G.R. No. 118159. April 15, 1998
JONERI ESCOBIN, RODOLFO ROJAS, FEDERICO LAGUYO, GASPAR MONTEJO, ROLANDO CABALLES, ROMEO BELARMINO, ELISEO CODILLA, ELEUTERIO BENITEZ, ELPIDIO CASINILLO, FERNANDO ABLONG, PRUDENC…
PANGANIBAN, J.:
As a just and
valid cause for dismissal, willful disobedience involves the violation of a rule, order or
instruction which is (1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the
employee, and (3) connected with the duties which the employee has been engaged
to discharge. Abandonment, on the other
hand, requires a showing that an employee (1) deliberately and unjustly refuses
to resume his work and (2) has no intention to return to it.
The Case
The Court
reiterates these principles in resolving this petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions dated September 22,
1993 and December 16, 1993, which were promulgated by the National Labor
Relations Commission[1] in NLRC Case No. RAB
09-08-00235-91.
Petitioners
filed at the Regional Arbitration Branch No. 09 in Zamboanga City a Complaint
against private respondents for illegal termination by way of constructive
dismissal. After conciliation
proceedings failed to settle the matter, the parties were ordered to submit
their respective position papers. On
February 17, 1992, Labor Arbiter Rhett Julius J. Plagata rendered a Decision in
favor of petitioners:[2]
“WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in the above-entitled
case:
(1) Declaring the [petitioners’] dismissal to
be illegal for being without just cause;
(2) Ordering PEFTOK Integrated Security
Services, Inc., through its president or other duly authorized corporate
officer, to pay the [petitioners] the following awards in the following sums:
Constancio
Silagan
Backwages—————————————- P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
&
Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Joneri
Escobin
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees ———————————- 1,000.00
&
Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Rodolfo
Rojas
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation
Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Federico
Laguyo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Gaspar
Montejo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Rolando
Caballes
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Romeo
Belarmino
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Eliseo
Codilla
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Eleuterio
Benitez
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
&
Litigation Expenses
Total————– P38,024.00
Elidio
Casinillo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————– P38,024.00
Fernando
Ablong
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Prudencio
Sacristin
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Rodolfo
Briones
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Primitivo
Calixto
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Andres
Fernando
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Angel
Avenido
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Felix
Guipitacio
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Taracio
Abilla
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Antonio
Patino
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Antonio
Helen
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Nerio
Canoy
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Vicente
Francisco
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 9,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Teofilo
Tura
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 9,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Antonio
Ledesma
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Marcelino
Hipolito
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Benjamin
Flores
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Pablo
Lascota
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Wilfredo
Cantay
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Genaro
Deliverio
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Marciano
Pioquinto
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Federico
Jimenez
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Vicente
SM Lim
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Luis
Tubil
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Angel
Jumayo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Salvador
Salcedo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay————————————- 19,936.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————— 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P38,024.00
Rigiberto
Utod
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 18,369.60
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P36,457.60
Feliciano
Salona
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 18,369.60
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P36,457.60
Geronimo
Canete
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 18,369.60
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P36,457.60
Maximo
Aquillon
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 18,084.80
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P36,172.80
Larry
Turco, Sr.
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 17,913.92
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P36,001.92
Porferio
Garado
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————— 17,088.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P35,176.00
Perfecto
Cuevas
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay————————————- 17,088.00
Attorney’s
Fees———————————— 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P35,176.00
Feliciano
Juanillo
Backwages—————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay————————————- 15,037.44
Attorney’s
Fees———————————— 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total————— P33,125.44
Roberto
Tucoy, Sr.
Backwages————————————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————————————- 14,724.16
Attorney’s
Fees——————————————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total———————————— P32,812.16
Nicolas
Ramones, Jr.
Backwages————————————————————–P17,088.00
Separation
Pay———————————————————- 14,240.00
Attorney’s
Fees——————————————————– 1,000.00
& Litigation Expenses
Total———————————— P32,328.00
On appeal,
Respondent Commission reversed the labor arbiter. The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution, promulgated
September 22, 1993, reads:[3]
“WHEREFORE, the contested
decision is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. In its stead, judgment is rendered declaring the dismissal of
complainants valid for being with just cause and after due process.”
Respondent
Commission further denied reconsideration in its Resolution promulgated
December 16, 1993:[4]
“WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant motion for consideration is hereby denied for lack of
merit.”
Hence, this
recourse.[5]
The Facts
In its
Resolution dated September 22, 1993, Respondent NLRC relates the factual
background of this case as follows:[6]
“Respondent PEFTOK
Integrated Services, Inc., (PISI for short), is a duly licensed watchman and
protective agency while respondent UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. is a corporation
duly organized in accordance with law, and the owner/possessor of lands
principally planted to rubber, coconut, citrus, coffee, and other fruit trees
in Lamitan, Province of Basilan. Respondent Teodolfo E. Santos is the general manager of PISI.
That complainants are bona
fide members of the Basilan Security Force Association hired by PISI in
Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan, to work as guards in UP-NDC Basilan Plantations,
Inc. premises, for the purpose of guarding and protecting plantation property
and installations from theft, pilferage, robbery, trespass and other unlawful
acts by strangers or third persons, and plantation employees, pursuant to an
agreement between PISI and UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. dated May 17,
1989[.] The complainants, residents of
Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan, are heads of families, hired by PISI as security
guards in and for plantation premises of UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. They were hired on different dates, with the
individual dates of their employment being as follows:
‘Constancio Silagan, Joneri
Escorbin, Rodolfo Rojas, Federico Laguyo, Gaspar Montejo, Rolando Cabales,
Romeo Belarmino, Eliseo Codilla, Eleuterio Benitez, Elidio Casinillo, Fernando
Ablong, Prudencio Sacristin, Rodolfo Briones, Primitivo Calixto, Andres
Fernando, Angel Avenido, Felix Guipitacio, Teracio Abilla, Antonio Patino,
Antonio Helen, Nerio Canoy, Vicente Francisco, Teofilo Tura, Antonio Ledesma,
Marcelino Hipolito, Benjamin Flores, Pablo Lascota, Wilfredo Cantay, Genaro
Deliverio, Marciano Pioquinto, Federico Jimenez Vicente SM Lim, Luis Tubil, and
Angel Jumayo, and Salvador Salcedo, all employed on November 19, 1984;
Rigoberto Utod, Feliciano Salona, and Geronino Canete on January 18, 1985;
Maximo Aguillon, on February 22, 1985; Larry Turco Sr. on March 16, 1985;
Porferio Garado on 15 August 1985; Feliciano Juanillo on March 18, 1986;
Roberto Tucoy, Sr. on April 26, 1986 and Nicolas Ramones, Jr. on July 29, 1986
(Complainants’ Position Paper, Annex A).’
In 1988, some of the
complainants, namely: Gene Engracia, Andres Fernandez, Rolando C. Caballes,
Larry Turco, Fernando E. Ablong, Sr. Constancio Silagan, Winifredo N.
Obedencia, Federick Laguyo, Primitivo Calixto, Felix C. Guipitacio and Claudio
Calixto were dismissed by PISI for insoburdination [sic] and grave misconduct,
as a result of their refusal to ring the bell in the evening of May 25, 1988
while on duty in the premises of the plantation, but were later reinstated in
an agreement forged between the parties at the initiative of Congressman Alvin
Dans of Basilan Province.
On June 1, 1990, respondent
UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. ordered the reduction of the contracted guards
assigned in the plantation from seventy (70) to sixty-seven (67), in a letter
addressed by Mr. Roman R. Yap to PISI[.]
And again in a letter dated
January 22, 1991 sent to Col. Raymundo C. Sobrevega, President of PISI, by
Hector A. Quesada, President of UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc., PISI was
advised to reduce further the guards from sixty-seven (67) to only ten, (10),
xxx a reduction [of] fifty-seven (57) guards.
Subsequently, thereafter,
PISI issued Office Memorandum No. 4 dated February 6, 1991 placing the
fifty-nine (59) affected guards under reserved or floating status effective
February 1, 1991, subject to be posted or assigned upon notice.
On February 12, 1991, PISI issued Office Order No. 5
amending Office Order No. 4 by deleting therefrom the names of S/G Calixto
Florentino Paddit and Sergio Quimpo.
Subsequently, on April 8,
1991, the guards placed on reserved or floating status were instructed by
registered letter to report to PISI Head Office at Rm. 405, Sunrise
Condominium, Ortigas Avenue, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro-Manila, for posting to
PISI clients within the Metro-Manila area not later than April 30, 1991.
That complainants did not
reply nor answer the letter sent them, prompting PISI to reinstate by way of
another letter dated May 2, 1991, its order to complainants to report to PISI
Head Office for posting, and to explain their failure to report as previously
instructed.
Still failing to receive a
reply nor answer from the complainants despite receipt of said letters, PISI
once more sent individual letters to complainants on May 29, 1991 ordering them
to explain why no disciplinary action shall be taken against them for failing
to comply with PISI’s Order, at the same time, reiterating its previous Order
for complainants to report to PISI Head Office for posting.
Despite all these,
complainants, for reasons known only to them, did not bother even sending a
courtesy reply nor answer to PISI. Neither did they comply with the reiterated Order to report to their
Head Office for posting. They did not
also explain why they were unable to so comply with the Order.
Thus, on June 28, 1991,
PISI wrote complainants individual letters that by reason of their failure to
respond to or to comply with PISI’s letters dated April 8, May 2, and May 29,
1991, and by their failure to report to PISI Head Office for posting, as
ordered, they were dismissed on ground of insubordination or willful
disobedience to lawful orders of their employer.
Late in the day however, on
July 1, 1991, complainants wrote PISI General Manager, Teodolfo Santos, saying
they had no intention to abandon their employment, nor to defy fair, reasonable
and lawful orders. In the same letter,
they acknowledged receipt of all PISI’s letters to them dated April 8 and May
2, 1991.
After having been
terminated, and during the arbitral proceedings below, complainants belatedly
justified their inability to comply with PISI’s Order to report to Head Office
in Metro-Manila for posting, saying: they are residents of Basilan, have
families of their own in Basilan, have never traveled beyond Visayas and
Mindanao, not provided by PISI with fare money as they cannot, on their own,
finance their travel from Basilan to Manila; that to comply with PISI’s Order
to report to Head Office for posting under said circumstances was absurd, to
say the least. Complainants therefore, charged
PISI with bad faith in issuing said Order. That in truth, complainants said they were constructively dismissed by
PISI. For which reason, complainants
prayed that the Labor Arbiter declare their dismissal as illegal and
consequently they should be paid separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement),
backwages, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
The Labor Arbiter in
deciding this case posed the following issues, namely:
a) Whether or not complainants were indeed illegally
dismissed, and corollarily, whether or not they are entitled to backwages and
separation pay; and
b) Whether or not complainants are entitled to moral and
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and cost of litigation.
The Labor Arbiter noted
that S/G Winifredo Obedencia and Ignacio Antonio did not sign the
complaint. They should therefore be
deemed not to have filed their complaints and their names should be deleted as
party-complainants in the instant case.
With
respect to PISI’s Order for complainants to report to their head office in
Manila, the Arbiter held that this is not a reasonable order considering that
complainants are residents of Basilan, have families in Basilan, have never
been assigned beyond Mindanao or Visayas, were not provided with fare
money. Neither were they assured of
compensation similar to what they used to receive in Basilan, nor of continued
posting while in Manila. That their
transfer would surely entail great inconvenience to complainants and their
families. Hence, the validity of their
transfer could not be sustained. Therefore, complainants charged that their refusal to report to the head
office was justified. Consequently,
their dismissal was illegal.
The
Arbiter, however, found that the procedure for termination of employment had
been complied with by respondent PISI. But finding complainants illegally dismissed, the Arbiter held that they
are entitled to backwages set at six (6) months pay corresponding to the
maximum period a security guard may be placed on floating status, computed on
the basis of their latest salary ofP2,848.00. That since complainants opted for separation pay instead of
reinstatement considering that their positions in Basilan are probably no
longer existing, complainants instead [were] awarded by the Arbiter separation
pay at one (1) month pay for every year of service based on their latest salary
at the time they were illegally dismissed.
Complainants[’] claims for
moral and exemplary damages were denied for lack of factual and legal
basis. However, the sum ofP1,000
for each complainant was awarded as attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
And finally, the Labor
Arbiter absolved respondent UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. from joint and
several liability on the monetary awards, noting that joint and several
liability of an indirect employer is limited only to non-payment of labor
standards benefits mandated by the Labor Code. The monetary awards in the instant case, being in the nature of labor
relations benefits, the same was, thus, ordered as sole liability of respondent
PISI.”
Ruling of Respondent NLRC
As earlier
stated, Respondent NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s Decision, holding that
private respondent had no choice but to place petitioners and other security
guards on floating status for lack of clients to which they could be immediately
reassigned. The directive to report to
Manila for posting was issued, because private respondent knew that it could
place petitioners on reserve status for only six months. Petitioners’ refusal to comply with said
Order and their “wanton disregard of the order to explain their inability to
xxx comply and obey lawful orders from their employer” constituted the
“proximate cause for their dismissal.” The fact that petitioners had some reasonable objections to the
directive to report to Manila did not mitigate their insubordination, because
petitioners raised them only during the arbitral proceedings.
Under these
circumstances, according to Respondent Commission, private respondent had “no
option left but to charge them with insubordination and willful disobedience to
lawful orders of their employer.” In
according due process to petitioners, private respondent gave them ample time
to explain why no disciplinary measures should be taken against them, but
petitioners still refused to comply. Hence, private respondent was justified in dismissing petitioners.
Not only did
petitioners’ insubordination constitute willful disobedience; it also partook
of abandonment. Thus, petitioners are
not entitled to the payment of back wages and separation pay or reinstatement.
Assignment of Errors
In their
Memorandum before us, petitioners impute the following errors to Respondent
Commission:[7]
“-I-
The NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners committed willful disobedience of
lawful orders of their employer.
-II-
The NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners abandoned their work.
-III-
The NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in reversing the finding of the labor arbiter that
petitioners were illegally dismissed by way of constructive dismissal.
-IV-
The NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in denying recovery of back wages, separation pay, damages,
and attorney’s fees in favor of petitioners.
-V-
The NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.”
It is undisputed
that due process was observed in the dismissal of petitioners. Hence, the only remaining issues are: (1)
whether petitioners’ dismissal was for a valid and just cause, and (2) whether
they are entitled to separation pay, back wages and damages.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is
meritorious.
First Issue: No
Just Cause
The solicitor
general maintains that petitioners’ conduct amounted to clear insubordination
and constituted willful disobedience to lawful orders given in connection with
their work. PISI reduced its work force
in UP-NDC premises as a result of the inclusion of the latter’s plantation in
the government’s agrarian reform program. He argues that PISI diligently notified petitioners for three
consecutive times to report to its head office for posting, but petitioners
“wantonly refused receipt of the letters and abjectly failed to comply with xxx
[the] directive under letters dated April 8, May 2 and May 29, 1991.”
We disagree. While it is true that petitioners failed to
report to Manila and to respond to private respondent’s letters, this is not
the end-all and be-all of the matter.
One of the
fundamental duties of an employee is to obey all reasonable rules,
orders and instructions of the employer. Disobedience, to be a just cause for termination, must be willful or
intentional, willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental
attitude rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination. A willful or intentional
disobedience of such rule, order or instruction justifies dismissal only
where such rule, order or instruction is (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) connected with the duties which the
employee has been engaged to discharge.[8] The assailed Resolution of
Respondent Commission and the arguments of the solicitor general failed to
prove these requisites.
On the other
hand, petitioners negated the solicitor general’s stance, contending that the
instruction to report to the Manila office was “inconvenient, unreasonable and
prejudicial,” as they were not given transportation money or, more important,
any assurance that work would be available to them once they reached Manila. They were not even furnished a copy of the
so-called Office Memorandum No. 4 dated February 6, 1991, which placed them
under “floating status.” Thus, they aver that their failure to report to the
Manila office was not characterized by a “wrongful and perverse [mental]
attitude.” They also assert that they
have families which they could not just leave behind.
The
reasonableness and lawfulness of a rule, order or instruction depend on the
circumstances availing in each case. Reasonableness
pertains to the kind or character of directives and commands and to the manner
in which they are made.[9] In this case, the order to report
to the Manila office fails to meet this standard.
First, it was grossly inconvenient for
petitioners, who were residents and heads of families residing in Basilan, to
commute to Manila. In Yuco Chemical
Industries, Inc. vs. Ministry of Labor and Employment,[10] the transfer to Manila of two
workers, who were also studying in Tarlac, was held to be grossly
inconvenient. The distance to Manila
from Basilan is considerably greater than that from Tarlac. Such transfer would have necessarily
entailed separation of the petitioners from their families.
Second, petitioners were not provided with
funds to defray their transportation and living expenses. Petitioners, not unknown to their employer,
earned only P1,500 to P2,500 a month before they were placed on
reserve status, after which they remained jobless. Furthermore, being residents of Basilan, petitioners would have
required living arrangements in Manila which, in turn, would have entailed
additional expenses on their part.
Third, private respondent argues that it
sent transportation money to petitioners. However, the recipients of such funds are not parties in this case. Moreover, the alleged transportation allowance
was given only after petitioners had already been terminated from service. The letter[11] purportedly granting transportation
allowance to other security guards was dated August 12, 1991, which was after
petitioners had been dismissed June 28, 1991.[12]
Fourth, no reason was given by private
respondent company explaining why it had failed to inform petitioners of their
specific security assignments prior to their departure from Basilan. If indeed the postings were to be made in
Basilan, there would have been no necessity for petitioners to report to Manila
and no justification for respondent’s insistence on their compliance with its
directive. Since private respondent did
not provide transportation and living allowances; and since, in the first
place, petitioners could have been easily informed of their new assignments
right there in Basilan, there was no reason for petitioners to travel all the
way to Manila.
Traversing these
contentions, Respondent Commission gave this statement in its challenged
Resolution:[13]
“Unfortunately, however,
for the [petitioners], they kept all these reasons only to themselves. They did not bother communicating these
objections to their employer, respondent PISI. They chose to remain silent, went to the extent of even refusing to
acknowledge receipt of the letters and directives sent to them dated April 8,
May 2, and May 29, 1991, although they admit having received the same. It was already late in the day when complainants
raised said objections after they had been dismissed, and only during the
arbitral proceedings below.
Under the circumstances, it
was indeed difficult for respondent PISI to know [petitioners’] predicament
considering that they did not even bother replying to all the directives sent
them. x x x x.”
In contrast,
private respondent granted to other similarly situated security guards a second
chance to explain their failure to respond, an opportunity it denied
petitioners. This fact demonstrates that
petitioners’ dismissal was not commensurate to their insubordination which, we
reiterate, was neither willful nor intentional. Respondent Commission also held in its assailed Resolution:
“[H]ad their objections been seasonably raised to respondent PISI, they would
have been just and reasonable. Their
only fault lies in not raising said objections on time before their
dismissal.” Even private respondent
agency said in its memorandum: “if such order appears to be unreasonable or
inconvenient to the petitioners at least management should have been informed
why the guards cannot comply with such orders, so some remedial means could
have been worked out.” These
ratiocinations are pointless. Private
respondent very well knew that petitioners were not receiving any salary while
they were on floating status and, thus, also knew that they would hardly be
able to comply with the directive to report to Manila. In any event, dismissal was too harsh a
penalty for an infraction which appears, under the circumstances, to be
excusable.[14]
The right to
transfer employees from one office to another — provided there is no demotion
in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges — is judicially
recognized as a prerogative inherent in the employer’s right to effectively
control and manage the enterprise. But
this principle is not at issue here. The issue is whether petitioners’ alleged disobedience constituted a
just and valid cause to dismiss them.
It is obvious to
us that the dismissal was effected with mala fides, as it was intended
to punish petitioners for their refusal to heed their employer’s unreasonable
directive. Respondent Commission
therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioners were
dismissed for a just cause.
Abandonment of
Work
Respondent
Commission avers in its impugned Resolution: “[Petitioners] are likewise guilty
of ‘quitting’ without just cause under Article 285 of the Labor Code, as
amended. Hence, they are clearly not
entitled to any affirmative reliefs under the law. They are ‘estopped’ from asserting claims against their employer,
PISI.” Agreeing with Respondent
Commission, the solicitor general posits that petitioners “clearly abandoned
their work without valid cause.”
This contention
is untenable. Abandonment, as a just
and valid cause for dismissal, requires a deliberate, unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume his work, coupled with a clear absence of any intention of
returning to his work.[15] No evidence was presented to
establish that petitioners relinquished their jobs. Denying they abandoned their work, petitioners contend that it
was private respondent agency which deserted them by failing to communicate
with them for over two months, from February 1, 1991 to April 8, 1991; and that
the directive to make them report to Manila was only a ruse to terminate their
services. Although a letter[16] dated September 13, 1991 and signed
by a certain Jose E. Fernandez declined the offer to work outside Basilan
despite the receipt of transportation allowance, such letter cannot be
attributed to petitioners because Fernandez did not represent any of them. That petitioners did not pray for
reinstatement in their pleadings is not proof of abandonment. In fact, petitioners’ contention is that
private respondent effected constructive dismissal, which is incompatible with
abandonment.[17]
No Constructive Dismissal
For presuming
that they were constructively dismissed, petitioners are likewise in
error. Constructive discharge is an
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a
diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by
an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.[18] In this particular case,
petitioners were not constructively dismissed; they were actually dismissed
without just and valid cause.
Second Issue: Separation
Pay and Back Wages
The normal
consequences of illegal dismissal are reinstatement and payment of back wages.[19] These remedies give life to the
workers’ constitutional right to security of tenure.[20]
Separation pay
is generally not awarded except in instances where reinstatement is no longer
feasible or appropriate, as in this case. As a substitute for immediate and continued reemployment, separation pay
is meant to provide the employee the “wherewithal during the period that he is
looking for another employment.”[21]
In this
particular case, private respondent alleges that there is no assignment in
Basilan or Zamboanga available to petitioners. Transfer to another post outside said areas would have only given rise
to the same problems as those entailed by the original directive. Reinstatement presupposes that the previous
position from which the employee had been removed still exists, or there is an
unfilled position of a similar nature, more or less, as the one previously
occupied by the employee.[22] If no such position is available,
reinstatement becomes a legal impossibility. The law cannot exact compliance with what is impossible.
The award of
attorney’s fees in the sum of one thousand pesos is reasonable and in accord
with Art. 2208 of the Civil Code.[23] However, no moral and exemplary
damages can be granted for lack of factual basis.[24]
In sum, we hold
that the labor arbiter was correct in awarding separation pay, back wages and
attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
GRANTED. The assailed Decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The labor
arbiter’s Decision, dated February 17, 1992, is REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
[1] Fifth Division composed of Commissioners. Oscar N. Abella as ponente, Leon G.
Gonzaga, Jr., and Musib M. Buat.
[2] Labor arbiter’s Decision, pp. 15-22; Rollo, pp.
141-148.
[3] NLRC Resolution, p. 23; Rollo, p. 60.
[4] Rollo, p.
61.
[5] This case was deemed submitted for decision after
this Court’s receipt of private respondents’ Memorandum on January 28, 1997.
[6] NLRC Resolution, pp. 11-16; Rollo, pp. 48-52.
[7] Rollo, p. 241.
[8] Mañebo vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 229 SCRA 240, 249-250, January 10, 1994; AHS/Philippines, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319, 330, June 14, 1996; Stolt-Nielsen Marine
Services (Phils.), Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 258
SCRA 643, 648, July 11, 1996.
[9] Azucena, The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol.
II, 1993 rev. ed., p. 557.
[10] 185 SCRA 727, 730-731, May 28, 1990, per Fernan, C.J.
[11] Labor Arbiter’s Records, p. 236.
[12] Ibid, p.
98.
[13] Rollo, pp.
57-58.
[14] Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 247 SCRA 386, 394, August 15, 1995; and
Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 246 SCRA 271, 279, July 14, 1995.
[15] Jackson Building Condominium Corporation vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 246 SCRA 329, 332, July 14, 1995; Reno
Foods, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 249 SCRA 379, 386,
October 18, 1995; Balayan Colleges vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 255 SCRA 1, 9-10, March 14, 1996; and Philippine Advertising
Counselors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 263 SCRA 395,
402, October 21, 1996.
[16] Labor Arbiter’s Records, p. 246.
[17] Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 171 SCRA 164, 168, March 8, 1989; and
Philippine Advertising Counselors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra.
[18] Philippine Advertising Counselors, Inc. vs.
NLRC, supra; Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra, p. 167; and Ledesma vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 246 SCRA 47, 51, July 13, 1995.
[19] Samillano vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 265 SCRA 788
[20] Palmeria, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 247 SCRA 57, 61, August 3, 1995, per Puno, J.
[21] Torillo vs. Leogardo, Jr., 197 SCRA 471, 478,
May 27, 1991, per Fernan, C.J.; and Gold City Integrated Port Service,
Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 245 SCRA 627, 638-639,
July 6, 1995.
[22] Citytrust Banking Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 258 SCRA 621, 631-632, July 11, 1996; Gold City
Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
[23] “ART. 2208. In
the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other
than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(11) In any other case where
the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.”
[24] Cocoland Development Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 51, 63-64, July 17, 1996.