TELEPERFORMANCE PHILS., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), AND JENNIBETH MARCOS, RESPONDENTS.

Teleperformance Philippines versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case that reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review after the Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals ruled in favor of an employee, Jennibeth Marcos, who claimed she was illegally dismissed by her employer, Teleperformance Philippines. The decision before us, however, is not the principal judgment on the dismissal itself but the Court's resolution denying the employee's motion for reconsideration of a decision that had already granted the employer's petition, reversed the National Labor Relations Commission, and dismissed the complaint. The case matters for the bar candidate because it teaches two durable lessons: the standards for valid notice of dismissal and the procedural rule that a party may not raise a new theory for the first time on reconsideration.

Procedural History

The employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint. The employee then went up to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's ruling in her favor. The employer elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review. In a decision dated July 26, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the employer's petition, reversed and set aside the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission, and dismissed the complaint. The employee moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that she never received the notices and letters the employer had sent because they were addressed to a different address than the one reflected on her company identification card. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and that denial is the ruling now before us.

Facts

Teleperformance Philippines employed Jennibeth Marcos. At some point the employer sent notices and letters to her at an address in Mandaluyong City. The employee later claimed that her true address, as reflected on her company identification card, was in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and that she never received any of the notices or letters because they were sent to the Mandaluyong address.

The employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled for her, but the National Labor Relations Commission reversed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's ruling. The Supreme Court, in its decision of July 26, 2013, granted the employer's petition, reversed and set aside the National Labor Relations Commission resolutions, and dismissed the complaint.

The employee then filed a motion for reconsideration, raising for the first time the argument that the notices and letters had been sent to the wrong address. The Court noted that throughout the proceedings, from the Labor Arbiter up to the Supreme Court, she had never questioned the sending of the notices to an address different from the one on her company identification card. The Court found no cogent reason to depart from its earlier decision and denied the motion.

Issues

• Whether or not the employee's motion for reconsideration should be granted on the ground that she never received the notices and letters because they were sent to an address different from the one reflected on her company identification card.
• Whether or not the issue of the wrong address may be raised for the first time on motion for reconsideration after it was never questioned in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the other issues raised in the motion for reconsideration present a novel issue that would merit reconsideration of the decision.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the settled procedural rule that a party may not raise a new issue for the first time on motion for reconsideration, and it applies the rule on the binding effect of the findings of the Court once made in a decision that has become final in its disposition. The decision also rests on the principle that the address to which notices were sent, when never questioned in the earlier proceedings, is presumed to be the employee's last known address.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the employee's claim of non-receipt of the notices and letters because they were sent to the wrong address cannot be entertained. The Court reasoned that it was only in her motion for reconsideration that she questioned the sending of the notices to an alleged incorrect address. All throughout the proceedings, from the Labor Arbiter up to the Supreme Court, she never questioned the sending of the notices to an address different from that reflected on her company identification card. If the notices had indeed been sent to the wrong address, she could have disproved the employer's claim by the mere expedient of pointing out the error in her pleadings before the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and even before the Supreme Court. She failed to do so for reasons unknown, and the Court was therefore constrained to believe that she did not raise the issue because the address reflected in the notices was her last known address.

On the second issue, the Court held that the new theory of wrong address cannot be raised for the first time on reconsideration. The Court emphasized that the issue was never raised in any of the earlier pleadings, and that a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce a new issue that could have been raised earlier.

On the third issue, the Court held that all the other issues raised by the employee had already been threshed out in the assailed decision, and that there was no novel issue to merit a reconsideration thereof.

Doctrine

A party may not raise a new issue for the first time on motion for reconsideration. The issue of the wrong address in the sending of notices of dismissal, if not raised before the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Supreme Court, is deemed waived and cannot be used to defeat the employer's claim that the notices were sent to the employee's last known address. The findings of the Court in its decision, once made, are binding, and a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to re-litigate issues already resolved or to introduce novel theories that could have been raised earlier. For the bar candidate, the rule is simple: the address to which notices are sent, when never questioned in the earlier proceedings, is presumed to be the employee's last known address, and the employee bears the burden of disproving that claim at the earliest opportunity.

Disposition

The Court denied the employee's motion for reconsideration and affirmed its earlier decision granting the employer's petition, reversing and setting aside the National Labor Relations Commission resolutions, and dismissing the complaint.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a new issue cannot be raised for the first time on motion for reconsideration, and that the address to which notices are sent, when never questioned earlier, is presumed to be the employee's last known address. Examiners like to use this case to test the procedural rule against raising new theories on reconsideration and the substantive rule on the sufficiency of notice of dismissal sent to the employee's last known address.