-
TodayisSunday,June28,2015
RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.87673January24,1992
MILAGROSI.DOLORES,petitioner,vs.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION(FIFTHDIVISION),SANMIGUELCORPORATIONandPETRONILOO.JULIANO,respondents.
G.R.No.88088January24,1992
SANMIGUELCORPORATION,petitioner,
vs.
THEHON.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSIONandMILAGROSI.DOLORES,respondents.
SiguionReyna,Montecillo&OngsiakoforSMCandP.Juliano.
PARAS,J.:
Thesepetitionswereconsolidatedpursuant to the resolutionof
thisCourtdatedJune5,1989 (p.83,Rollo,
inG.R.No.87673).Bothpetitionsseektoannulthedecision*oftheFifthDivisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission
(NLRC forbrevity)datedJanuary31,1989whichaffirmedwithmodification
thedecisionofLaborArbiterPacitadelRosariodatedJune30,1988inNLRCNCRCaseNo.242087entitled"MilagrosI.Doloresvs.SanMiguelCorporationandPetroniloO.Juliano",andthesubsequentresolutionofthesameCommissiondatedMarch8,1989whichdeniedtherespectiveMotionsforReconsiderationoftheparties.
Theantecedentfactsofthiscaseareasfollows:
MilagrosI.DoloreswashiredbySanMiguelCorporation(hereinafterreferredtoasSMCforbrevity)asChemistonAugust21,1965.ShewaspromotedtoSeniorChemistonOctober1,1973,thentoSeniorResearchChemistonDecember1,1976andfinally,toHead,TechnicalInformation,CorporateResearchandDevelopment(CR&D)onOctober29,1984.Duringherstint,shereceivedmerit
increasesduetohersatisfactory jobperformanceand the latest salary
increase in theamountofP1,285.00amonthwasgiven toheronJanuary,1986
forhertechnical competence and dedication as borne out by her 1985
Performance Appraisal. At the time of
herterminationonDecember1,1986,shewasreceivingamonthlysalaryofP7,715.00.
On September 16, 1986, she filed an application for leave of
absence for two (2) months, specifically
fromSeptember30toNovember28,1986inordertoattendasix(6)weekcourseinFrenchlanguageattheAlliancedeFranciasedeParis(France)atherownexpense.Pursuanttocompanyrulesandregulations,shesubmittedtwo(2)PersonnelLeaveAuthority
formscorrespondingto:(1)14daysvacationfromSeptember30toOctober16,1986(regularannualleave)and(2)341/2daysleavewithpermissionwithoutpay(LWOP)fromOctober17toNovember28,1986.ShesubmittedaformalrequesttogetherwiththesaidPersonnelLeaveAuthorityformstoherimmediatesuperiorDr.PetroniloO.Juliano,Asst.VicePresidentandDirector,CR&D,andfurnishedcopiesofsaidrequesttoMr.ManuelMendez,VicePresidentandManagerwhoistheimmediatesuperiorofDr.Juliano,andMr.J.Punsalang,MSE,PersonnelOfficer.
OnSeptember22,1986,Dr.JulianoissuedamemolimitingMs.Dolores'leavetoone(1)calendarmonthduetotheanticipatedheavyworkloadonthelastquarteroftheyearandreturnedherPersonnelLeaveAuthorityformstoberevisedaccordingly.Onthesameday,shesubmittedarequestforreconsiderationtogetherwiththetwo(2)PersonnelLeaveAuthorityformstoDr.Julianobecausethedurationofherintendedstudywouldexceedone(1)month.
On September 30, 1986,Ms. Dolores left for Paris, Francewithout
receiving any formal denial to
herrequestforreconsiderationandpromptlyreturnedtoManilaonNovember30,1986.
-
On her first working day on December 2, 1986, Mr. Conradino
Santos, Administrative Supervisor, CR & D,presented to her Dr.
Juliano's letter dated November 25, 1986 informing her of her
termination
effectiveDecember1,1986forallegedcontinuousabsencewithoutpermissionbutwithretirementbenefits.
On February 4, 1987, Milagros Dolores filed a complaint before
the NLRC challenging the propriety of
herdismissalwhichwasdocketedasNLRCNCRNo.242087.
TheLaborArbiterfoundthatthecircumstancesofthecasenegatetheexistenceofasufficient
justifiablecausefordismissalandorderedthepaymentofseparationpayandbackwagesaswellasactualandmoraldamages.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,respondentSanMiguelCorporationisherebyadjudgedtopaycomplainant
Milagros Dolores, the total sum of Two Hundred Eight ThousandOne
Hundred FiftySevenPesos(P208,157.00)computedasfollows:
Separationpay(P7,715/mo.x21years/2)=P81,007.00(Limited)Backwagesfor10mons.=77,150.00Damages(actualandmoral)=50,000.00P208,157.00
SOORDERED.
(pp.3819ofRolloinG.R.87673)
BothpartiesappealedtotheNLRCwhichrenderedthenowquestioneddecisionsustainingtheLaborArbiterbutdeletedtheawardofactualandmoraldamages,thedecretalportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated June 30,
1988 is hereby
AFFIRMEDexceptingtheawardofactualandmoraldamages.
SOORDERED.
(p.52ofRolloinG.R.No.87673)
BothpartiesfiledamotionforreconsiderationwhichwasdeniedinaresolutiondatedMarch8,1989whichreads:
After due consideration of Complainant's and Respondent's
Motions for Reconsideration
datedFebruary17,1989andFebruary27,1989respectively,thisCommission(FifthDivision)resolvedtodenythesameforlackofmerit.
Nofurthermotionforreconsiderationshallbeentertained.(p.53ofRollo,inG.R.87673)
MilagrosI.DoloresreceivedtheMarch8,1989ResolutionoftheNLRConMarch31,1989andfiledthepetitionwhichwasdocketedasG.R.No.87673.Ontheotherhand,SMCreceivedtheresolutiononApril18,1989andlikewisefiledapetitionforreviewwhichwasdocketedasG.R.No.88088.Asaforementioned,thisCourt,onJune5,1989,resolvedtoconsolidatethepetitions(p.83ofRolloinG.R.No.87673).
On July 31, 1989, theSecondDivision of thisCourt resolved to
dismiss both petitions for failure to
sufficientlyshowthattherespondentNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninrenderingthequestionedjudgment(p.99ofRollo,inG.R.No.87673p.179ofRolloinG.R.No.88088).
BothMilagrosI.DoloresandSMCfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheJuly31,1989resolutionofthisCourt.OnOctober9,1989,thisCourtgrantedthemotions,reinstatedbothpetitionsandrequiredthepartiestofiletheirconsolidatedreplies(p.150ofRolloinG.R.87673p.180ofRolloinG.R.No.88088).
Thepetitionsweregivenduecourse.
TheissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherornotpublicrespondentNLRCerredinfindingthedismissalofDolorestobe
without basis, in awarding separation pay, in lieu of
reinstatement, limited backwages and in deleting
theawardofdamagesinfavorofDolores.
ThefollowingistheLaborArbiterAtty.PacitaG.delRosario'sstudyandevaluationofthiscase:
At this point, deep analysis and consideration of the factors
surrounding the complainant'stermination is
inorder.Wearecognizantof the fact thatwhencomplainant
filedherapplication forleave, itwas for
thepurposeofpursuingherstudies in theFrench languageastudy
thatwould
-
taketwo(2)months,thusnecessitatinganequivalentperiodofleaveitwasalaudablepurpose,soto
speak a purpose that was beneficial to the respondent company too,
for unrefuted
iscomplainant'sclaimthatherknowledgeoftheFrenchlanguagecameinquitehandyinherworkasHead,TechnicalInformationCorporateResearch&Developmentandtherespondentcompanyhassavedsome,asitwassparedfrompayingfortranslationservices.
Unrefutedlikewiseweretheavermentsofthecomplainant:(a)thatthiswasherfirstleaveafterfour(4)
years and as per Personnel Policies and Procedure (which has not
been superseded
normodified)shewasentitledforathree(3)monthleaveifitwasfora"study"purposeand(b)thatshetrainedatechnicalinformationresearcherforfour(4)monthstotakeoverhertechnicaldutieswhileshewasonleave,anactionapparentlymade,to
laythegroundworkforher leave.Likewiseisthecomplainant'sallegation
thatafter filingherMotion forReconsiderationof
theapprovedonemonthleave, she failed to get any answer/result on
the same, so, went ahead and left for a
twomonthstudy.Apparently,complainantpresumed ingood faith,
thatsince therewasnodirect refusal
fromherimmediatesuperiorasregardsherMotionforReconsideration,(althoughrespondentclaimsthatshe
received the final refusal annotated on top of her Motion for
Reconsideration) she left
thecountry.Thencomplainantreturnedandstillreportedforworktheverynextday,onlytobefurnishedwith
the Memorandum of Termination. It should be noted that the said
Memorandum is datedNovember 25, 1986 and her termination effective
December 1, 1986. The haste with which
herdismissalwaseffectedcannotbeoverlookednot tospeakof
theuntoldmiseriesandshock itmusthavecausedhereincomplainant.
All these factors, taken in their proper context and buttressed
by the denial of the
employee'sprivilegetoamaximumthreemonthleaveasprovidedforinthePersonnelPoliciesandProceduresManual,negatestheexistenceofasufficient,justifiablecausefordismissal.
However,theonlydiscordantfactorofnotetoanotherwiseclearpictureofanarbitraryterminationofservice
is the fact that herein complainant is a topmanagerial official of
the company, one of theseveral employees on whose shoulders rests
the burden of running efficiently and smoothly therespondent's
business. She was the Head of the Technical Information, Corporate
Research &Development. Like any other top managerial employee,
she is tasked with a greater sense ofresponsibility and concern . .
. a higher degree of dedication to the job unlike other
ordinaryemployees.Inthisaspect,complainantwaswanting.EvenassumingthatrespondentdidnotfurnishcomplainantwithacopyoftheannotationdenialontopofherMotionforReconsiderationasattestedbythelackofhersignaturethereon,sheshouldnothavepresumedthisasacquiescencetohersaidMotion.
It behooves upon her, as a top executive, to find out the final
action on her Motion
forReconsiderationandclearwithherimmediatesuperioranyobstacle,immediateorotherwise,whichmay
possibly occur during her projected twomonth leave. Training for
four (4) months of areplacement
isnotasufficientmeasure.Complainantknewbeforehand thatshe'llbegone
for twomonthsandonlyamonth's leavewasapprovedbyher
immediatesuperior, the least thatcouldbedonewas to checkwithher
superior (whoworks in thesamedepartmentwithher) before
leaving(Rollo,G.R.No.87673,pp.3436).
Significantly, from theabove findingsof theLaborArbiterherself,
itwasestablished thatpetitioneremployee isone of the top ranking
officials of the company, tasked with greater responsibility and a
higher degree
ofdedicationtothejobunliketheotherordinaryemployeestowhomthefirstgroupoffactorswouldperhapsapply.Prudence
dictates that she should not have taken for granted that her motion
for reconsideration would
befavorablyactedupon.Shetookchancesandnowshehasnobodytoblamebutherselffortheconsequences.
Byandlarge,itappearsthatthisisnotasimplecaseofcontributorynegligenceonthepartofpetitionerDoloresbutan
infractionof
therulesandregulationsforwhichasatopmanagerialemployeesheshouldbethefirst
torespect.Insteadsheblatantlydisregardedtherules,absentedherselfwithoutpermissionfromhersuperior,whichisavalidgroundfortheimpositionofdisciplinaryactionincludingifwarrantedtheextremepenaltyofdismissal.
Employers, generally, are allowed a wider latitude of discretion
in terminating the employment of managerialpersonnel which by their
nature requires the employer's trust and confidence in a greater
degree than in
theordinaryrankandfileemployees.Consideringthefactthatshewasholdingamanagerialposition,herrefusaltoabidebythelawfulordersofheremployerswouldleadtoerosionoftrustandconfidencereposedonher.Lossofconfidenceisavalidgroundfordismissinganemployeeandproofbeyondreasonabledoubtisnotrequired.Allthatisneededisfortheemployertoestablishasufficientbasisforthedismissalofanemployee.(Cruzv.Medina,177SCRA565566[1989])
Furthermore,whenanemployeeacceptsapromotiontoamanagerialpositionortoanofficerequiringfull
trustand confidence she gives up some of the rigid guarantees
available to an ordinaryworker. Infractionwhich
ifcommittedbyotherswouldbeoverlookedorcondonedorpenaltiesmitigatedmaybevisitedwithmoreseriousdisciplinaryaction(MetroDrugCorporationvs.NLRC,143SCRA132[July28,1986]).
-
Dolores'pleathatundercompanyrules,sheisentitledtothreemonthsleavewithoutpayislikewiseunavailingassuchprivilege
isnotabsolutebutdiscretionary. Inhercasethe limitationtoonemonth
leavewasbasedontheanticipatedheavyworkloadwhichisunquestionablyavalidground.
ThereisnoquestionthatpetitionerDoloresisguiltyofbreachoftrustandviolationofcompanyrules,thepenaltyof
which ranges from reprimand to dismissal, depending on the gravity
of the offense. (Manila Electric Co. v.NLRC,175SCRA277[1989])
Nonetheless,consideringpetitionerDolores'21yearsofservicewithSanMiguelCorp.anditappearingthatthisisherfirstoffensewhichincidentallywasbeneficialtotheemployerforunrefutedisherclaimthatherstudyoftheFrenchlanguagesparedthecompanyfrompayingfortranslationservices,itappearsthatthepenaltyofdismissalwouldbetooharshunderthecircumstances.ThisCourthasheldtimeandagain,inanumberofdecisions,thatnotwithstandingtheexistenceofavalidcausefordismissal,suchasbreachoftrustbyanemployee,neverthelessdismissalshouldnotbeimposedasitistoosevereapenaltyifthelatterhasbeenemployedforaconsiderablelengthoftimeintheserviceofheremployer(ManilaElectricCo.v.NLRC,supra).Moreequitablytherefore,sheshouldbegrantedreinstatementbutwithoutdamages,consideringthegoodfaithof
theemployer indismissingtheemployee(ibid.)otherwise,
itwouldhavetheeffectofrewardingratherthanpunishingtheerringemployeeforheroffense.
Neither canSanMiguelCorp. be liable for actual andmoral damages
in the absence of proof that
therewasmaliceorbadfaithonthepartoftheformerinterminatingtheservicesofthelatter(Suarisv.BPI,176SCRA689[1989]).
Asearlierdiscussed,severaltelexmessagesandlettersweresenttoheraddressesbothhereinthePhilippinesand
abroad as early asOctober 21, 1986warning her that her permission
for leave had expired. It is
indeeddifficulttobelievethatshedidnotreceiveanyofthesenotices.Bethatasitmay,itwillberecalledthatsheleftforFrancethinkingthatpermissionhadbeengrantedfortwomonths.
PREMISESCONSIDERED, the assailed decision of theNational
LaborRelationsCommission
isMODIFIEDbyallowingreinstatementwithbackwagesfortwoyearsbutwithoutdamages.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera,RegaladoandNocon,JJ.,concur.
Padilla,J.,tooknopart.
Footnotes
*RenderedbyPresidingCommissionerLourdesC.JavierandCommissionerDaniloS.Lorredo.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
