0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
129 tayangan7 halaman
Dy was employed as a bodyguard for the president of Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation. He assaulted a co-worker and was paid ₱120,000 which the company claimed was separation pay. Dy claimed it was illegal dismissal. The labor tribunal and appellate court found Dy was dismissed for just cause due to the assault but that due process was not followed. The appellate court awarded back wages but treated the ₱120,000 as partial payment, denying claims for reinstatement and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled the ₱120,000 was sufficient as nominal damages and denied further claims.
Dy was employed as a bodyguard for the president of Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation. He assaulted a co-worker and was paid ₱120,000 which the company claimed was separation pay. Dy claimed it was illegal dismissal. The labor tribunal and appellate court found Dy was dismissed for just cause due to the assault but that due process was not followed. The appellate court awarded back wages but treated the ₱120,000 as partial payment, denying claims for reinstatement and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled the ₱120,000 was sufficient as nominal damages and denied further claims.
Dy was employed as a bodyguard for the president of Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation. He assaulted a co-worker and was paid ₱120,000 which the company claimed was separation pay. Dy claimed it was illegal dismissal. The labor tribunal and appellate court found Dy was dismissed for just cause due to the assault but that due process was not followed. The appellate court awarded back wages but treated the ₱120,000 as partial payment, denying claims for reinstatement and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled the ₱120,000 was sufficient as nominal damages and denied further claims.
vs. ANANIAS P. DY, G.R. No. 164860, February 2, 2010
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.
T!" Ca#"
This is a petition for review assailing the Decision promulgated on 30 ay 2003 of the !ourt of "ppeals #appellate court$ in !"%&.'. () *o. +2,-, as well as the 'esolution promulgated on . "ugust 200,. The appellate court partly granted the petition filed by respondent "nanias ). Dy #Dy$ and ruled that Dy was dismissed for /ust cause but was not entitled to reinstatement and separation pay. The appellate court ordered 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation and its )resident, )eter 3im, #petitioners$ to pay Dy bac4wages from the time of Dy5s termination on 16 ay 2000 up to the time of the finality of the decision less the amount of )120,000 which Dy received as separation pay.
T!" $a%&#
The appellate court narrated the facts as follows7
"nanias Dy #hereafter, 8D9:$ was employed at 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation #hereafter, the 8!;');'"T<;*:$. <n the course of his employment, he was assigned as the personal bodyguard of )eter 3im #hereafter, 83<:$, the )resident of the said !orporation. ;n 16 "pril 2000, in the presence of the !orporation5s employees and 3im, Dy mauled Du4e 1chiverri, a co%employee, within the premises of the principal office of the !orporation. Dy defied orders of 3im to stop mauling Du4e 1chiverri. Dy also threatened to 4ill the latter, and uttered that if he will be given monetary consideration, he will cease wor4ing in the company. &eraldine !han, (ecretary of the !orporation, e=ecuted an affidavit attesting to the fact of Dy5s utterance of his intention to resign from his /ob. Thereafter, Dy stopped reporting to wor4. (ubse2uently, Du4e 1chiverri filed criminal complaints against Dy for grave threats and less serious physical in/uries and the corresponding <nformations were filed before the unicipal Trial !ourt in !ities, andaue !ity. These cases were later dismissed upon motion filed by Du4e 1chiverri. " month after the mauling incident, on 16 ay 2000, 3im re2uested Dy to come to the office where he was confronted by 3im and >ellington 3im, 3im5s brother. Thereat, Dy was paid by >ellington 3im the amount of )120,000.00 as may be shown by (olidban4 andaue ?ranch !hec4 *o. !D 0-60+-0 dated 16 ay 2000 payable to cash, as separation pay.
;n 16 @une 2000, Dy filed a complaint before the *ational 3abor 'elations !ommission #*3'!$ 'egional "rbitration ?ranch A<< in !ebu !ity against petitioners for illegal dismissal and non%payment of labor standard benefits with claim for damages and attorney5s fees. The case was doc4eted as *3'! '"?%A<<< !ase *o. 0.%1003%2000.
T!" La'o( A(')&"(*# R+,)n-
1 <n his Decision dated 2- "ugust 2000, 3abor "rbiter 1rnesto F. !arreon #"rbiter !arreon$ dismissed Dy5s complaint for illegal dismissal because Dy stopped wor4ing when he was given separation pay of )120,000 "rbiter !arreon e=plained thus7
!omplainant Dy was not terminated from the service. The record reveals that complainant Dy mauled one Du4e 1chiverri even in the presence of respondent 3im who was his superior. !omplainant Dy apparently possesses violent character that even with the pacification made by his superior he continued on delivering fistic blows to his victim and even threatened him with death. "t present complainant Dy is facing criminal charges in the unicipal Trial !ourt of andaue !ity for his criminal acts. !omplainant Dy could have been validly dismissed for the said mauling incident because fighting in the company premises and disorderly or violent behavior are /ust causes for termination of employment. ?ut complainant Dy instead opted to stop wor4ing when given separation benefits in the amount of )120,000.00. <n a nutshell we find that in case of complainant Dy there is no dismissal let alone illegal dismissal to spea4 of.
The Fourth Division of the *3'! affirmed the ruling of "rbiter !arreon. <n its Decision promulgated on . @uly 2001, the *3'! stated that7
Thus as correctly found by the 3abor "rbiter, the mauling incident by itself was a valid ground to terminate complainant5s services considering that the victim was a manager and therefore a duly authoriBed representative of respondents. <t does not matter later on that the case was settled by the e=ecution of an affidavit of desistance because 8conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer and that the fact that a criminal complaint against the employee has been dropped by the !ity Fiscal is not binding and conclusive upon a labor tribunal.: #(tarlite )lastic <ndustrial !orp. vs. *3'!, 1+1 (!'" 31-$
oreover, records reveal that after the mauling incident which occurred on a 0oly >ednesday, complainant did not report to the office anymore. ?ut because he earlier intimated that he was willing to accept a separation pay, he was called to the office last ay 16, 2000 and was given a chec4 in the amount of ;ne 0undred Twenty Thousand #)120,000.00$ )esos. This was testified to by &eraldine !han, (ecretary of respondent 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation who e=ecuted a sworn statement to that effect #pp. 36%,0, 'ecords$. " copy of (olid ?an4 !hec4 *o. !D 0-6+-0 dated 16 ay 2000 in the amount of ;ne 0undred Twenty Thousand #)120,000.00$ somehow validated her statement #p. ,1, 'ecords$. Cnder these circumstances, >e find that the 3abor "rbiter did not err in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal.
<n its 'esolution promulgated on 20 @une 2002, the *3'! further stated7
'esignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reason cannot be sacrificed in favor of the e=igency of the service, then he has no other choice but to dissociate himself from his employment. 'esignation may be e=press or implied. ?y Dy5s acceptance of the amount of )120,000.00 on 16 ay 2000, he is deemed to have opted to terminate voluntarily his services with the respondent company.
Thus, complainant "nanias Dy was not illegally dismissed.
2 Dy assailed the *3'!5s decision and resolution before the appellate court. Dy imputed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac4 or e=cess of /urisdiction upon the *3'! for the following reasons7
1. There is not a single substantial evidence to prove that petitioner DDyE had actually resigned from his employment with private respondentsF
2. There is li4ewise not a single evidence to prove that petitioner DDyE had actually received the so%called separation pay of )120,000.00F
3. "s there is no substantial evidence to show petitioner DDyE had resigned from employment, public respondents therefore gravely abused their discretion in finding the contrary. Truth is, petitioner DDyE was actually illegally dismissed from employment as petitioner5s rights to substantive and procedural due process were grossly violated.
T!" D"%)#)on o. &!" A//",,a&" Co+(&
The appellate court ruled that Dy did not voluntarily resign from his employment, but there was a valid cause for Dy5s termination from employment. )etitioners, however, failed to observe due process in terminating Dy5s services. The appellate court decided that Dy was dismissed for /ust cause but was not entitled to reinstatement. The appellate court awarded Dy full bac4wages, computed from the time he was terminated until finality of the present Decision, but did not award separation pay. The amount of )120,000 given to Dy as supposed separation pay should be treated as partial payment of Dy5s bac4wages. The appellate court subse2uently denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in a 'esolution promulgated on . "ugust 200,.
T!" I##+"#
)etitioners raise the following issues in their petition7
1. The 0onorable !ourt of "ppeals committed a reversible error in finding that DDyE did not resign from his employment.
2. The 0onorable !ourt of "ppeals committed a reversible error in ordering the petitioners to pay DDyE his bac4wages from the time of his termination on ay 16, 2000 up to the time that its Decision becomes final.
T!" R+,)n- o. &!" Co+(&
The petition has partial merit. "lthough petitioners failed to show that the appellate court arbitrarily made factual findings and disregarded the 3 evidence on record, the amount of )120,000 paid by petitioners to Dy constitutes a sufficient award of nominal damages. The pertinent "rticles of the 3abor !ode read as follows7
"rt. 2G2. Termination by Employer. H "n employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes7
#a$ (erious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his wor4F
#b$ &ross and habitual neglect by the employee of his dutiesF
#c$ Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authoriBed representativeF
#d$ !ommission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authoriBed representativeF and
#e$ ;ther causes analogous to the foregoing.
"rt. 2G-. Termination by Employee. H #a$ "n employee may terminate without /ust cause the employee%employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one #1$ month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.
#b$ "n employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following /ust causes7
1. (erious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employeeF
2. <nhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representativeF
3. !ommission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his familyF and
,. ;ther causes analogous to any of the foregoing.
>e will not disturb the finding that Dy was the perpetrator in a mauling incident, as well as the ruling that Dy5s act is a /ust cause for termination. 0owever, we also observe that petitioners failed to accord Dy due process.
)etitioners assert that Dy intended to sever the employer%employee relationship by his mere failure to return to wor4. ;ne month after the mauling incident, petitioners summoned Dy to give him a chec4 worth )120,000 as separation pay. Dy, on the other hand, never gave a resignation letter to petitioners but instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against them.
)etitioners assert that Dy abandoned his wor4. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur7 #1$ the failure to report for wor4 or absence without valid or /ustifiable reason, and #2$ a clear intention to , sever the employer%employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. <n the present case, Dy reported for wor4 after the mauling incident only on 16 ay 2000, after petitioner 3im called him to the office. ;n the other hand, apart from Dy5s absence, petitioners failed to show any evidence of Dy5s clear intent to sever his ties with petitioners.
Dy, on the other hand, asserts that petitioners are guilty of illegal dismissal for failure to observe due process. Dy5s serious misconduct merited a written notice of termination from petitioners in accordance with (ection 2, 'ule II<<<, ?oo4 A of the ;mnibus 'ules <mplementing the 3abor !ode.
(ection 2. Standards of due process; requirements of due notice. H <n all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed7
<. For termination of employment based on /ust causes as defined in "rticle 2G2 of the !ode7
#a$ " written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to e=plain his sideF
#b$ " 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 evidence or rebut the evidence presented against himF and
#c$ " written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to /ustify his termination.
<n case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee5s last 4nown address.
oreover, the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal against the employer with a prayer for reinstatement shows that the employee was not abandoning his wor4.
<n an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. The employer must affirmatively show rationally ade2uate evidence that the dismissal was for a /ustifiable cause. Dy5s behavior constituted /ust cause. 0owever, petitioners cannot deny that they failed to observe due process. The law re2uires that the employer must furnish the wor4er sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected7 #1$ notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is soughtF and #2$ the subse2uent notice which informs the employee of the employer5s decision to dismiss him. Failure to comply with the re2uirements taints the dismissal with illegality.
)etitioners should thus indemnify Dy for their failure to observe the re2uirements of due process. Dy is not entitled to reinstatement, bac4wages - and attorney5s fees because Dy5s dismissal is for /ust cause but without due process. <n light of this !ourt5s ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, the violation of Dy5s right to statutory due process by petitioners, even if the dismissal was for a /ust cause, warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. This indemnity is intended not to penaliBe the employer but to vindicate or recogniBe the employee5s right to statutory due process which was violated by the employer. !onsidering that both the 3abor "rbiter and the *3'! found that petitioners already gave Dy )120,000 of their own free will, this amount should thus constitute the nominal damages due to Dy.
0HERE$ORE, we GRANT the petition. >e A$$IRM 1)&! MODI$ICATION the Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals promulgated on 30 ay 2003 in !"%&.'. () *o. +2,-, as well as the 'esolution promulgated on . "ugust 200,. The amount of )120,000 previously given by petitioners 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation and )eter 3im to respondent "nanias ). Dy constitutes the award of nominal damages. "lthough the amount of )120,000 e=ceeds the )30,000 normally given in similar cases, the e=cess paid by 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation and )eter 3im may be retained by "nanias ). Dy as voluntary and discretionary gratuity.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO "ssociate @ustice
0E CONCUR7
RENATO C. CORONA "ssociate @ustice
ARTURO D. 2RION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO "ssociate @ustice "ssociate @ustice
. 3OSE P. PERE4 "ssociate @ustice
ATTESTATION < attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO "ssociate @ustice !hairperson
CERTI$ICATION )ursuant to (ection 13, "rticle A<<< of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson5s "ttestation, < certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO !hief @ustice J Designated additional member per (pecial ;rder *o. G12. Cnder 'ule ,- of the 166+ 'ules of !ivil )rocedure. Rollo, pp. 3,%-2. )enned by "ssociate @ustice ?ienvenido 3. 'eyes with "ssociate @ustices (alvador @. AaldeB, @r. and Danilo ?. )ine, concurring. <d. at -,%-.. )enned by "ssociate @ustice ?ienvenido 3. 'eyes with "ssociate @ustices (alvador @. AaldeB, @r. and Danilo ?. )ine, concurring. <d. at 3-. <d. at 60. )enned by !ommissioner ?ernabe (. ?atuhan with )residing !ommissioner <renea ?. !eniBa and !ommissioner 1dgardo . 1nerlan, concurring. <d. at 11,%11-. <d. at 126. <d. at 13G. <d. at -,%-.. <d. at 1+%1G. Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, &.'. *o. 1103GG, 1, (eptember 166-, 2,G (!'" 1G3. (ee i!on v. National Labor Relations Commission" &.'. *o. +6--,, 1, December 16G6, 1G0 (!'" -2. #epsi$Cola %ottling Co. v. NLRC" &.'. *o. 101600, 23 @une 1662, 210 (!'" 2++, 2G.. (ee Nat& v. National Labor Relations Commission, &.'. *o. 122G.., 16 @une 166+, 2+, (!'" 3+6. &.'. *o. 1-G.63, 1+ *ovember 200,, ,,2 (!'" -+3. <d. at .1+. +