MA. STELLA G. LEGASPI AND LIBERTINE G. TRONCOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SEVENTH DIVISION), VENTURESLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC. (REPRESENTED BY ITS PR…

Legaspi versus Ventureslink International

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Ma. Stella Legaspi and Libertine Troncoso against Ventureslink International, Inc., its president Petronilo Mercado, and its national operations manager Erickson Ravelo, together with the National Labor Relations Commission. The petitioners were Technical Training Consultants engaged to train the supervisors and technicians who would support the automated elections of May 2010, and they were terminated after they complained about the delayed release of their salaries. The case matters because it tests the boundary of an employee's right to seek redress: whether urging co-workers to sue the employer and threatening to expose the delay to the media can be a just cause for dismissal, and how far a reviewing court may re-examine the factual findings of the labor tribunals.

Procedural History

On February 18, 2010, Legaspi and Troncoso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter in Iloilo City. On December 3, 2010, the Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, holding Ventureslink liable for the unexpired portion of the contract, nominal damages for failure to observe procedural due process, and attorney's fees, in the aggregate sum of 139,920 pesos. Ventureslink appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Seventh Division, which reversed the Labor Arbiter. The Commission declared that the complainants were validly terminated, but ordered Ventureslink to pay each of them 20,000 pesos as nominal damages for failure to observe procedural due process. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, so they elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court initially dismissed the petition for procedural infirmities, later reinstated it upon a timely motion for reconsideration, and eventually declared the case submitted for decision.

Facts

Ventureslink, a marketing, human resource and service provider, was engaged by Smartmatic to train and supply supervisors and technicians for the 2010 automated elections. It hired Legaspi and Troncoso as Technical Training Consultants. To qualify, a trainer had to be Smartmatic-certified, which required passing a written examination on the PCOS machines and a simulation of actual training. In January 2010, the two went to Manila for training and passed with flying colors. They then signed a Technical Training Consultant Agreement and were told the engagement would run from the start of actual training until completion of the project, with the project period beginning February 1, 2010.

During the engagement, the petitioners reported early, met their attendance requirements, and submitted their reports punctually. For the first four days, when Ventureslink was short of two trainers, they handled their training rooms single-handedly without asking for extra compensation. They were paid on a weekly basis at 1,000 pesos per day plus a per diem of 200 pesos, with payment for a week's work released the following week, provided the consultants complied with their documentary deliverables.

On the afternoon of February 13, 2010, the lead trainer relayed the instruction to terminate the petitioners effective February 15, 2010. Because their agreement contained an abandonment clause exposing them to damages, they waited for a written notice. On the morning of February 17, 2010, a notice of termination signed by Ravelo was served on them by the very persons sent to replace them. The termination was immediate, without the fifteen-day notice stipulated in the agreement, and the notice stated no reason. Ventureslink, for its part, claimed the petitioners bad-mouthed the company over the delayed salaries, threatened to go to the media, and that their behavior was inimical to its interest.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter and finding that the petitioners were validly terminated.
• Whether or not there is substantial evidence on record to establish the petitioners' improper behavior and perverse attitude as a just cause for dismissal.
• Whether or not the petitioners' acts of urging fellow trainers to sue Ventureslink and of exposing the salary delay to the media constitute just causes for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer:

Article 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

This is the provision against which the petitioners' conduct must be measured, and the Court found that their acts fall under none of the enumerated causes.

Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution defines judicial power, which grounds the Court's authority to review the Commission's findings:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

This is the constitutional basis for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari against the labor tribunal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it may look into the records and re-examine the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission. Judicial review of the Commission's decisions is by petition for certiorari, and factual findings of labor officials, though generally accorded respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence, are not infallible. They may be examined when shown to have been arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence. Substantial evidence means the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

On the second issue, the Court found no substantial basis for the Commission's finding. Even setting aside the affidavit of the lead trainer, the sworn statements submitted by Ventureslink themselves showed only that the petitioners told their co-workers to sue the company and demand timely payment, and that the delay be reported to the media. The affidavits were bereft of any specific circumstance showing how, in what manner, and what specific statements were uttered. The Court reiterated that in termination disputes the burden of proving a lawful cause lies with the employer:

In termination disputes, the burden of proving that an employee had been dismissed for a lawful cause or that the exacting procedural requirements under the Labor Code had been complied with lies with the employer. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.

On the third issue, the Court held that nothing repugnant attaches to urging fellow trainers to sue for delayed salaries or to exposing the delay to the media. Employees are well within their right to seek redress for salaries already earned, and they enjoy the constitutionally protected freedom to express their views without violating the rights of third parties. Even if their actuation were deemed inimical to the employer's interest, dismissal is too harsh, for there must be reasonable proportionality between the infraction and the penalty. As fixed-term employees, the petitioners enjoyed security of tenure for the duration of their contract and could not be dismissed except for just cause and after due notice. Their termination not being for any just or authorized cause, it constituted illegal dismissal.

Doctrine

First, in illegal dismissal cases the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a lawful cause, and that the procedural requirements were complied with, rests on the employer; failure to discharge it makes the dismissal illegal. Second, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission are subject to judicial review through a petition for certiorari, and may be disregarded when not supported by substantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Third, an employee's act of urging co-workers to sue the employer for delayed salaries, or of exposing the delay to the media, is an exercise of the right to seek redress and of constitutionally protected expression, and is not a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Fourth, the penalty of dismissal must bear reasonable proportionality to the infraction. Fifth, fixed-term employees enjoy security of tenure for the duration of their contract and may be dismissed only for just cause and after due notice.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Commission's decision and resolution were annulled and set aside, and the Labor Arbiter's decision finding illegal dismissal and awarding 139,920 pesos was reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize this line: complaining about delayed salaries, urging co-workers to sue, and threatening media exposure are rights, not just causes for dismissal. Examiners use this case on the employer's burden of proof in illegal dismissal, on the substantial evidence standard for reviewing labor tribunals, and on the proportionality of penalties.