IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PAROCHIAL SCHOOL AND/OR REV. FR. REY O. AMANTE, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ELIZABETH R. REMO, RESPONDENTS.
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:
Decision dated April 30, 2013 –
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Complainant’s appeal is hereby declared with merit, the assailed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one promulgated, declaring Complainant illegally dismissed. Respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate Complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and to pay her:
| 1. backwages from March 19, 2012 | |
| up to Complainant’s reinstatement |
– P295,365.00
|
| 2. proportionate 13th month pay | |
| for the period January to March 19, 2012 |
– 4,398.33
|
| 3. 10% attorney’s fees |
– 29,976.33
|
| TOTAL AWARD |
– P329,739.66
|
|
The rest of the claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of
|
|
| merit. | |
| SO ORDERED.” | |
Resolution dated July 22, 2013 –
“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit.
NO FURTHER MOTION OF SIMILAR NATURE SHALL BE ENTERTAINED.
SO ORDERED.”
The facts are:
On May 2, 2012, private respondent Elizabeth R. Remo (“Remo” for brevity) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, payment of backwages and other benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against petitioners Immaculate Conception Parochial School (“ICPS” for brevity) and Rev. Fr. Rey O. Amante (“Amante” for brevity) before the NLRC National Capital Regional Arbitration Branch.
Private respondent Remo averred in her Position Paper[4] that: in June 1990, private respondent Remo was hired by petitioner ICPS as a teacher and at the time she was illegally dismissed, she was occupying the position of subject area coordinator with a monthly salary of P20,300.00; on July 21, 2011, after the flag raising ceremony, a third-year high school student, James Christian Gungon (“Gungon” for brevity), who was part of cyber bullying incident was instructed to face the crowd composed of school administrators, faculty, staff, and students, and have a self-affirmation and promise to be better person after his participation in a “Facebook” involving teacher Daguro; and she had no idea why Gungon was instructed to do so; she heard her co-teachers, Priscila Martinez (“Martinez” for brevity) and Carmencita Centeno (“Centeno” for brevity) say, “O ayan ha me mga susunod pa na magsasalita” and “O ayan makinig kayo mabuti ha tungkol yan sa pambabastos sa teacher”, respectively; Gungon was hesitant and his voice was unclear when he apologized publicly for maligning teacher Federico Daguro (“Daguro” for brevity) on Facebook, and promised that he would become a better person; her son, Menard Jason, was also involved in and disciplined for “cyber bullying” Daguro; after the flag ceremony, she went to her office to check on her son’s sanction paper and found nothing that required the students to make a public apology for their involvement in the incident; from her office, she proceeded to the classroom where her student inquired as to why certain students were directed by the school to speak after the flag ceremony and she responded that Gungon offended Daguro; she advised them, before proceeding to her lecture, to be more circumspect in posting remarks on Facebook; after her class, she went to the office where she saw the principal, Estrelita M. Gatchalian (“Gatchalian” for brevity) who informed her that the parent of Jara, a student, went to the prefect of students’ office and told Gatchalian that her students were inquiring what really transpired immediately after the flag ceremony; Gatchalian told her that it was wrong for her to share with her students the information about the cyber bullying of Daguro on Facebook; in response, she told Gatchalian that the latter should have allowed the faculty members to know what was happening and teach them how to react/respond to students’ queries; they had a heated conversation, when Gatchalian told her that she need not know everything; Gatchalian’s parting words to her were: “sige pupunta na ako sa klase ko, payapain mo ang loob mo, wag kang mag-isip ng di maganda, di kasali ang anak mo sa mga magpa-public apology”; after the said heated exchange she was tensed as she placed the books she was carrying on her desk and created a noise in the presence of faculty members Centeno, Ariel Pacaldo (“Pacaldo” for brevity) and Marquicias; on August 10, 2011, she received a memorandum[5] from the Ad Hoc Committee requiring her to explain what really transpired during her confrontation with Gatchalian; on August 12, 2011, she submitted her written response[6] to the said memorandum; on August 16, 2011, she requested[7] in writing from petitioner Amante, Director of petitioner ICPS, to furnish her with a copy of Gatchalian’s letter-complaint, but to no avail; she also inquired if the persons chosen to compose the Ad Hoc Committee know how to conduct an investigation and if they could render a fair judgment in her case since all of the committee members were Gatchalian’s subordinates; she surprisingly found out that aside from Gatchalian, the FAST[8] Club-ICPS also lodged a complaint[9] against her on July 28, 2011; she was not furnished with a copy of FAST Club-ICPS’ complaint, and it was only in March 2012 when she saw a copy of the same attached to the resolution issued by petitioner Amante; she submitted herself to the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the members of the committee were FAST Club-ICPS officers and FAST Club-ICPS was one of the complainants against her; as directed, on August 26, 2011, she submitted herself to oral interrogation without facing her accusers or hearing the testimonies of witnesses; on October 25, 2011, petitioner Amante called her and Gatchalian to a meeting and urged them to settle their differences; she humbly asked for Gatchalian’s forgiveness during their heart to heart talk and thought that everything was resolved after their meeting with petitioner Amante; she was shocked when the Grievance Committee called her and the complainants (Gatchalian and FAST Club-ICPS) on November 17, 2011; the ensuing discussion lasted for four (4) hours; the penalty of either termination, voluntary resignation, suspension or demotion or public apology could be imposed upon her for offending co-faculty members Daguro and Gallardo, among other offenses; the Grievance Committee suggested to her to do a public apology, which is the least penalty; she did not immediately respond and agree to the recommendation of the Grievance Committee because she needed time to decide on whether to heed it; she approached Daguro and Regina Gallardo (“Gallardo” for brevity) and asked about the particular acts that she did to them which called for her apology; Daguro and Gallardo told her that she did not do anything offensive to them, thus, she only needed to apologize to Gatchalian which she already did on October 25, 2011; on November 28, 2011, she manifested in her letter[10] to petitioner Amante her sentiments regarding the grievance proceedings; on December 17, 2011, petitioner Amante called her to a meeting after the Christmas party of petitioner ICPS; she met petitioner Amante on her way out of the school and explained to him that she could not attend the scheduled meeting because she needed to go home to attend to the delivery of goods which came from Pampanga; no meeting was called on November 29, 2011; she informed petitioner Amante that she could not attend the meeting called on December 17, 2011 and suggested its rescheduling on December 20, 2011; she communicated to petitioner Amante that she could not attend the December 20, 2011 meeting because her daughter was confined at the hospital the day before; and on March 19, 2012, she received from the office of petitioner Amante a Resolution[11] dismissing her for grave misconduct and unethical behavior.
On the other hand, petitioners ICPS and Amante averred in their Position Paper[12] that: Gungon, together with some third-year high school students of petitioner ICPS, created a Facebook account named “Daguro Playboy Negrito” with Daguro’s picture appearing on the profile photo; the creation of the said Facebook group account and the unsavory comments posted on it caused public humiliation and embarrassment to Daguro prompting the Office of Prefect of Students to conduct an investigation of the incident and treat it as cyber bullying which is constitutive of the offense of disrespect to school authority as appearing in their student manual; the twenty-seven (27) students who were listed as members of the said group account and their parents were called for investigation; among those who were listed members of the said social networking site group account was private respondent Remo’s son, Menard Jason, who made the most unsavory remark; private respondent Remo sent Gallardo to appear for Menard Jason before the Office of the Prefect of Students despite the reminder that Gallardo was neither Menard Jason’s legal guardian nor authorized representative; Gungon’s parents proposed that Gungon be required to make a public promise and self-affirmation to become a better person before the school community instead of being expelled for disrespect to school authority and they accepted it; on July 21, 2011, during the flag ceremony, Gungon made his public promise and affirmation to become a better person, which was erroneously called a public apology; the message delivered by Gungon could hardly be understood due to the poor public address system; since private respondent Remo never attended the parents’ meetings with the Prefect of Students despite her son’s involvement in the incident and the fact that she is a faculty member of petitioner ICPS, she had no idea of Gungon’s message and why the students involved in the cyber bullying incident would undergo a special values formation seminar; on July 21, 2011, at around 9:10 o’clock in the morning, their school principal Gatchalian went to the subject coordinators’ office to ring the bell for the next class; but Gatchalian was reminded by private respondent Remo that it was not yet time to ring it to, which she heeded; while waiting for the right time, Gatchalian engaged in a light conversation with private respondent Remo, but it became heated when the latter talked about Gungon’s message during the flag ceremony; private respondent Remo told Gatchalian that she heard from some of her co-faculty members that certain students were also required, like Gungon, to make a statement in front of the school community during the next flag ceremony; private respondent Remo asked Gatchalian if her son, Menard Jason, would be the next to make a public apology (sino ang isusunod niyo, ang anak ko?); Gatchalian assured private respondent Remo that there was no such agenda; private respondent Remo insisted angrily that Gungon was made to stand in front of other students because of the Facebook incident and she discussed the matter in her class despite her admission that she did not hear clearly and understand Gungon’s message; Gatchalian reminded private respondent Remo that such matter is best left confidential and should not be discussed in class; private respondent Remo insisted her erroneous belief that the matter ceased to be confidential when Gungon apologized publicly; private respondent Remo angrily shouted (“pabalik-balik na lang sinasabi mo”) at Gatchalian when the latter reiterated that such matter should not have been discussed in class; private respondent Remo shouted and shrieked at Gatchalian scandalously, disrespectfully and hysterically; she banged chairs and tables in the presence of some minor students despite being told to calm down; were it not for the timely intervention of some teachers, private respondent Remo almost attacked Gatchalian physically; private respondent Remo habitually simply addressed Gatchalian as “Ate Liz” and never addressed the latter as “Ma’am” despite the latter’s authority and stature as a school principal; private respondent Remo disobeyed Gatchalian’s directions, policies, and requirements regularly; on July 28, 2011, FAST Club-ICPS president Perlita B. Francisco (“Francisco” for brevity) called in writing petitioner Amante’s attention to the incident which became the talk of the town and had put petitioner ICPS in a bad light and asked him to investigate the July 21, 2011 incident wherein private respondent Remo maligned and disrespected Gatchalian’s authority as school principal; Gatchalian also made a verbal complaint against private respondent Remo with petitioner Amante; on August 5, 2011, FAST Club-ICPS, through Francisco, followed up in writing their request to petitioner Amante to investigate the aforesaid incident; in response, on August 10, 2011, petitioner Amante issued a Memorandum creating a grievance committee composed of Francisca Moran as chairperson, and Jesusa V. Almarez and Rafael Limbauan as members; upon constitution, the Grievance Committee sent a memorandum to private respondent Remo requiring her to explain in writing the facts surrounding her confrontation with Gatchalian on July 21, 2011; on August 12, 2011, private respondent Remo submitted her answer; the Grievance Committee also issued memoranda to teachers and students of petitioner ICPS requiring them to submit their written reports detailing what they witnessed relative to the incident; on August 22, 2011, the Grievance Committee notified private respondent Remo to appear, answer the allegations in the complaint lodged against her, and to orally testify before it; on August 26, 2011, private respondent Remo acknowledged in writing that she underwent oral interrogation before the grievance committee; witnesses Gloria C. Cacnio, Miguel Adrian L. Santiago, Pacaldo, Angelica Bantigue, Teresita Bernardo, Gallardo, Edemar Domicil, Francisco, Gatchalian, Martinez, and Centeno were also interviewed by the grievance committee members; the Grievance Committee found that private respondent Remo committed gross and disrespectful conduct unbecoming of a Catholic teacher of petitioner ICPS; the school administration, particularly petitioner Amante, took pains to find a middle ground short of dismissal for humanitarian consideration; a public apology by private respondent Remo was suggested, but she denied having committed a violation warranting her dismissal, and yet she admitted exhibiting disrespectful behavior towards Gatchalian; private respondent Remo challenged the authority of the grievance committee and displayed an uncaring attitude using the text messaging system of her mobile phone while the school administration was finding her way out during the subsequent meetings with her; private respondent Remo did not attend several meetings set by petitioner Amante to seek a more humane penalty for her infractions instead of dismissal reasoning out, at one instance, that she had to buy some furniture for her house; upon the recommendation of the Grievance Committee, petitioner Amante handed down a Resolution terminating for a cause private respondent Remo’s employment at petitioner ICPS; on March 19, 2012, Jay Jimenez, secretary of petitioner Amante, personally served the said resolution upon to private respondent Remo who actually received it, but refused to acknowledge receipt in writing; on May 2, 2012, private respondent Remo filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Damages with Attorney’s Fees against them; and the Board of Trustees of petitioner ICPS issued a Board Resolution authorizing petitioner Amante to represent the school in this case.
On January 21, 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the above-entitled case for lack of merit.
Respondents however is (sic) hereby directed to pay complainant financial assistance in the amount of P223,300.00 (Php20,300 x 22 years ÷ 2) for humanitarian reason and equity.
Other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
On appeal[13] by petitioners ICPS and Amante and partial appeal[14] by private respondent Remo, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed. Petitioners ICPS and Amante’s motion for reconsideration[15] was denied.
Hence, this petition with the following assignment of errors:
- THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED AND COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND RULED THAT THERE WAS NO GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT REMO DESPITE HER ADMISSION AND PROOFS TO THE CONTRARY.
- THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED AND COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED BACK WAGES DESPITE THE LEGALITY OF THE DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT REMO.
Petitioners ICPS and Amante contend that private respondent Remo was validly dismissed for grave misconduct and unethical behavior and she is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, attorney’s fees, and humanitarian awards.
On the other hand, private respondent Remo contends that petitioners ICPS and Amante showed no valid and just cause to terminate her services, the grievance procedure is inapplicable to the issue involved, she was deprived of due process, public respondent NLRC correctly ordered her reinstatement and awarded backwages, and the petition is procedurally defective.
The petition is bereft of merit.
Records show that private respondent Remo showed her apprehension over her son’s predicament as a student of petitioner ICPS where she was also employed as a faculty member. Gatchalian said that it was wrong for private respondent Remo to divulge to her students informations with regard to the cyber bullying of Daguro which were best left confidential. Private respondent Remo told Gatchalian that the latter should have told them (faculty members) how to respond to the queries of their curious students.
In reaction to Gatchalian’s response that private respondent Remo need not know everything about the cyber bullying incident, the latter became emotionally charged by raising her voice at the former leading to a more heated exchanges of arguments.
The factual circumstances in this case are no different from the case of Austria vs. NLRC[16] where it was held that:
“the act of petitioner (Austria) in banging the attaché case on the table, throwing the telephone and scattering the books in the office of Pastor Buhat, although improper, cannot be considered as grave enough to be considered as serious misconduct. After all, as correctly observed by the Labor Arbiter, though petitioner committed damage to property, he did not physically assault Pastor Buhat or any other pastor present during the incident of 16 October 1991. In fact, the alleged offense committed upon the person of the employer’s representatives was never really established or proven by private respondents. Hence, there is no basis for the allegation that petitioner’s act constituted serious misconduct or that the same was an offense against the person of the employer’s duly authorized representative. As such, the cited actuation of petitioner does not justify the ultimate penalty of dismissal from employment. While the Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by the employee, it nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanctions that may be applied to him in light of the many disadvantages that weigh heavily on him like an albatross on his neck. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment. For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the minor infraction committed by petitioner does not merit the ultimate penalty of dismissal.”
Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and, (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[17]
A reading of the August 10, 2011 notice to explain shows that the Ad Hoc Committee merely requested private respondent Remo to state what transpired during her confrontation with school principal, Gatchalian, to enable private respondent Remo to shed light on the incident and come up with a better understanding and knowledge of the matter.
Under the procedural due process requirement, two notices must be sent to the employee who is the subject of an investigation for acts which may warrant his eventual dismissal from employment. The notices required before an employee may be validly dismissed are: (a) a written notice served on the employee specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employee reasonable opportunity to explain his/her side; (b) a hearing or conference wherein the employee, with the assistance of counsel if so desired, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut evidence presented against him/her; and (c) written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify termination. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute elements of due process in cases of employee’s dismissal; the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer’s intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal. Upon the other hand the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected.[18]
Clearly, the first notice must inform the employee outright that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his employment if the charges are proven to be true.[19]
This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb, his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of due process. One’s work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.[20]
In this case, the notice given to private respondent Remo by the Grievance Committee falls short of the requirements as it did not inform private respondent Remo of the charges against her but merely requested her to state what transpired during her confrontation with Gatchalian.
Thus, this Court finds public respondent NLRC is correct in concluding that procedural due process was not observed in this case.
Having been found to be illegally dismissed, petitioner Remo is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without loss of seniority rights and the payment of full backwages without any deduction corresponding to the period from her illegal dismissal up to the actual reinstatement.
Having been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect her rights and interest, private respondent Remo is likewise entitled to attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 30, 2013 and Resolution dated July 22, 2013 of public respondent NLRC, Second Division, in NLRC LAC No. 02-000860-13 NLRC NCR Case No. 05-06661-12 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Bruselas, A.D., Jr., and Gaerlan, S.H., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 145-164
[2] Rollo, pp. 70-102
[3] Rollo, pp. 67-68
[4] Rollo, pp. 165-181
[5] Rollo, p. 182
[6] Rollo, pp. 183-184
[7] Rollo, p. 185
[8] Faculty and Staff
[9] Rollo, pp. 197-198
[10] Rollo, pp. 186-187
[11] Rollo, pp. 188-196
[12] Rollo, pp. 22-33
[13] Rollo, pp. 49-65
[14] Rollo, pp. 275-300
[15] Rollo, pp. 301-304
[16] G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999
[17] Lopez vs. NLRC, 477 SCRA 596
[18] Maquiling vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society Inc., G.R. No. 143384, February 4, 2005
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.