G.R. No. 71907. July 30, 1987
EDI-STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE SE…
PARAS, J.:
THIS IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO ANNUL AND SET ASIDE
THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT DEPUTY MINISTER WHICH AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
RESPONDENT DIRECTOR ON THE GROUND THAT THEY BOTH LACK THE JURISDICTION TO
SUMMARILY DECIDE THE COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL FILED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE:
ON DECEMBER 1, 1977, PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS HIRED BY THE
PETITIONER, A RECRUITMENT AGENCY, AS ASSISTANT CONSULTANT WITH AN INITIAL
SALARY OF P1,200.00 PER
MONTH. EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1978, SHE WAS GIVEN A PERMANENT
APPOINTMENT WITH AN ADJUSTED SALARY OF P1,400.00
PER MONTH (ANNEX I, POSITION PAPER).
ON JANUARY 1, 1979, SHE
WAS ENCOURAGED TO KEEP UP HER GOOD PERFORMANCE AND WAS PROMOTED TO THE POSITION
OF CONSULTANT WITH A SALARY OF P1,600.00
PER MONTH (ANNEX 2, POSITION
PAPER). EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 1979, HER SALARY WAS INCREASED TO P1,920.00 PER MONTH (ANNEX 3, POSITION PAPER). ON AUGUST 1, 1979, PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF
SUPERVISING CONSULTANT WITH AN ADJUSTED SALARY OF P2,400.00 PER MONTH (ANNEX
4, POSITION PAPER). WITHIN A SPAN
OF 8 MONTHS OR ON JANUARY 1, 1980 AND ON MAY 1, 1980, HER SALARY WAS INCREASED TO P2,860.00 AND P3,200.00 PER MONTH, RESPECTIVELY (ANNEXES 5 & 6, POSITION PAPER). ON JUNE 3,
1980, PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS SHE
WAS MADE IN-CHARGE OF THE RECRUITMENT SERVICES FOR CONSAPHIL (ANNEX 7, POSITION PAPER). FINALLY ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1980, SHE WAS PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF SENIOR SUPERVISING
CONSULTANT, A POSITION SHE OCCUPIED UNTIL HER TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT ON
JANUARY 19, 1981.
ON FEBRUARY 12, 1981,
PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED A COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AGAINST THE
PETITIONER WITH THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT. UPON RECEIPT OF THE SAID
COMPLAINT, RESPONDENT DIRECTOR TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE AND CALLED A
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE WHEREIN HE REQUIRED THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT THEIR
POSITION PAPERS (PAGE 4, PETITION). IN A 22-PAGE POSITION PAPER, PETITIONER CITED
SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT RESULTING IN
PETITIONER’S LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN HER. ON AUGUST 11, 1982, RESPONDENT DIRECTOR RENDERED A DECISION DECLARING THE
DISMISSAL TO BE ILLEGAL, THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF SAID DECISION READING:
“WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT
IS HEREBY ORDERED TO REINSTATE HEREIN COMPLAINANT TO HER POSITION WITHOUT
REDUCTION IN RANK AND WITH FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE TIME SHE WAS DISMISSED UP
TO HER ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE PRIVILEGES SHE USED TO ENJOY.
“SO ORDERED.” (PP. 4-5, PETITION)
ON FEBRUARY 25, 1985, RESPONDENT
DEPUTY MINISTER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT DIRECTOR, BUT MODIFIED
IT IN THE SENSE THAT THE GRANT OF BACK WAGES OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS FIXED
FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (PAGE 5, PETITION).
PETITIONER FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ASSAILING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE RESPONDENT DIRECTOR TO SUMMARILY DECIDE THE CASE, AS HE
SHOULD HAVE ENDORSED THE COMPLAINT TO THE LABOR ARBITER FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
UNDER ART. 217 OF THE LABOR CODE
(PP. 5-6, PETITION). RESPONDENT DEPUTY MINISTER DENIED THE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION.
HENCE, THIS PETITION, RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO SUMMARILY DECIDE THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE.
THE PETITION IS DEVOID OF MERIT.
ARTICLE 217 OF THE LABOR CODE CITED BY PETITIONER VESTING LABOR
ARBITERS WITH THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE TERMINATION CASES AND
WORKERS’ MONEY CLAIMS IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE SAID PROVISION
WAS THE RESULT OF AN AMENDMENT BY BATAS PAMPAMBANSA BLG. 130, WHICH TOOK
EFFECT ONLY ON AUGUST 21, 1981. PURSUANT
TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED AND ITS IMPLEMENTING
RULES AND REGULATIONS PREVAILING AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT SUBJECT OF THE
INSTANT PETITION WAS FILED, RESPONDENT DIRECTOR ACTED WELL WITHIN HIS POWERS
AND JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AND IN RESOLVING THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
CASE.
POLICY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 ISSUED IN BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT WHICH OUTLINED THE DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION OF LABOR CASES,
STATES:
“TO: ALL CONCERNED
SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION
OF JURISDICTION OVER LABOR CASE
“XXX XXX XXX
“1. THE FOLLOWING
CASES ARE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR:
XXX XXX XXX
“B) TERMINATION
CASES INVOLVING APPLICATIONS FOR CLEARANCE TO DISMISS OR SHUTDOWN AND THE
OPPOSITION IF ANY, THERETO OR COMPLAINTS OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.” (P. 50, ROLLO)
AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. MINISTER
OF LABOR, 113 SCRA 257 [1982] WHICH INVOLVED THE DISMISSAL OF AN
INSTRUCTOR AND A DEPARTMENT HEAD OF THE PETITIONING SCHOOL:
“XXX. THE RESPONDENT
REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS FULLY CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN HE SUMMARILY
INVESTIGATED THE CASE OF SEGURA INSTEAD OF SUBMITTING IT FOR COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION. POLICY INSTRUCTION NO. 14, ISSUED BY THE MINISTER OF
LABOR PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 850, READS IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
“1. THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR IS NOW REQUIRED TO RULE ON EVERY APPLICATION FOR CLEARANCE,
WHETHER THERE IS OPPOSITION OR NOT, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM RECEIPT THEREOF.
XXX XXX XXX
“4. THE SECOND
DUTY OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WHERE THERE IS OPPOSITION IS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO CERTIFY THE APPLICATION FOR CLEARANCE TO THE EXECUTIVE ARBITER OR TO
SUMMARILY INVESTIGATE AND DECIDE IT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM FILING. THE POLICY IS FOR THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO
CERTIFY A) IF THE NATURE OF THE CASE DOES NOT SUIT SUMMARY INVESTIGATION, OR B)
IF INTRICATE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE INVOLVED AS DETERMINED BY THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR. IF THE NATURE OF THE CASE
SUITS SUMMARY INVESTIGATION, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SHOULD SUMMARILY INVESTIGATE
AND DECIDE THE CASE. IF HE DOES NOT DENY
THE APPLICATION, HE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CERTIFY THE CASE TO THE EXECUTIVE
ARBITER FOR HEARING AND DECISION ON THE MERIT.” XXX
PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT BECAUSE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS A MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE, HER
TERMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF INEFFICIENCY,
RESULTING IN PETITIONER’S LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN HER, IS VALID AND JUSTIFIED.
THE CONTENTION IS MERITLESS.
TO BE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR DISMISSAL, LOSS OF CONFIDENCE SHOULD
NOT BE SIMULATED AND MAY NOT BE ARBITRARILY ASSERTED IN THE FACE OF
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY (GENERAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY VS. CA, 135 SCRA 569).
A CURSORY READING OF THE ASSAILED DECISION OF RESPONDENT DEPUTY
MINISTER REVEALS THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT CAUSE OR
BASIS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
DECISION READS, THUS:
“XXX IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, RESPONDENT SUBMITTED XEROX
COPIES OF VARIOUS OVERSEAS COMMUNICATIONS (ANNEXES “D” TO
“CC”) RECITING SEVERAL COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEMS ON RECRUITED WORKERS
AND THEIR OVERSEAS CLIENTS. THESE
DOCUMENTS, HOWEVER, ARE VAGUE AND GENERAL, AND DO NOT NECESSARILY POINT TO NOR
PROVE COMPLAINANT’S SHORTCOMING AND INEFFICIENCIES. NOTHING HAS BEEN ADDUCED SHOWING SPECIFICALLY
THAT SUCH PROBLEMS WERE DUE TO HER INEFFICIENCY OR NEGLIGENCE. BESIDES, ASSUMING, GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT
THESE WERE TRUE, THE SAME CANNOT FAIRLY BE LAID ENTIRELY UPON HER
DOORSTEPS. THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF
RESPONDENT CLEARLY SHOWS THE ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESPONSIBILITIES AND
SUPERVISION. AND THIS WAS ESPECIALLY
TRUE AFTER RESPONDENT’S ‘ANNOUNCEMENT’ OF 15
OCTOBER 1980 WHEREIN,
AMONG OTHERS, ANOTHER SUPERVISING CONSULTANT FOR RECRUITMENT, MR. DOMINGO O.
GOMEZ, JR. WAS APPOINTED, WHO WAS ‘RESPONSIBLE IN PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL
SELECTION/RECRUITMENT SERVICES TO CLIENTS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST‘ AND
WHO ‘SUPERVISE SENIOR CONSULTANTS WHO WILL HANDLE SERVICING OF CLIENT
COMPANIES’, WHILE HEREIN COMPLAINANT, AS SENIOR SUPERVISING CONSULTANT, WAS
RESPONSIBLE ONLY ‘FOR RECRUITMENT SERVICES OF HER GROUP’ AND ‘IN DEALING WITH
HER ASSIGNED CLIENTS’. AND HERE, IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROBLEMS INDICATED IN THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXES “D” TO “CC”, WHICH
DEALT MOSTLY WITH MIDDLE EAST RECRUITMENT PROBLEMS, OCCURRED BETWEEN NOVEMBER
AND DECEMBER 1980 OR AFTER THE
ABOVEMENTIONED ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW OFFICERS AND DELINEATION OF FUNCTIONS. XXX” (PP. 21-22, ROLLO)
MOREOVER, AS FOUND BY PUBLIC RESPONDENTS, THE GRANTING OF
PROMOTIONS AND SALARY INCREASES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER NEGATES OR
DISPROVES THE ALLEGATION THAT PETITIONER HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN HER.
WELL-SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT FINDINGS OF FACT OF LABOR OFFICIALS
ARE GENERALLY CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING UPON THE SUPREME COURT WHEN SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AS IN THIS CASE (MAMERTO VS. INCIONG, 118 SCRA 265).
WHEREFORE, THE ASSAILED DECISION IS HEREBY AFFIRMED, AND
THIS PETITION IS HEREBY
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.