Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997
BUI!ING C"RE CORPOR"TION, petitioner,
vs.
N"TION" "BOR RE"TIONS COMMISSION, FIRST !I#ISION, a$% ROGEIO
RO!I, respondents.

P"NG"NIB"N, J.:
In disissin! this petition, the "ourt reiterates the #ell$entrenched doctrines that %&' a
otion for reconsideration, as a rule, is an indispensable precondition to the filin! of a
petition for certiorari, and %(' findin!s of facts of the National )abor Relations
"oission %N)R"', affirin! those of the )abor *rbiter, are bindin! upon the
Supree "ourt.
This petition for certiorari under Rule +, of the Rules of "ourt see-s to annul the
Decision
1
proul!ated on Ma. /, &//0, of the 1irst Division
2
of public respondent in
N)R" "ase No. N"R$00$02$0&+0,$33 #hich affired the decision of )abor *rbiter
4uintin ". Mendo5a. The dispositive portion of the affired decision of the )abor *rbiter
reads6
3
7H8R81OR8, decision is hereb. rendered for the coplainant
declarin! his suspension and disissal ille!al and orderin! the
respondent to reinstate hi plus bac-#a!es fro tie his %sic'
disissal at the ad9usted rate under R.*. ++20 and retainin! #hatever
seniorit. ri!hts in the 9ob he has %sic' plus his le!al holida.s pa. of
P&,&:3.00 and differential pa. of P;+/.20 and attorne.<s fees of not
ore than ten %&0=' of the total a#ard.
The Facts
The facts found b. public respondent are as follo#s6
4
"oplainant %herein private respondent' alle!ed that his #a!es, &;th
onth pa. and service incentive leave pa. #ere unpaid> that he #as
not paid for #or- rendered durin! le!al holida.s> that on 1ebruar. &&,
&/33, he #as suspended for one #ee- b. his supervisor, H. Silvestre,
for no apparent reason> that the suspension #as ille!al because of
the absence of 9ust cause and respondent<s %herein petitioner' non$
copliance #ith the re?uireents of due process> that thereafter, he
#as not !iven an. assi!nent, despite repeated follo#$ups,
suari5ed as follo#s6
Date Person Approached Result
($&/$33 Supervisor H. Silvestre Re?uired
coplainant to
return %on' ($(0$33
($(0$33 18@T" 7or-ed for one pa.
%should be da.'> no
tie card A pa.
($(;$33 Mr. *driatico Referred to
Silvestre not !iven
#or-
($(;$33 Mr. @arbosa, 18@T" Told to !o hoe>
proise%d' to tal- to
Silvestre
($(2$33 H. SilvestreBMr. *driatico Scolded> not !iven
#or-
($(+$33 Supervisor Ms. "arol Told to return the
follo#in! da.
($(:$33 Supervisors Not !iven #or-
SilvestreBMs. "arol
($(/$33 Silvestre Not !iven #or-
1
;$02$33 Supervisors Silvestre, No results
Vira., Melanie
;$(;$33 Silvestre No results
;$(,$33 Ms. Mali! Proised to as-
supervisors #hat
happened
;$(3 A (/$33 Ms. Mali! Told supervisors
not around
2$02$33 Ms. Mali! Infored he #ould
no lon!er be !iven
7or-.
Respondent contended that coplainant #as paid his #a!es and holida. pa. in
accordance #ith la#> that it #as unable to copl. #ith R.*. ++20 iediatel.
because of its client<s dela. in approvin! the ad9usted contract rates> that it #as
read. to pa. coplainant P;+/.20 representin! salar. differentials fro Deceber
&2, &/3: to 1ebruar. &&, &/33> that on 1ebruar. /, &/33, 18@T" coplained that
coplainant<s area of responsibilit. #as iproperl. cleaned> that coplainant #as
t#ice instructed to report to respondent<s ni!ht shift supervisor, but on both ties, he
failed to do so> that because of such defiance, he #as verball. #arned that drastic
disciplinar. action #ould be ta-en a!ainst hi should he persist in failin! to report as
directed> that on 1ebruar. &&, &/33, the assistant supervisor erroneousl. noted on
the lo!boo- that coplainant #as bein! suspended> that the suspension #as not
carried out as coplainant #as allo#ed to #or- the follo#in! da., as sho#n b. his
dail. tie record> that he #as advised to report to respondent<s office the follo#in!
da.> that, instead, coplainant too- a lon! absence #ithout leave startin! on
1ebruar. &(, &/33> that he sho#ed up at respondent<s office onl. on March (3,
&/33> that he #as re?uired to subit a #ritten eCplanation of his lon! absence
#ithout leave, fre?uent absences in the post and deterioratin! perforance> that
coplainant #rote that he failed to report because his supervisor suspended hi for
no apparent reason> that he #as told that an investi!ation of his alle!ed suspension
#ould be conducted and, in vie# of the forthcoin! non$#or-in! holida.s, advised
to report on *pril 2, &/33> that, in the eantie, respondent<s supervisor reported
that 18@T" had indicated that it #ould no lon!er accept coplainant> that
coplainant #as advised of 18@T"<s decision on *pril 2, &/33> that for huanitarian
reasons, coplainant #as advised that he #as !oin! to be teporaril. assi!ned as
reliever at respondent<s office #hile there #as no available post in its other clients>
that coplainant re?uested for a #ee-$lon! leave, alle!edl. because he had to brin!
his fail. to 4ue5on Province> that coplainant a!ain failed to report for #or- on
*pril &3, &/33> that he #as sent a letter advisin! hi to report to respondent<s office>
that he never #ent bac- to respondent<s office> but instead, filed the instant case.
"oplainant aintained that he did his #or- properl.> that he #as absent fro
Danuar. &3$(( %&/33' because he #as sic-, and he dul. advised respondent of his
sic-ness> that he #as absent fro 1ebruar. &$3 %&/33' because he had to ta-e care
of his #ife #ho #as sic-, as sho#n b. her edical certificate> that he #as absent
a!ain for one #ee- startin! 1ebruar. &(, &/33 because he #as ille!all. suspended>
that thereafter, he #as never !iven another assi!nent, contrar. to respondent<s
untruthful averents> that he #as denied due process of la# b. respondent> that
respondent a. have sent hi a letter after *pril 2, &/33, but it #as too late
because he had alread. instituted the instant case.
Respondent subitted the affidavits of 7endel Vira., Hernani Silvestre and Eerel
Villaor, its over$all Supervisor and 9anitor, respectivel., statin! that instead of
ipleentin! the suspension, coplainant #as transferred fro the ni!ht shift to the
da. shift> that coplainant re?uested to be returned to the ni!ht shift, but his re?uest
#as not !ranted> that he #as !iven a chance to #or- at respondent<s office, but he
failed to report there as instructed. %"itations oitted'.
Hence, on *pril &/, &/33, private respondent filed #ith the *rbitration @ranch of the
N)R" a coplaint for ille!al disissal, underpa.ent and non$pa.ent of le!al holida.
pa. a!ainst petitioner. *t the initial hearin!, private respondent #as offered
reinstateent, but he insisted on bein! paid his bac-#a!es because of his alle!ed
un9ustified disissal. Petitioner did not a!ree. Thus, after the parties subitted their
respective position papers and other docuentar. evidence, the )abor *rbiter issued a
decision in favor of private respondent.
&
The Issue
Petitioner raises a sin!le issue in its petition, to #it6
6
7ith all due respects to the Hon. National )abor Relations
"oission, 1irst Division, petitioner subits that in affirin! the
decision of the Hon. )abor *rbiter and %in' disissin! petitioner<s
appeal, public respondent coitted !rave abuse of discretion and
acted arbitraril. and capriciousl. as the ?uestioned %Decision' is
contrar. to la# and evidence.
Petitioner alle!es that the labor arbiter relied onl. on coplainant<s affidavit. Public
respondent failed to consider that the )abor *rbiter !ave ver. little or no probative value
to evidence adduced b. petitioner, both docuentar. and testionial. Petitioner further
2
clais that both public respondent and the )abor *rbiter issed the antecedent and
ost iportant issue of #hether or not private respondent had reall. been disissed b.
petitioner.
7
*ccordin! to petitioner, the eplo.er is tas-ed #ith the burden of provin!
9ust cause for disissal but Fthe primary burden of proving the fact of dismissal itself
rests upon the complaining employee.F
'
Petitioner states that even if it is assued that private respondent #as disissed, there
#ere 9ust causes for the terination of his service,
9
the conduct of private respondent
#as inconsistent #ith proper subordination.
1(
Petitioner alle!es too that private respondent failed to prove that he had not been paid
aounts correspondin! to the le!al holida.s> and there bein! no erit to private
respondent<s coplaint, attorne.<s fees should not be a#arded either.
11
Public respondent in affirin! the decision of the labor arbiter reasoned as follo#s6
12
"ontrar. to respondent<s %herein petitioner' ar!uent on appeal, the
burden of proof in disissal cases is borne b. the eplo.er, #ho has
to prove the eCistence of a 9ust cause %*sphalt A "eent Pavers, Inc.
vs. )eo!ardo, Dr., &+( S"R* ;&('. This is even ore true if, li-e the
respondent, the eplo.er puts up the defense of abandonent. The
rule is that the defense of abandonent should be proved %Penaflor
vs. N)R", &(0 S"R* +3> Pol.edic Eeneral Hospital vs. N)R", &;2
S"R* 2(0'.
7e have perused the entire records, and 7e are inclined to conclude
that respondent<s theor. of abandonent has not been sufficientl.
proven.
"oplainant<s %herein private respondent' clai that he #as
suspended for no apparent reason for one #ee- is borne out b. the
lo!boo- entr. for 1ebruar. &&, &/33 and b. his letter$eCplanation
dated March (3, &/33. It should also be noted that coplainant stood
pat on this clai throu!hout the entire proceedin!s.
On the other hand, respondent, in its position paper filed on Dul. &;,
&/33, sipl. contended that coplainant failed, #ithout prior leave, to
report for #or- despite respondent<s repeated instructions. In the
affidavits subitted on Septeber (&, &/33, three of respondent<s
eplo.ees averred that coplainant #as transferred to the da. shift
and he ?uit his 9ob because he #as a!ainst such transfer. This is an
entirel. ne# t#ist #hich did not appear in the eoranda and
lo!boo- entries earlier subitted b. respondent, nor even in its
position paper. 1or this reason, said averent appears to be an after$
thou!ht, #hich cannot be !iven uch #ei!ht.
CCC CCC CCC
1inall., 7e find no copellin! reason to disturb the a#ard of holida.
pa. aountin! to P&,&:3.00 and salar. differentials aountin! to
P;+/.20. If respondent had reall. paid coplainant holida. pa., it
could easil. have presented its pa.rolls, #hich constitute the best
proof of pa.ent. These are necessaril. in the possession of
respondent, so coplainant cannot be blaed for their non$
production. Moreover, respondent aditted its failure to copl. #ith
the #a!e increase andated b. R.*. ++20. %"itations oitted'.
The Court's Ruling
The contention of petitioner is #ithout erit. 7e totall. support the Decision of the
National )abor Relations "oission.
*t the outset, #e note that the petition suffers fro a procedural defect that #arrants its
outri!ht disissal. Petitioner preaturel. acted. It did not file a otion for
reconsideration #ith public respondent before availin! of the special civil action of
certiorari. This preature action constitutes a fatal infirit. as ruled in a catena of
cases, ost recentl. in the case of Interorient Maritime nterprises! Inc., et al., vs.
"ational #abor Relations Commission! et al.
13
in this #ise6
. . .The un?uestioned rule in this 9urisdiction is that certiorari #ill lie
onl. if there is no appeal or an. other plain, speed. and ade?uate
reed. in the ordinar. course of la# a!ainst the acts of public
respondent. In the instant case, the plain and ade?uate reed.
eCpressl. provided b. the la# #as a otion for reconsideration of the
assailed decision, based on palpable or patent errors, to be ade
under oath and filed #ithin ten %&0' calendar da.s fro receipt of the
?uestioned decision.
%T'he filin! of such a otion is intended to afford public respondent an
opportunit. to correct an. actual or fancied error attributed to it b.
#a. of a re$eCaination of the le!al and factual aspects of the case.
Petitioner<s inaction or ne!li!ence under the circustances is
tantaount to a deprivation of the ri!ht and opportunit. of the
3
respondent "oission to cleanse itself of an error un#ittin!l.
coitted or to vindicate itself of an act unfairl. iputed. . . .
. . . *nd for failure to avail of the correct reed. eCpressl. provided b.
la#, petitioner has peritted the sub9ect Resolution to becoe final
and eCecutor. after the lapse of the ten da. period #ithin #hich to file
such otion for reconsideration.
On the erits, petitioner #ants this "ourt to deterine if private respondent #as reall.
disissed. This is a ?uestion of fact #hich cannot be raised in a petition for certiorari
under Rule +,.
It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule +, of the Revised Rules of
"ourt. *n eCtraordinar. reed., its use is available onl. and
restrictivel. in trul. eCceptional cases G those #herein the action of
an inferior court, board or officer perforin! 9udicial or ?uasi$9udicial
acts is challen!ed for bein! #holl. void on !rounds of 9urisdiction. The
sole office of the #rit of certiorari is the correction of errors of
9urisdiction includin! the coission of !rave abuse of discretion
aountin! to lac- or eCcess of 9urisdiction. It does not include
correction of public respondent N)R"<s evaluation of the evidence
and factual findin!s based thereon, #hich are !enerall. accorded not
onl. !reat respect but even finalit..
14
The recitation of facts evidentl. sho#s that public respondent did not rel. onl. on the
evidence presented b. private respondent. *ll the evidence presented for or a!ainst the
position of private respondent have been dul. considered in arrivin! at its conclusion.
@oth the )abor *rbiter and the respondent N)R" !ave credence to
the evidence of the private respondent that he #as ille!all. disissed.
7e are not free to taper #ith their calibration of the #ei!ht of
evidence in the absence of a clear sho#in! that it is arbitrar. and
bereft of an. rational basis.
1&
Indeed if petitioner #anted to prove its pa.ent of holida. pa.s and salar. differentials,
it could have easil. presented proofs of such onetar. benefits. @ut it did not. It had
failed to copl. #ith the andate of the la#. *s public respondent ruled, the burden of
proof in this re!ard belon!s to the eplo.er not to the eplo.ee.
7e also sustain the a#ard of attorne.<s fees. FIt is settled that in actions for recovery of
$ages or $here an employee $as forced to litigate and incur e%penses to protect his
rights and interest! he is entitled to an a$ard of attorney's fees.F
16
7H8R81OR8, preises considered, the Petition is DISMISS8D and the assailed
Decision is *11IRM8D. Double costs a!ainst petitioner.
SO ORD8R8D.
4