PPB MESSENGERIAL SERVICES, INC. AND PASTOR B. BENAVIDES, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RONALD M. PESCUELA, RESPONDENTS.
BATO, JR., J.:
Petitioner PPB Messengerial Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “PPB”), is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing messengerial services to its clients. Petitioner Pastor B. Benavides (hereinafter referred to as “Benavides”) is the President of PPB. (PPB and Benavides are hereinafter collectively referred to as “petitioners”).
On 04 July 2011, private respondent Ronald M. Pescuela (hereinafter referred to as “Ronald”), along with Eduardo Berdin (hereinafter referred to as “Eduardo”) and Exequiel Pescuela, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as “Exequiel”), filed their respective Complaints[4] for illegal dismissal with money claims against the petitioners before the Labor Arbiter, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV, Calamba City. They stated in their respective Complaints that PPB dismissed them on 10 June 2011.
In their joint Position Paper,[5] Ronald, Eduardo and Exequiel alleged that sometime in January 2000, PPB hired Ronald as a messenger assigned in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Because of the increased volume of deliveries, petitioner Benavides instructed Ronald to hire additional messengers. Thus, Eduardo and Exequiel were hired by PPB through Ronald on 18 June 2004. The three (3) of them reported to petitioner Benavides every 3rd and 4th day of the week to get the documents that they were to deliver. Their salaries, on the other hand, were paid every Saturday. However, on 30 June 2011, petitioner Benavides told them not to report for work anymore.
For their part, petitioners denied that Eduardo and Exequiel were employees of PPB. Anent the complaint of Ronald, petitioners countered that it never dismissed Ronald on 10 June 2011. It was Ronald who refused to make further deliveries. As a matter of fact, Ronald returned several hundreds of undelivered Globe billing statements on 18 June 2011. They further pointed out that Ronald gave contradicting statements on the actual date that he was allegedly dismissed. In his complaint, he stated that he was dismissed on 10 June 2011. However, in his position paper, he alleged that it was on 30 June 2011 when Benavides told him not to return to work anymore.
In her Decision[6] dated February 23, 2012, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Ronald, Eduardo and Exequiel were regular employees of PPB. Nonetheless, they were not illegally dismissed but merely placed on floating status because there were no available deliveries for them. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered the complaint filed by complainants against respondent PPB Messengerial Services and/or Pastor Benavide[s] is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
Ronald, Eduardo and Exequiel filed their joint appeal with the NLRC. They questioned therein the Labor Arbiter’s pronouncement that they were not dismissed from employment but merely placed on floating status.
In its 31 July 2012 Decision, the NLRC ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between Eduardo and Exequiel on one hand and PPB on the other hand. Only herein private respondent Ronald was an employee of PPB. The NLRC further ruled that Ronald was constructively dismissed on 25 June 2011, ratiocinating as follows:
“We find no factual basis for the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that the complainant Ronald was merely placed on floating status. x x x. The records are bereft of any evidence that there was a suspension of operation of the respondent company, or that there was a reduction in the number of clients requiring messengerial services, that would have justified placing the complainant on floating status. Instead, the records show that prior to June 10, 2011, complainant Ronald would pick-up from the respondent company the billing statements for delivery on a regular basis, which is, every other day as required by the respondent company based on the memorandum dated September 28, 2007 (Rollo, p. 49) issued by respondent Benavides as company President. However, starting June 10, 2011, respondents stopped giving documents to the complainant Ronald but allowed him to deliver the remaining documents in their custody up to June 25, 2011. We note that the respondents never denied or refuted complainant’s allegation that respondent Benavides stopped giving documents to the complainant on 10 June 2011. Considering that complainant Ronald continued to deliver documents after June 10, 2011 and was able to complete the delivery of the remaining documents in his custody on June 25, 2011 when he last reported to the respondent company to submit proof of delivery but still, was not given billing statements for delivery and thus was left without any work to do, he is deemed to have been unlawfully constructively dismissed on June 25, 2011. Having been illegally dismissed, he is entitled to reinstatement and backwages computed from June 25, 2011 up to the finality of this decision. Based on the weekly income of the complainant for June 11, 13, 16, 2011 said complainant received an average of P11,008.91 per week or P44,035.64 per month as salary.
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREFORE, the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated February 23, 2012 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondents P.B.B. Messengerial Services, Inc. and Pastor P. Benavides are ordered to reinstate Ronald Pescuela immediately and to pay jointly and severally his backwages from June 25, 2011 up to the finality of this decision, which is tentatively computed up to the date of this decision in the following amounts:
- Ronald Pescuela
P44,035.64 per month as salary
June 25, 2011 to June 24, 2012 (cut-off date)
P44,035.64/mo. X 12 months = P528,427.68SO ORDERED.”[7]
Petitioners filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration[8] of the above-quoted NLRC Decision, contending that the NLRC erred in concluding that Ronald was constructively dismissed on 25 June 2011. They likewise contended that the NLRC’s computation of the award of backwages equivalent to Php11,008.91 per week or Php44,035.64 per month as salary is without basis.
In its Resolution dated 28 September 2012, the NLRC stood firm on its ruling that Ronald was constructively dismissed. However, it modified the amount of backwages to be awarded to Ronald in this wise:
“The finding that complainant earns P11,008.91 per week or P44,035.64 per month as salary was based on complainant’s averments.
For respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration claims the improbability of delivering 489.28 documents/billings per day. As proof thereof, they attached a summary of deliveries made by the complainant Ronald Pescuela from January to June 2011 (Annex 1, Rollo 243) showing a variance of deliveries made for said period. While our finding prior to the presentation of the summary was based on a constant No. 489.28, the summary showed divergent numbers of delivery per day.
Based on the summary, complainant was earning from P25,497.00 to as high as P27,150.00 a month.
Considering the discrepancies, We have to reconsider our award of backwages amounting to P528,427.00 for one year to P264,213.00.
WHEREFORE, the finding of illegal dismissal and immediate reinstatement stands. Respondents (sic) should be paid backwages in the amount of P264,213.00.
SO ORDERED.”[9]
Hence, this petition for certiorari anchored on the following ground:
“THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RENDERED THE QUESTIONED DECISION FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED AND IN AWARDING HIM BACKWAGES; AND IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DENYING THE PARTIAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ITS SUPPLEMENT.”[10]
By way of Comment,[11] Ronald alleged that petitioners cannot deny the fact that after June 25, 2011, he was not given documents for delivery anymore. This alone clearly shows dismissal and the burden of proof to show its legality is shifted to the petitioners. In the same Comment, Eduardo and Exequiel alleged that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that they were not regular employees of PPB.
As defined by jurisprudence, grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction.[12] There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[13] Through time, the meaning of grave abuse of discretion has been expanded to include any action done contrary to the constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[14]
Guided by the aforementioned legal precepts, the instant petition for certiorari must fail.
In illegal dismissal cases, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish the fact of his dismissal before the burden is shifted to the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal.[15] In this case, Ronald’s allegation in his Sinumpaang Salaysay[16] that he was not given new documents for delivery starting 10 June 2013 remains unrebutted. While it would appear that from 11 June 2011 to 25 June 2011, Ronald still delivered documents or billing statements for PPB’s clients, there is no evidence to prove that these documents were new documents given to Ronald on said dates. Notably, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master.[17]
Petitioners could have easily rebutted Ronald’s allegation that he was not given new documents for delivery by simply showing proof that after 25 June 2011, it gave or attempted to give Ronald new documents for delivery but he refused the same. As per Memorandum No. 09 dated 28 September 2007, billing statements must be picked up by PPB messengers every other day.[18] Hence, assuming arguendo that there is truth in petitioners’ allegation that it was Ronald who refused to make further deliveries, it was still incumbent upon PPB as the employer to ascertain Ronald’s interest or non-interest in the continuance of his employment.
The Court need not belabor itself with Eduardo and Exequiel’s allegation that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that they were not regular employees of PPB. Eduardo and Exequiel failed to appeal the said NLRC ruling. Settled is the rule that a party who does not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative relief.[19] Due process prevents the grant of additional award to parties who did not appeal.[20]
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DENIED and the Decision dated 31 July 2012 and Resolution dated 28 September 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 05-001499-12 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda and Diy, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-30.
[2] Rollo, pp. 33-45.
[3] Rollo, pp. 47-49.
[4] Rollo, pp. 72-73.
[5] Rollo, pp. 124-134.
[6] Rollo, pp. 186-192.
[7] Rollo, pp. 42-45.
[8] Rollo, pp. 58-66.
[9] Rollo, pp. 48-49.
[10] Petition, p. 25; Rollo, p. 27.
[11] Rollo, pp. 283-298.
[12] Vda. De Bacaling vs. Laguna, 54 SCRA 243, p. 251 [1973]; Bacelonia vs. CA, 397 SCRA 286, p. 291 [2003].
[13] Cuison vs. CA, 289 SCRA 159, p. 171 [1998]; Benito vs. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705, p. 712 [2001].
[14] Republic vs. Cocofed, 372 SCRA 462, p. 493 [2001].
[15] Exodus International Construction Corporation vs. Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, February 23, 2011.
[16] Rollo, pp. 135-136.
[17] Masing and Sons Development Corp. vs. Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, April 27, 2011.
[18] Rollo, p. 97.
[19] Unilever vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, June 3, 2013.
[20] Manila Water Company vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 188747, January 28, 2014.