVP Braga issued a memorandum dated January 18, 1991 advising Villaflores of the termination of his services effective December 10, 1990 on grounds of gross misconduct unbecoming of a company official in gross violation of Rules 52, 53 and 55 of the Company Rules and Regulatory.[7] As a consequence, the company had lost trust and confidence in him.[8] On December 19, 1990, several of Villaflores' co-employees wrote Braga a letter stating that the penalty imposed upon Villaflores appeared "to be not commensurate and too harsh a penalty for the alleged offense committed" and praying that the penalty imposed upon Villaflores be reconsidered,[9] but the plea was ignored.cralaw:red On January 25, 1991, Villaflores filed before the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] Arbitration Branch in the National Capital Region, a complaint against RCPI for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, illegal deduction of allowances and nonpayment of 13th month pay with claim for moral damages of P1,000,000.00, exemplary damages of P200,000.00 and attorney's fees of P100,000.00.[10] On November 4, 1992, Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision, the pertinent portions of which read:
Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed of the case as follows:
On August 30, 1993, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision except that it found the claim of Villaflores for bi-monthly allowance of P250.00 to be without legal basis. Both parties elevated the case to this Court on separate Petitions for Certiorari which were ordered consolidated by the Court in its resolutions dated May 25, 1994 in G. R. No. 114777.cralaw:red In its petition in G. R. No. 113178, RCPI and it officials asserts that Villaflores should have been found guilty of serious or grave misconduct which warrants his termination from employment. On the other hand, in G. R. No. 114777, Villaflores insists that, not only should he be reinstated, but that he should have been awarded damages and the bi-monthly allowance of P250.00.cralaw:red Additionally, petitioners RCPI and its officials contend that public respondents' findings are contrary to law and jurisprudence as they are based on a misappreciation of facts. They insist that the unauthorized posting of the invitation to a computer seminar by Mattus is a "trivial matter which could not justify the actuations" of Villaflores considering his educational attainment and position in the company. Specifically, the public respondents' finding on the "barging into the room" by Mattus is as "implausible" as it is "counter to common human experience for a new employee" like him to be "overbearing in his attitude and start trouble in his new job."[11] In effect, therefore, petitioners impugn the evaluation by public respondents of the facts proven by the parties.cralaw:red Said petitioners' objection to the findings of fact of public respondents is naturally impelled by the latter's variance from the result of their own investigation. Although the investigation by petitioners in G. R. No. 113178 appears on its face to be above board, an employer's findings and conclusion as to whether an act of an employee constitutes serious misconduct or not should not be considered conclusive. The investigation of the incident was conducted by petitioner EVP Norberto T. Braga. While no solid evidence was presented to show that Braga was partial to Mattus at the investigation, petitioners do not disclaim the fact that Mattus was ordered to report directly to Braga upon his employment. In fact, it was Braga himself who allegedly made "constant suggestion" to Mattus on the posting of the invitation.[12] His impartiality may, therefore, be open to question.cralaw:red On the other hand, substantial evidence support the public respondents' findings, particularly the sworn statements of at least seven [7] eyewitnesses to the incident in addition to written explanations of both Mattus and Villaflores. While the use of the phrase "barge in" by the Labor Arbiter may imply brashness and aggression on the part of Mattus, the same is the conclusion that may be gleaned from the affidavits of the co-employees who witnessed the incident.cralaw:red In a long line of cases, this Court has consistently accorded great respect to the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. As long as their decision is supported by facts and the evidence, the matter of evaluating the merits and demerits of the case is left to their sound discretion[13] and, in the absence of any arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence adduced, their findings may not be left at issue before this Court.[14] Petitioner Villaflores contends in G. R. No. 114777 that he "merely responded to the aggression against him to protect himself" and that his "act of defending himself cannot and should not be held to be misconduct since the law protects such acts as privileged"[15] in accordance with the law which considers self-defense as a justifying and exempting circumstance in criminal cases.[16] Petitioner adds that neither may his act of "self-defense" be the basis of loss of confidence; otherwise, employers may "use agents-provocateurs to assault its unwanted employees." Petitioner
Villaflores' contention is as far-fetched
as it is unfounded. The public respondents themselves did not find the
element of self-defense existing in this case. All they found was that
Mattus "barged in" in the room where Villaflores was working. Although
its was proven that Mattus was almost twice the size of Villaflores,
there
was no proof that in "barging in," Mattus meant to physically harm
Villaflores.
While there is no clear and convincing evidence[18] that petitioner's employer has lost trust and confidence in him on account of the October 29, 1990 incident, it has presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the working relationship between them has become so strained that reinstatement may well exacerbate what, to the company, has degenerated into an untenable situation between them. Petitioner Villaflores failed to rebut the following allegations of his employer:
However, if petitioner Villaflores were indeed as inept as pictured by Braga, the company should have terminated his employment early on. By its failure to take seasonable steps for its "self-preservation," the company may not now claim all previous infractions allegedly committed by Villaflores as contributory reasons for dismissing him. After all, the immediate cause of his dismissal was the incident with Mattus, obviously a Braga protege. As such, in the interest of both the company and Villaflores, in lieu of reinstatement, he shall receive separation pay of one month for every year of service or as provided for in the then prevailing collective bargaining agreement, whichever would result in a higher award.cralaw:red There being no evident support for the claim of petitioner Villaflores for damages, the same was correctly denied by public respondents. In the same spirit, neither may he be allowed the P250.00 monthly increase in allowance in view of the unrebutted allegation of petitioner company that it was erroneously granted to him.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the NLRC is hereby affirmed subject to the modification that Mario Danilo B. Villaflores shall be entitled to back wages from the time his compensation was withheld by the company until the finality of this Decision.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Regalado, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red ________________________________
[1]
Per Resolution of May 25, 1994 in G. R. No. 114777, Rollo, p. 60.
|
|