G.R. No. 51578. May 29, 1984
NEW FRONTIER MINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CRISANTO H. BRIONES, RESPONDENTS.
AQUINO, J.:
decision, declaring illegal the dismissal of Crisanto H. Briones, its
managerial employee, and ordering his reinstatement with backwages from
the time of his dismissal until actually reinstated. The decision was
affirmed by Commissioners Atienza and Quadra. Commissioner Villatuya
dissented.
Crisanto H. Briones was employed by New Frontier Mines, Inc. in its
Makati head office on January 30, 1974 at a starting salary of P650 a
month (p. 76, Rollo), not at P1,000 a month as erroneously stated by the Labor Arbiter (p. 99, Rollo).
On February 2, 1976, Briones was promoted to accountant at P1,000 a month (p. 16, Rollo).
In June 1976, he was assigned at the company’s chromite project located
in the mountain of Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, an isolated place. He
functioned as chief accountant and administrative officer at P1,200 a
month (p. 99, Rollo).
He performed multifarious duties. He acted as cashier, paymaster,
purchase clerk, personnel officer, liaison officer and operations
manager in the absence of the incumbent (p. 205, Rollo). By
reason of his varied assignments, he was considered a managerial
employee. His controversial performance in this job during the six-month
period of June to December, 1976 led to his removal.
The Labor Arbiter found that Briones “committed several errors in his
report of cash accountabilities covering the months from June to
November, 1976” (p. 100, Rollo).
The project manager charged him with having incurred a cash shortage of
P8,000, having illicit relations with a female housekeeper at the
project site, drinking liquor every night and possible misÂappropriation
of funds (Respondent’s comment, p. 161, Rollo).
Jose C. Chung, then the company’s general manager, on October 15, 1976
went to Lagonoy to make an on-the-spot check on Briones’ accountability.
Chung found a shortage of P3,800 which was a cash advance against
Briones’ salary (readjusted to P3,386.87) but which Briones considered
only a “theoretical shortage” (pp. 49, 161-2, Rollo).
The Labor Arbiter found that on January 5, 1977 at a meeting in the
Makati head office attended by the company president, vice-president,
general manager and corporate secretary, Briones was directed to revise
his cash position report for October and November, 1976, considering
errors and unreported expenses incurred at the Lagonoy project not taken
up in prior reports. He was advised that his accounts would be verified
by an external auditor (p. 100, Rollo).
On January 15, 1977, Briones submitted his revised accounts. Then, from
that date up to June 15, 1977 he did not report to the office. His
excuse was that he wanted the auditor to have a free hand and he had to
attend to his sick wife. Did he file a formal leave of absence? That is a
disputed point in this case.
The Labor Arbiter said that it was his “strong feeling” that Briones’
application for leave reached the company official concerned (p. 103, Rollo).
However, the trouble is that, as observed by Commissioner Villatuya,
Briones failed to sustain the onus of proving that he filed an
application for leave, and, in the absence of proof, it would be wrong
for the Labor Arbiter to assume that the application was granted.
Rather, it should be concluded that he was absent without leave.
No documentary evidence was presented to prove that Briones was
on leave from January 15 to October, 1977. Not even a duplicate of the
letter, allegedly prepared for him by Tereso L. Javier, the general
manager, wherein Briones was applying for leave, was presented in
evidence. The action taken by the preÂsident on his supposed application
for leave was not offered in evidence. How long the leave was supposed
to last was not proven. No mention of his leave was made in his letter
to Chung of September, 1977.
Briones merely claimed in his position paper of January 19, 1978 that
the application for leave, after having been prepared by Javier, “was
not submitted” to the president “as the latter had already left the
office” (p. 56, Rollo).
Javier himself in his affidavit alleged that Briones “since January 15,
1977, without the knowledge and consent” of the company “failed to
report for work for an unreasonable length of time without permission or
notice to the company” (p. 50, Rollo).
According to Briones, in May, 1977, he dropped at the residence of
Chung, the vice-president, to inquire about his employment status. Chung
told him to go to the office on June 15. On that day, Briones reported
to Javier. But Javier allegedly said that Chung should decide the case.
It was only on September 26, 1977 when Briones wrote to Chung to ask him
what action was taken on his revised accounts (pp. 205-206, Rollo).
Chung replied in a letter dated October 27, 1977. He apprised Briones that there was a net shortage in his accounts of P7,425.45 and that Briones was considered resigned in view of his failure to report for work since January 15, 1977. Said Chung:
“You were absent for several weeks without prior notice of leave
or permission from the company. In view of your action of not reporting
for work for a long period of time without permission, we have no alternative but to consider you resigned from the company” (p. 207, Rollo).
Briones filed his complaint for illegal disÂmissal on November 9, 1977.
The Labor Arbiter decided the case on July 31, 1978 on the basis of the
position papers. As already stated, he found that Briones was a
managerial employee and he ordered his reinstatement with backwages.
Commissioners Atienza and Quadra affirmed that decision. The company
filed its petition for certiorari on November 12, 1979.
The company’s Lagonoy project ceased operation in 1978 due to the low
price of chromite. Three hundred laborers working in the project were
laid off. Briones’ former position in the Makati office had been filled
up (p. 33, Rollo). He is now 61 years old. He has been working in Saudi Arabia since the early part of 1980 (p. 344, Rollo).
We hold that the Labor Arbiter and Commissioners Atienza and Quadra
acted with grave abuse of discreÂtion in ordering the reinstatement with
backwages of Briones, a managerial employee.
The Labor Arbiter erred in finding, on the basis of his “strong feeling”
and assumptions, that Briones filed a leave of absence. The conduct of
Briones and the concomitant circumstances showed that no such leave was
filed.
As a managerial employee, the company had the right to terminate
Briones’ services “for lack of confidence” and abandonment of work
(Policy InsÂtructions No. 8, April 23, 1976, pp. 128-129, Vicente B.
Foz, Labor Code, 1979 Edition, Philippine Law Gazette. See Bondoc vs.
People’s Bank and Trust Company, L-43835, March 31, 1981, 103 SCRA 599).
Therefore, the order for reinstatement is devoid of justification. However, as a matter of compassionate justice, Briones may be given three months’ separation pay for 1974, 1975 and 1976 at the rate of P1,200 a month.
The motion of Briones dated August 21, 1983, that the instant petition
be dismissed because of the expiration of 18 months from May 20, 1981,
when the case was submitted for decision, is not well-taken. What was
really meant in this Court’s resoÂlution of May 20, 1981, issued after
the memoranda had been submitted, is that this case would be scheÂduled
for deliberation to find out whether the necessary vote could be had.
The framers of the Constitution did not foresee that the numerousness or
deluge of cases in this Court would render it impossible to schedule
regularly the deliberation on pending cases.
Daily, this Court is swamped with a great number of (1) appealed civil and criminal cases, (2) petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus,
(3) disbarment cases and (4) administrative matters and cases of
judiciary personnel, aside from the cases undecided before the
Constitution took effect.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the resolution of
Commissioners Atienza and Quadra are reversed and set aside. The
petitioner is ordered to pay three months’ separation pay to Crisanto H.
Briones. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.