JOJET V. MAGSIPOC, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
VIDAL, M.D., J.:
THE FACTS
The root of the controversy is the complaint for illegal dismissal lodged by the Petitioner against the Respondent.
The Respondent is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the Philippine laws, with office and business address at PAL, Inc., Ground Floor, PAL Center, Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
Petitioner joined the Respondent when he was hired as Customer Service Agent on 16 January 1997. As such, he attended to the different aspects of checking-in passengers, including the weighing and recording of the number of pieces of baggage.
Petitioner was on duty as Customer Service Agent on 10 January 2003 at the Terminal 2, Manila Station Domestic and was assigned at Counter No. 31 to check-in Cebu Business Class Passengers. Airport Security Supervisor WILFREDO MOPAS (hereinafter MOPAS) was also on duty on that day to monitor the going-on at the check-in counter premises.
At around six o’clock in the morning on that day, Security Supervisor MOPAS noticed a lady passenger pushing a baggage cart loaded with several pieces of baggage passing through the first X-ray area. She was met by the Petitioner and another Customer Service Agent. Without their knowledge, MOPAS discreetly observed the two employees. The Petitioner had the lady passenger, Ms. HEIDI GABINETE (hereinafter GABINETE), checked-in at Counter 31 although she was not a Cebu Business Class passenger nor was she bound for Cebu. She was bound for Puerto Princesa with Counters 8 and 9 as the assigned check-in counters.
After weighing and tagging the eight (8) pieces of baggage checked-in by GABINETE, these were returned to the baggage cart and were brought to the conveyor of Counter Nos. 8 and 9. Since her pieces of baggage apparently would exceed the 20-kilo free baggage allowance, MOPAS expected GABINETE to proceed to the cashier to pay for the corresponding excess baggage charges. Surprisingly, GABINETE proceeded to the Terminal Fee Counter. Suspecting that there was something irregular with the transaction, MOPAS followed GABINETE and requested to see her flight coupon wherein it was indicated that the passenger was bound for Puerto Princesa with five other companions, carrying the total of eight pieces of baggage weighing 138 kilograms.
Still MOPAS continued to discreetly monitor the movement of GABINETE. It was only a little later after speaking with the Petitioner that GABINETE was seen paying at the Cahier’s Counter. MOPAS learned that GABINETE only paid for 18 kilograms of excess baggage which prompted him to report the matter to his superior and PAL Duty Manager FELICISIMO VIVENCIO (hereinafter VIVENCIO).
Acting on said report, VIVENCIO checked the data entered in the computer by the Petitioner regarding GABINETE and discovered that she was just traveling alone with eight (8) pieces of baggage weighing 108 kilograms.
VIVENCIO confronted the Petitioner regarding the matter to which the latter insisted that GABINETE was traveling with five (5) companions on said flight. However, verification of the records disclosed that the alleged companions of GABINETE had their own checked-in pieces of baggage and that they never checked-in as a group. In reaction, the Petitioner suggested that the concerned passengers be summoned and asked to pay the proper excess baggage fee. This, however, was turned down by the Duty Manager as the transaction was already consummated and the flight was about to depart. Suspicious that the Petitioner was trying to cover up an irregularity, VIVENCIO directed the Petitioner to submit a Handling Report.
On same day, Mr. PASCUAL D. DE LOS SANTOS (hereinafter DE LOS SANTOS), Manager of the Passenger Handling Domestic Division requested the Petitioner to submit a written explanation4 which was complied with by the latter on 15 January 2003.5 Likewise, MOPAS and VIVENCIO were requested to appear and give their statements regarding the subject of the investigation.
The explanation of the Petitioner was found to be unacceptable by DE LOS SANTOS. Thence the Notice of Administrative Charge6 dated 18 February 2003 for violation of safety rules, fraud against the company and falsification, was served upon the Petitioner on 4 March 2003. A ten-day period was given to the Petitioner for him to submit his answer to the charges as well as the affidavits of his witnesses, if any. He was placed under preventive suspension, pending investigation.
The Petitioner was also afforded additional opportunity to explain his side in clarificatory hearings had on 24 March 2003 and 31 March 2003. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision and on 16 June 2003, a decision was rendered finding the Petitioner liable as charged and was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service, notice7 thereof was served on the Petitioner on 24 June 2003.
On 14 July 2003, the Petitioner filed a complaint8 for illegal dismissal. In his position paper9 submitted to the Labor Arbiter, the Petitioner never denied GABINETE’s total checked-in baggage weight was 138 kilograms. He also maintained that the safety of the flight was foremost in his mind when he persuaded the passengers to check-in their baggage consisting of bags and boxes. He also stressed that there could not have been an under weighing of baggage nor illegal pooling of baggage as every passenger is entitled to a 20-kilo free baggage allowance. The excess of 18 kilos was accordingly charged its excess baggage fee. In his position paper, the Petitioner stated that at most, he admitted there was merely an error of judgment by not correcting the boarding card number sequence of the passengers and by not checking-in all of them in his assigned counter. He also asseverated that even if the charges against him were true, the penalty of dismissal was too severe considering that he had no derogatory record since the day he was hired by the Respondent.
On the other hand, the Respondent in its Position Paper10 filed with the Labor Arbiter maintained that the charges against the Petitioner had been adequately shown and proved by substantial evidence. It added that the offenses of under weighing and illegal pooling of baggage did not only constitute serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence reposed on him which are valid grounds for terminating employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code but also a clear transgression of the company’s Code of Discipline which incidentally metes out the same punishment as the Labor Code. The Respondent added that the acts of the Petitioner in under weighing and pooling the pieces of baggage willfully deprived it of its rightful revenue and that it seriously jeopardized the safety of the flight. The Respondent concluded that the deprivation of its revenue was tantamount to theft.
On the basis of the position papers submitted by the parties, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision11 on 24 November 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.12
Displeased with the aforecited Decision, the Petitioner interposed an appeal to the NLRC which in its Decision13 of 18 January 2005 dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, supra, was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution14 dated 17 February 2005.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner now comes to this Court raising the sole issue:
THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND THE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE THERETO, HENCE RENDERED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW[;]15
Otherwise put, the issue for Our consideration is whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it rendered the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Our Ruling
At the outset, We stress that in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, this Court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their decisions. Our query is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.16
The core of the Petitioner’s argument is the alleged inadmissibility of the Affidavit executed by ALEXANDER B. TORRES, witness for the Respondent. Per the record, TORRES is an employee of the Respondent occupying the position of Senior Investigating Agent, Security and Fraud Prevention who was tasked to investigate the incident. In connection with his investigation, he ventured into verifying the allegations of the Petitioner that GABINETE was traveling with five (5) others on the day the incident occurred. Since the Petitioner in support of his allegations presented a Joint Affidavit17 executed by GABINETE and her companions, TORRES undertook to verify the execution of the Joint Affidavit, supra. The subsequent affidavit18 executed by TORRES anent the result of his investigation disclosed inter alia that MARIZA FAJARDO (one of the alleged traveling companions of GABINETE) denied having executed the Joint Affidavit, supra, attached by the Petitioner to his written explanation addressed to DE LOS SANTOS. The Petitioner claimed that TORRES’ affidavit is mere hearsay, hence, not admissible. The alleged denial of FAJARDO as contained in the affidavit of TORRES reads:
Xxx xxx xxx
6. On February 06, 2003, I visited Ms. Mariza Fajardo at her office and presented the Joint Affidavit submitted by Mr. Jojet Magsipoc. She completely denied any knowledge of the affidavit and disowned the signature appearing thereon. She noted that not only is the signature completely different from her true signature but even her name was incorrectly spelled. She categorically denied having traveled with Ms. Heide Gabinete on January 10, 2003 on PR195/Puerto Princesa.
Xxx xxx xxx.19
The Petitioner’s contention is without merit. The affidavit of TORRES which was submitted by the Respondent before the Labor Arbiter is not hearsay and can be accorded probative value.
On this point, the Labor Code provides thus:
ART. 221. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING AND PRIOR RESORT TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT- In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. xxx xxx xxx.
xxx xxx xxx.
On the other hand, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC states as follows:
Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum- xxx xxx xxx, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order xxx directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position papers.
These verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents xxx xxx xxx.
The submission by the Petitioner, citing People v. Cusi, Jr.,20 that the Affidavit of TORRES, supra, contains hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible, cannot find relevance in the present case considering that a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding.21
As held by the Supreme Court in Equitable PCIBank, et al. v. Generosa A. Caguioa,22 citing Cañete, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission,23 thus:
It is not necessary that the affidavits and other documents presented conform with the technical rules of evidence since in labor cases the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. It is sufficient that the documents submitted by the parties have a bearing on the issue at hand and support the positions taken by them.
Additionally, the petitioner cannot on this late day object to the admission of evidence on the ground that it is hearsay as the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The failure of a party to object to the admission of evidence constitutes a waiver of his right to make such objection, and consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted.24
With no showing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the same, We are bound by its findings. Succinctly put, factual issues are beyond the ambit of our review.25
A fortiori, We conclude that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal.
WHEREFORE, instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC, supra, stand.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, and Lampas Peralta, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo, pp. 2-15
2 id., pp. 16-24
3 id., pp. 25-26
4 id., pp. 75-76
5 id., pp. 73-74
6 id., pp. 94-96
7 id., pp. 97-99
8 id., p. 27
9 id., pp. 28-35
10 id., PP. 58-71
11 id., pp. 108-123
12 id., p. 123
13 id., pp. 16-24
14 id., pp. pp. 25-26
15 id., p.7
16 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Marcelito Pescante, G. R. No. 126805, 16 March 2000, 328 SCRA 273.
17 Rollo, pp. 79-80
18 id., pp. 81-82
19 id., p. 82
20 L-20986, 14 August 1965, 14 SCRA 944
21 supra at note 12
22 G. R. No. 159170, 12 August 2005
23 G. R. No. 130425, 30 September 1999, 315 SCRA 660
24 Cañete, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 130425, 30 September 1999, 3 SCRA 660
25 C & A Construction Co. v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 122279, 22 November 1999; Carlos A. Gothong Lines v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 96685, 15 February 1999.