Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82096:g-r-no-185549,-august-07,-2013-vicente-ang,-petitioner,-v-ceferino-san-joaquin,-jr-,-and-diosdado-fernandez,-respondents&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:05:38+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 185549, August 07, 2013 - VICENTE ANG, Petitioner, v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR., AND DIOSDADO FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
VICENTE ANG, Petitioner, v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR., AND DIOSDADO FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
The employer’s act of tearing to pieces the employee’s time card may be considered an outright – not only symbolic – termination of the parties’ employment relationship.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the August 29, 2008 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75545 which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari3 in said case, as well as its December 4, 2008 Resolution4 denying reconsideration thereof.
On August 24, 1999, respondents attended the court hearing relative to the 41 criminal cases filed by former Virose employee Daniel Abrera (Abrera) against Ang for the latter’s non-remittance of Social Security System (SSS) contributions.9 During that hearing, respondents testified against Ang; it was the second time for San Joaquin to testify, while it was Fernandez’s first.10 Previously, respondents joined Abrera in questioning Ang’s procedure in remitting their SSS contributions.11 After the said hearing Ang began to treat respondents with hostility and antagonism.
On August 31, 1999, respondents filed against Ang Complaints for illegal constructive dismissal with claims for backwages and separation pay.16 The Complaints were docketed as NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-1-07-8-0175-99 Pang.
In his Position Paper,27 Ang claimed that respondents were disrespectful, disobedient, and that they abandoned their employment, went on absence without leave (AWOL), and failed to respond to his memoranda. They were thus accordingly dismissed for cause, and were not entitled to backwages, separation pay, damages and attorney’s fees. He prayed for the dismissal of the case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Labor Arbiter held that respondents were unable to show how Ang discriminated against them. He pointed out that respondents cited only two instances of alleged discrimination/reprisal committed against them: the August 28, 1999 incident regarding the transfer of the monobloc chairs and Fernandez’s failure to find his DTR when he reported for work following receipt of the September 13, 1999 memorandum; but these were not acts of discrimination/ reprisal. The Labor Arbiter found that the order to transfer the chairs to Rosa’s restaurant was reasonable considering the exigencies of the moment, and the order was given by the Virose salesclerk; on the contrary, San Joaquin was guilty of insubordination in not carrying out a reasonable order of his employer. As for Fernandez, the Labor Arbiter held that the loss of his time card is not sufficient reason to suppose that his employment had been terminated. Fernandez should have approached the person charged with keeping his time cards so that a new one could be issued, but he did not do so.
The Labor Arbiter added that Ang’s issuance of the memoranda does not constitute an afterthought, since it has not been shown that they were issued with knowledge that respondents previously filed Complaints on August 31, 1999. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter found that Ang correctly assumed that respondents were no longer interested in resuming their employment, when they failed to respond to his memoranda and did not report for work.
Finally, the Labor Arbiter concluded that respondents were guilty of abandonment of work, and that their accusation of constructive dismissal was false. As such, respondents were not entitled to the awards as prayed for in their Complaints.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED and complainants’ appeal therefrom is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The NLRC declared that there was no constructive dismissal. It held that respondents failed to prove that they were constructively dismissed; nor do the facts of the case sufficiently show that they were constructively dismissed from employment.
Respondents moved for reconsideration,33 but in a November 22, 2002 Resolution,34 the NLRC denied the same.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, finding that petitioners Ceferino San Joaquin and Diosdado A. Fernandez were illegally dismissed, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The 30 September 2002 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Attorney’s fees in the amount of ten (10) percent of the total amount awarded to petitioners.
This case is hereby remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission for the proper computation of the awards hereinstated, with DISPATCH.
The CA found unreasonble San Joaquin’s assignment to perform tasks related to Ang’s other businesses, specifically Rosa’s restaurant. It held that assigning San Joaquin to transfer Virose’s monobloc chairs for use by Leng-Leng’s Foodshop was improper as it was beyond San Joaquin’s scope of work.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,43 but in its December 4, 2008 Resolution,44 the CA stood firm in its stance. Hence, the present Petition.
THE QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION WHICH AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE LABOR ARBITER AND ORDERING HEREIN PETITIONER TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.
In his Petition and Reply,46 petitioner insists that respondents abandoned their employment; that they are guilty of gross insubordination/disobedience and misconduct, given the manner they conducted themselves during the period in question. He cites that contrary to the CA pronouncement, San Joaquin was an all-around helper who could not refuse to carry out the August 28, 1999 order to transfer monobloc chairs from Virose to Leng-Leng’s Foodshop, such being within the scope of San Joaquin’s work. Petitioner accuses San Joaquin of arrogance and disrespect when after refusing to carry out the order, the latter shouted invectives at petitioner’s wife, Rosa, and left the workplace. His dismissal from employment was thus justified.
Petitioner further cites that he provided housing and assistance to San Joaquin, his cousin; and yet the latter abused petitioner’s generosity and rewarded the latter with acts of ingratitude and disrespect.
Petitioner insists that Fernandez abandoned his employment when, after receiving the August 30, 1999 memorandum of suspension for his alleged insubordination and serving out the same, he failed to report for work; and in spite of the September 13, 1999 memorandum ordering him to return to work, Fernandez continued to absent himself from the store. Petitioner likewise charges Fernandez with gross misconduct for the September 5, 1999 incident.
Petitioner claims that his argument that abandonment exists is bolstered by the fact that respondents’ respective Complaint and Position Paper contain no prayer for reinstatement.
In their Comment,47 respondents cite procedural errors, specifically that the attached copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA were not certified by the appellate court’s Clerk of Court and that the same contained no certification that they were from original copies on file. They echo the appellate court’s finding of illegal constructive dismissal, and implore the Court to consider their length of service and lack of a derogatory record. They beg the Court to consider Ang’s oppressive conduct which is tied to the criminal cases where they stood as witnesses against the latter, and how such behavior made life in the workplace unbearable for them, which should justify an affirmance of the assailed disposition.
The Court affirms the CA ruling.
The Court opts to forego the matter of procedural errors attributed by respondents. This is a labor case whose substantive issues must be addressed, more than anything else. Besides, the nature of the alleged procedural infirmity cannot prod the Court to dismiss the Petition outright without first considering its merits.
When there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA, there is a need to review the records.48 In the present case, not only is there a divergence of findings of facts; the conclusions arrived at by the two tribunals are diametrically opposed. For this reason, the doctrine that the findings of specialized administrative agencies or tribunals should be respected must be set aside for a moment.
There is considerable reason to believe that Ang began to treat respondents with disdain and discrimination after the hearing of the criminal cases on August 24, 1999, where respondents testified against him. Indeed, respondents’ claim in their Position Paper that Ang began to subject them to verbal abuse, as well as assigning them tasks which were not part of their work, is not far-fetched. All these, respondents claim, are rooted in the 41 charges of estafa pending against Ang, where they were compelled to testify as witnesses for the State. Ang did not successfully dispute this claim; indeed, on this issue, he has remained silent all along. His silence on this issue is telling; considering that upon him lay the burden of proof to show that no illegal dismissal was effected. He should have addressed this issue, which is material and significant to the case as it forms the foundation for respondents’ claim of illegal constructive dismissal.
The Court has held before that the filing of criminal charges by and between the employer and employee confirms the existence of strained relations between them.49 In the instant case, Ang is in danger of being punished for the alleged commission of 41 counts of estafa; worse, respondents testified against him while they were under his employ, and they join the complainant in said cases in accusing Ang of irregularities relative to the remittance of their SSS contributions. Ang could not reasonably be expected to thank respondents for it, yet he may not be allowed to treat them oppressively either. Nevertheless, the existence of the criminal charges and respondents’ testifying against petitioner prove that their relations have been strained, and that respondents’ allegations of oppression and abuse are not without basis. It thus became incumbent upon Ang to dispute such claims.
This is not to say that respondents’ behavior toward Ang should be condoned; indeed it is deplorable that an employee should shout invectives against his employer or that he should show up in the workplace in an intoxicated state. However, this only characterizes the extent to which their employer-employee relationship had degenerated, owing to vindictive and oppressive acts perpetrated by the employer. Indeed, it is inconceivable that respondents would suddenly take such a belligerent stance toward petitioner for no reason at all; more so if it indeed is true that Ang provided the land and housing of San Joaquin. Certainly, San Joaquin would not sacrifice his blessings and dare go against Ang – his cousin and provider of employment and shelter – unless he is pushed to the wall by the latter. Yet while gross and abusive conduct on the part of respondents is not tolerated, the Court notes that petitioner’s treatment of respondents is equally unacceptable, and is tantamount to constructive dismissal.
The CA is correct in its pronouncement that respondents were constructively dismissed from work. Moreover, by destroying respondents’ time cards, Ang discontinued and severed his relationship with respondents. The purpose of a time record is to show an employee’s attendance in office for work and to be paid accordingly, taking into account the policy of “no work, no pay”. A daily time record is primarily intended to prevent damage or loss to the employer, which could result in instances where it pays an employee for no work done;56 it is a mandatory requirement for inclusion in the payroll, and in the absence of an employment agreement, it constitutes evidence of employment. Thus, when Ang tore the respondents’ time cards to pieces, he virtually removed them from Virose’s payroll and erased all vestiges of respondents’ employment; respondents were effectively dismissed from work. The act may be considered an outright – not only symbolic – termination of the parties’ employment relationship; the “last straw that finally broke the camel’s back”, as respondents put it in their Position Paper.
In addition, such tearing of respondents’ time cards confirms petitioner’s vindictive nature and oppressive conduct, as well as his reckless disregard for respondents’ rights.
For a termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be valid, the employer “must prove, by substantial evidence, the concurrence of [the employee’s] failure to report for work for no valid reason and his categorical intention to discontinue employment.”57 In the present case, it appears that there is no intention to abandon employment; respondents’ repeated absence were caused by Ang’s oppressive treatment and indifference which respondents simply grew tired of and wanted a break from. Indeed, an employee cannot be expected to work efficiently in an atmosphere where the employer’s hostility pervades; certainly, it is too stressful and depressing – the threat of immediate termination from work, if not aggression, is a heavy burden carried on the employee’s shoulder. Respondents may have stayed away from work to cool off, but not necessarily to abandon their employment. The fact remains that respondents returned to work, but then their time cards had been torn to pieces.
Respondents could not be faulted for failing to submit their respective replies to the petitioner’s memoranda. By the time they were notified of the same, the labor Complaints had been filed; not to mention that their cause of action is based on constructive dismissal, which they claim occurred even prior to their receipt of the subject memoranda. With the filing of their labor case, the submission of replies to the petitioner’s memoranda became an unnecessary exercise.
Likewise, while respondents did not pray for reinstatement, this is no valid indication that they abandoned their employment. It is, on the other hand, proof of strained relations, such that they would seek separation pay and risk unemployment, rather than fight for their reinstatement and maintain themselves under petitioner’s employ.
Finally, interest at the rate of 6% per annum must be imposed in accordance with Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas which took effect July 1, 2013.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The August 29, 2008 Decision and the December 4, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75545 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total monetary awards from finality of this Decision until full payment is hereby imposed.
2 CA rollo, pp. 141-166; penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong and concurred in by Associate Justices Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal.
13 Id. at 25, 72.
31 Id. at 141-145; penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo.
34 Id. at 182-183; penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Ireneo B. Bernardo and Tito F. Genilo.
35 CA rollo, pp. 2-26.
37 Id. at 164-165. Emphases in the original.
39 Id., citing Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 706, 714 (2000).
40 Id. at 156, citing Masagana Concrete Products v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 459, 478 (1999).
41 Id. at 156-157, citing Blue Dairy Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999).
42 Id. at 157, citing Hantex Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 737, 746 (2002).
48Best Wear Garments v. De Lemos, G.R. No. 191281, December 5, 2012.
49RDS Trucking v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 122, 131 (1998).
51Galang v. Malasugui, G.R. No. 174173, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 622, 634-635.
53Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy, 412 Phil. 295, 306 (2001).
54Gilles v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149273, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 298, 316.
55Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Incorporated, G.R. No. 191053, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 438, 446.
56 See Layug v. Sandiganbayan, 392 Phil. 691, 707 (2000), citing Beradio v. Court of Appeals, 191 Phil. 153, 168 (1981).
57Martinez v. B&B Fish Broker, G.R. No. 179985, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 691, 696.
58Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 110, 118.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.