Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81793:187232&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:44:01+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 187232, April 17, 2013 - ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION AND/OR FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, HONDA MOTOR SPORTS CORPORATION AND/OR FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, BETA MOTOR TRADING INCORPORATED AND/OR FELIPE DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, JIANSHE CYCLE WORLD INCORPORATED AND/OR JOSE B. DIEGO, Respondents.
ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION AND/OR FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, HONDA MOTOR SPORTS CORPORATION AND/OR FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, BETA MOTOR TRADING INCORPORATED AND/OR FELIPE DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, JIANSHE CYCLE WORLD INCORPORATED AND/OR JOSE B. DIEGO, Respondents.
The CA erred in concluding that respondents had timely filed their appeal with the NLRC.
In the case at bar, respondents filed a Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond, tendering the sum of P650,000 – instead of the P1,025,081.82 award stated in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter – because it was allegedly what respondents could afford, given the business losses they had suffered at that time.33 Upon the denial by the NLRC of this Motion, respondents promptly complied with its directive to post the differential in the amount of P122,801.66, which had been computed without including the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.34 Following the pronouncement in Pasig Cylinder, the CA was correct in holding that the appeal was timely filed on account of respondents’ substantial compliance with the requirement under Article 223.
In this case, the NLRC and the CA were in agreement that although Mendoza committed acts that amounted to breach of trust, the termination of her employment was not on that basis.39 Instead, both tribunals held that the parties parted amicably, with Mendoza evincing her voluntary intention to resign and respondents’ proposed settlement to pay her separation benefits.40 This Court does not agree with these findings in their entirety.
Whether Mendoza was a Chief Accountant of HMS Credit, as stated in her appointment letter,41 or a Finance Officer of all the corporations under the HMS Group, as claimed by respondents,42 what is certain is that she was a managerial employee. In securing this position, she fraudulently misrepresented her professional qualifications by stating in her Personal Information Sheet that she was a CPA. Based on the records, she never controverted this imputation of dishonesty or, at the very least, provided any explanation therefor. Thus, this deceitful action alone was sufficient basis for respondents’ loss of confidence in her as a managerial employee.
Moreover, the conclusion of the NLRC and the CA that Mendoza voluntarily resigned in consideration of respondents’ supposed payment of a settlement is bereft of any basis. The lower tribunals merely surmised that the parties forged a compromise agreement despite respondents’ own admission that they never decided thereon.45 In fact, the records are clear that none of the parties claimed the existence of any settlement in exchange for her resignation.
1Rollo, pp. 19-27. Penned by CA Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
2 Id. at 5, Petition; Id. at 88 and 129, Letter dated 19 August 1999.
3 CA rollo, p. 358, Memorandum [of Respondents] dated 3 September 2008.
5 Id. at 88, Letter dated 19 August 1999 of Luisa to Mendoza. Note that in the Reply to: Respondents’ Position Paper dated 12 August 2002, Mendoza indicated that Felipe was the President of Beta Motor. CA rollo, pp. 57-58.
6 Id. at 5, Petition.
10 CA Rollo, p. 55, Personal Information Sheet of Mendoza.
11Rollo, p. 255, Memorandum [of Respondents] dated 21 December 2009.
20 Id. at 157-159; CA rollo, pp. 123-126.
21Rollo, p. 21, CA Decision. Note, however, that in their Motion to Reduce Bond dated 25 May 2004, respondents alleged that they had posted a Supersedeas Bond in the amount of P1,025,081.82. CA rollo, pp. 318-320.
24 Id. at 62, 64-65.
26 CA Rollo, pp. 26-27, NLRC Resolution dated 28 November 2003.
27Rollo, pp. 19-27, CA Decision dated 14 November 2003.
31 G.R. No. 173631, 8 September 2010, 630 SCRA 320.
34 Id. at p. 21, CA Decision.
35Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines, 489 SCRA 483, 496-497.
36Mansion Printing Center v. Bitara, G.R. No. 168120, 25 January 2012.
37 G.R. No. 153982, 18 July 2011, 654 SCRA 18.
39Rollo, pp. 62-63, NLRC Decision; rollo, p. 26, CA Decision.
40 Id. at 63, 65, NLRC Decision; id. at 25, CA Decision.
41 Id. at 88, Letter dated 19 August 1999.
42 Id. at 57, NLRC Decision dated 30 September 2003.
44Nationwide Security and Allied Services v. Valderama, G.R. No. 186614, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 299, 307.
45 CA rollo, p. 140, Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated 28 October 2003.
46Agabon v. NLRC, 485 Phil. 248, 287-288.
48De Jesus v. Aquino, G.R. No. 164662, 18 February 2013.

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