G.R. No. 91644. October 18, 1990
CONTINENTAL ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING CO., INC. (CASCO), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EDGARDO MALIZA, RESPONDENTS.
GANCAYCO, J.:
The propriety of the dismissal of private respondent is the
center of the controversy in this petition.
Private respondent was employed by petitioner as a head vessel checker. On April
19, 1988, petitioner
sent a memorandum to private respondent
informing him of the termination of his services effective April 30, 1988 for
allegedly causing a work stoppage on the
night of April 8, 1988
on M/V Central Visayas which petitioner was then
servicing. The memorandum reads as
follows:
“April 19, 1988
TO : EDGARDO N. MALIZA
C A S C O
Phase II, Port of
Cagayan
de Oro
FROM : FLORENTINO
G. DUMLAO, JR.
General Manager
SUBJECT : NOTICE
OF TERMINATION WITH PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
1) That on or about 2031
hrs. April 1988 while the company was working on M/V ‘Central Visayas’ which was at the time berthed at Phase II, there
was a stoppage of work by stevedores;
2) That on said time and
date, you ordered the stevedores working on the vessel to stop working but when
they refused, you ordered the winchman and forklift
operators to stop working, causing a stoppage of work on board the vessel;
3) These above facts are
evidenced by the affidavit of Mr. Narciso C. Pareja, the Joint Affidavits of Capataz
Alfredo Jote and workgang
members Melchor Arnaiz, Carlito Ramas, Jr., Warlito Adante, Arturo Jael and Arthur Sabellena and the
Joint Affidavits of Jimmy Relox and Eduardo Mabale, x x x;
4) The above-mentioned
act constitutes serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the company
and taken together with your past offenses, clearly
indicate(s) your unfitness to continue with the service of the Company;
5) In view of the above,
your services with the Company are terminated as of the close of business day
of April 30, 1988. In order to prevent you from further
committing the acts adverted to above, you are likewise preventively suspended
effective April 20, 1988 until
April 30, 1988 when the
termination shall take effect.
(SGD.) FLORENTINO G. DUMLAO, JR.
General
Manager”[1]
On April 25, 1988,
private respondent submitted to petitioner his written answer denying the
alleged stoppage of work imputed to him as follows:
“In answer to your Notice of Termination with Preventive
Suspension, I would like to inform you that while it is true that undersigned
was present in the operation area in the evening of April 8, 1988 as Lead V/Checker to take the
statement of facts (even though I was not included in the time-sheet through
your memo No. FGD-24/88), it is not true that there
was a stoppage of work as embodied in your said notice. What had happen only was that Messrs. Miguel Labiano,
Rutherford Besario, Fresco S. Lawan,
Jr. and myself, all OLDWALU-TUCP Officers, went to see
Jimmy Relox, CASCO’s night
duty officer to negotiate whether or not, CASCO can pay our salaries the
following day because it is already
more than three (3) weeks time wherein workers did not receive their
salaries. In fact no order or orders has
been received by the stevedores to stop the loading operations as can be
gleaned in a foreman’s report submitted to your office, duly confirmed by the
ship’s Chiefmate.
However, to tell you the truth, we have agreed to undergo a ‘Protest’
the following day, should the company
will not pay our salaries (sic).
Good that early (sic) in the morning of April 9, 1988, the company was able to pay the one (1) week out of the three
(3) weeks unpaid salaries. x x x“[2]
Nevertheless, petitioner was not satisfied with said explanation
so private respondent was accordingly dismissed.
On May 5, 1988,
private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) at Cagayan
de Oro City against petitioner for illegal dismissal
and for reinstatement with full backwages, among others.
On July 28, 1988, Labor Arbiter Benjamin E. Pelaez,
based on the position papers of the parties, rendered a decision finding the
termination of the services of private respondent
to be illegal and ordered petitioner to reinstate private respondent to his
former position and to pay him backwages from the
time his employment was terminated (April 30, 1988) to the time he is actually
reinstated.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the respondent NLRC. In a resolution dated June 22, 1989, the appeal was dismissed for lack
of merit. A motion for reconsideration
thereof filed by petitioner was denied by the NLRC on September 29, 1989.
Hence, this special civil action for certiorari, which was
erroneously denominated as a petition for review, raising
four issues, the main thrust of which is that the dismissal of private respondent
was based on a just cause.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The issues raised are essentially factual and the too well-known rule is
that the findings of facts of administrative agencies are generally not
disturbed on appeal unless there are facts and circumstances which may have
been overlooked and which may affect
the result of the case. In the present
case, petitioner failed to show a cogent reason why the Court should consider
this case an exception to the rule.
The public respondent found the key issue to be whether or not
there was a stoppage of work on the evening when private respondent allegedly
instigated the same. The records clearly show that there was none.[3] Hence, the logical conclusion arrived at by
public respondent is that the claim of petitioner to the effect that private
respondent instigated the stoppage of work is without factual basis. Even if the several witnesses for the
petitioner, who are its employees, attest to the fact that private respondent
tried to instigate them to stop or desist from working for petitioner, the
explanation given by private respondent is more credible in that on that
evening they only went to see the night duty officer to make sure that their
delayed salary can be paid the next day otherwise they may stage a
protest. It appears that the following
day the salaries sought were paid by petitioner.
Petitioner also calls attention to the fact that private
respondent had committed other infractions in the past as follows:
“1. He tore down the
Checker’s Evaluation Report posted on the Bulletin Board.
2. He made it appear
that he worked as a substitute for one Evan Cababaros
when in fact he is absent.
3. Without authority as
a vessel checker, he issued gate passes for the release of cargoes from the
Company’s custody.
4. He collected without
authority from a certain Orlando Odiongan, passenger,
porterage fee when the
Company is not engaged in porterage and has no permit
to do so.
5. He challenged to a
fight and slapped a fellow worker, one Romeo Saldon.
6. Without being
authorized to do so, he collected the amount of P1,200.00
and disbursed the same to fellow employees.”[4]
However, for the said alleged various offenses private respondent
had appropriately been penalized by a suspension of fifteen (15) days in a case
filed also before the NLRC.[5]
It can no longer be considered in determining the responsibility of private
respondent in this subsequent event.
Moreover, private respondent manifested that petitioner had
reinstated him to his employment thus rendering the petition moot. Petitioner, however, asks that the petition
should nevertheless be resolved to determine the rights of the parties.
Hence, this decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
[1] Annex I to Petition;
page 50, Rollo.
[2] Page 124, Rollo.
[3] Page 36, Rollo.
[4] Pages 136-137, Rollo.
[5] RAB 10-02-00114-88,
entitled Edgardo N. Maliza vs.
Continental Arrastre and Stevedoring Co., Inc.