Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51715:gr-177647-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:07:07+00:00

Document:
U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, Petitioners, v. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO, Respondent.
Petitioner U-Bix Corporation (U-Bix) hired on March 6, 1996 Valerie Anne H. Hollero (respondent) as a management trainee at its Furniture Division, with salary and allowances totaling P10,000 monthly. On May 1, 1996, it promoted respondent to facilities manager, with salary and allowances totaling P20,000 monthly.
U-Bix later sent respondent and three other employees to the United States for two months of training for a newly acquired franchise, the ServiceMaster Company. The training commenced on July 4, 1996 and ended on September 3, 1996.
U-Bix in fact filed on May 22, 1997 a complaint 4 against respondent before the Labor Arbiter for the reimbursement of training expenses and damages. In its complaint, which was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-03696-97, U-Bix alleged that upon respondent's return from her training abroad, she demonstrated gross neglect of her duties as shown by her continued tardiness, habitual absences, and failure to submit reports and/or documents on their due dates, attention to which was repeatedly called but she persisted in such conduct; that on December 17, 1996, respondent's superiors discussed with her the duties and responsibilities of a facilities manager and the work performance standards expected of her, following which or on December 18 and 19, 1996, she did not report for work without prior notice; that on December 23, 1996, respondent's superior Bill Malfitano (Malfitano) handcarried to her residence a memorandum requiring her to explain in writing her unauthorized absences, with a warning that failure to respond within 24 hours from receipt thereof would be considered a waiver of her right to give her explanation; that respondent, however, failed and refused to submit any explanation, constraining U-Bix to terminate her employment; and that on April 24, 1997, U-Bix's counsel wrote respondent a letter 5 demanding the reimbursement of P187,510 training expenses but the same remained unheeded.
After her training abroad, she and her three other co-employees-trainees and an American manager who was assigned to the Philippines as part of the franchise agreement "started the set-up of the new franchise in the country." She organized the launching of U-Bix's subsidiary company (Facilities Managers, Inc.), trained personnel on ServiceMaster methods of cleaning and customer service, and distributed chemicals and equipment from the United States to the various U-Bix branches upon Malfitano's advice and guidance. And during the second week of December 1996, she headed the cleaning personnel in cleaning the production plant in Sucat, ParaÅˆaque which lasted up to midnight for three days.
On December 17, 1996, Malfitano met with the implementation team and discussed the various roles of each member thereof, since setting up stage was about to end and the duties and responsibilities of each member were being streamlined.
From December 18-19, 1996, respondent suffered from loose bowel movement, preventing her from reporting for work. She, however, failed to notify the company of her absence.
On the second day of her absence or on December 19, 1996, Malfitano visited her during which she explained to him that she had no way to communicate with the office except by telephone but that her neighbor's telephone was out of order. When she reported back for work on December 23, 1996, she was asked to explain why she did not advise the company of her failure to report for work on December 18 and 19, 1996. She reiterated her explanation given to Malfitano, apologizing for the inconvenience her absence caused the office.
On the same day that she reported for work on December 23, 1996, Malfitano advised her that he was recommending the termination of her services and asked her to, as she did, turn over her files and office keys. And he advised her not to report for work until further notice. She complied 8 and did not receive any word from U-Bix until the first week of March 1997 when she received a letter informing her of her dismissal effective February 14, 1997.
2. Ordering said respondent Valerie Anne H. Hollero to pay complainant U-Bix Corporation the amount of P187,510.00 with interest at 12% per annum, until fully paid, as discussed above.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed NLRC Resolutions dated July 12, 1999 and March 14, 2000 in NLRC NCR CA No. 018999-99 are hereby AFFIRMED with the clarification that NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-03696-97 is dismissed for lack of merit instead of lack of jurisdiction.
x x x IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VALID CAUSE FOR RESPONDENT HOLLERO'S DISMISSAL.
x x x IN RULING THAT PETITIONER U-BIX FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN TERMINATING RESPONDENT HOLLERO.
In the case at bar, petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations of respondent's habitual absenteeism, habitual tardiness, neglect of duties, and lack of interest. Daily time records, attendance records, or other documentary evidence attesting to these grounds could have readily been presented to support the allegations but none was.
Malfitano's memorandum to respondent dated December 12, 1996, or close to two weeks before she was asked on December 23, 1996 to turn over the keys, stating that her "leadership role in this implementation is critical to our success in meeting our customers' needs" 29 and she had "been introduced as the FMI manager responsible for our program implementation to the site coordinator at each of the U-Bix facilities," 30 belies U-Bix's allegations of her habitual absenteeism, habitual tardiness, neglect of duty, and lack of interest.
In this day where over-the-counter medicines abound for common ailments such as loose bowel movement, Hollero's story of unabated LBM to cause her to be absent for 4 consecutive days starting December 18 to December 21, 1996 is simply incredible. Wors[e], in this day and age of high technology and modern telecommunication facilities in Metro Manila, Hollero's pitiful story that she had no other means of communicating with petitioner U-Bix except thru her neighbor's busted phone is even more incredible.
there must be reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.36 Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee, and where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with so severe consequence.37 Thus in Zagala v. Mikado Philippines Corporation, 38 this Court found dismissal too severe a penalty on incurring of absences in excess of the allowable number.
Further, petitioners take respondent's failure to pray for reinstatement as an admission that her dismissal was valid.39 Such position glosses over respondent's explanation that reinstatement would not be feasible due to the strained relations between her and petitioners.40 Besides, the merits of a complaint for illegal dismissal do not depend on its prayer but on whether the employer discharges its burden of proving that the dismissal is valid.
In another vein, the Court finds that petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid dismissal. Respondent being a manager did not excuse them from observing such procedural requirements.
I am requesting that you send me a written explanation which satisfactorily addresses the two days you abandoned your management position without a call or any contact with the ServiceMASTER team or anyone within the U-Bix Organization.
The two days I am referring to are Wednesday, December 18, 1996 and Thursday, December 19, 1996.
The notice does not inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to her dismissal. It does not contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance nor categorically state the effect on her employment if the charges are proven to be true.42 It does not apprise respondent of possible dismissal should her explanation prove unsatisfactory. Besides, the petitioners did not even establish that respondent received the memorandum.
Neither did petitioners show that they conducted a hearing or conference during which respondent, with the assistance of counsel if she so desired, had opportunity to respond to the charge, present her evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against her.43 The meeting with respondent on December 23, 1996 did not satisfy the hearing requirement, for respondent was not given the opportunity to avail herself of counsel.
The legality of respondent's dismissal was, however, raised not by U-Bix's complaint but in respondent's Position Paper.46 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined from the allegations made in the complaint, and cannot be made to depend upon the defenses made by a defendant in his Answer or Motion to Dismiss.47 The jurisdiction of labor arbiters, as well as of the NLRC, is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreement.48 U-Bix's complaint was one to collect sum of money based on civil laws - on obligations and contract, not to enforce rights under the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or the collective bargaining agreement.
WHEREFORE, the January 8, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-03696-97 is dismissed, not for lack of merit but, for lack of jurisdiction.
1 NLRC records, p. 153.
13 Id. at 483. Vide at 350.
16 CA rollo, pp. 2-46.
17 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucas P. Bersamin. Id. at 421-429.
23 Vide Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Balbastro, G.R. No. 157202, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 233, 243; Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Shipper Maritime Service, Ltd., 440 Phil. 906, 917-918 (2002) (citations omitted).
24 Vide Salvador v. Philippine Mining Service Corporation, 443 Phil. 878, 892-893 (2003).
25 Vide Philippine Transmarine Carriers Inc., v. Carilla, G.R. No. 157975, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 586, 597-598.
26 Vide NLRC records, pp. 226-232.
31 Rollo, p. 36, 40-41.
32 Vide CA rollo, p. 36-37.
34 Vide Labor Code, Article 282 (b); Acebedo Optical v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 150171, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 655, 675.
36 Zagala v. Mikado Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 160863, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 581, 590.
38 Id. at 583, 592.
40 NLRC records, p. 350.
42 Vide Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., G.R. No. 143384, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 465, 477.
43 Vide Rules Implementing Book VI, Rule I, Section 2.
44 MaÅˆebo v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107721, January 10, 1994, 229 SCRA 240, 251.
45 CA rollo, p. 426.
46 Vide NLRC records, pp. 2-9, 74-85.
47 Vide Yusen Air and Sea Service Philippines, Inc. v. Villamor, G.R. No. 154060, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 167, 175 (citations omitted).
48 Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani, G.R. No. 109272, August 10, 1994, 235 SCRA 216, 221.

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