9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR.

RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.

|chanrobles.com

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary

Like 0

Tweet

Share

Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year2015>December2015Decisions>G.R.No.197763,December
07,2015SMARTCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.NAZARENO,ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,Petitioners,
v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Respondent. G.R. No. 197836 JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. SMART
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.NAZARENO,ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,Respondent.:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

G.R.No.197763,December07,2015SMARTCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.NAZARENO,
ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,Petitioners,v.JOSELENIZ.SOLIDUM,Respondent.G.R.No.197836JOSE
LENIZ.SOLIDUM,Petitioner,v.SMARTCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.NAZARENO,AND
MR.RICKYP.ISLA,Respondent.

THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.197763,December07,2015
SMARTCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.NAZARENO,ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,
Petitioners,v.JOSELENIZ.SOLIDUM,Respondent.
G.R.No.197836
JOSELENIZ.SOLIDUM,Petitioner,v.SMARTCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,MR.NAPOLEONL.
NAZARENO,ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,Respondent.
DECISION
VELASCOJR.,J.:
TheCase

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

These are consolidated petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated
April 4, 20111 and Resolution dated July 14, 20112 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No.
109765 entitled Jose Leni Z. Solidum v. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), Smart
Communications, Inc., Napoleon L. Nazareno and Ricky P. Isla. The CA Decision affirmed with
modification the Resolution dated January 26, 2009 and Decision dated May 29, 2009 of the National
LaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCCaseNo.00110956405.
TheFacts
ThefactsasfoundbytheCAareasfollows:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division

InanEmploymentContractdatedApril26,2004,3SmartCommunications,Inc.(Smart)hiredJoseLeni
Solidum (Solidum) as Department Head of Smart Prepaid/Buddy Activations under the Product
Marketing Group. Existing company procedures provide that a department head shall approve project
proposals coming from his marketing assistants and product managers/officers. Once approved, a
finance officer will assign a reference number to the project with a stated budget allocation. If the
Companydecidestoengagetheservicesofadulyaccreditedcreativeagency,thedepartmentheadwill
coordinatewithittodiscussthedetailsoftheproject.Theimplementationdetailsandtotalamountof
theprojectwillthenbeincludedinaCostEstimate(CE)submittedtotheCompany,routedforapproval,
andreturnedtotheselectedagencyforimplementation.Aftertheprojectiscarriedout,theagencywill
billtheCompanybysendingtheCEwithattachedinvoicesandothersupportingdocuments.
OnSeptember21,2005,SolidumreceivedaNoticetoExplainofevendate4fromtheCompanycharging
him with acts of dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence. In summary, he was charged with
violating"variouscompanypoliciesbymisrepresentingandusinghispositionandinfluenceinhisgrant
plot to defraud Smart by conceptualizing fictitious marketing events, appointing fictitious advertising
agencies to supposedly carry out marketing events and submitting fictitious documents to make it
appear that the marketing events transpired."5 He was charged with the following infractions: (1)
falsification and/or knowingly submitting falsified contents of reports/documents relative to his duties
and responsibilities (2) obtaining through fraudulent means materials, goods or services from the
Company (3) failing or refusing to disclose to the Company any existing or future dealings,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

1/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
transactions, relationships, etc. posing or would pose possible conflict of interest (4) other forms of
deceit, fraud, swindling, and misrepresentation committed by an employee against the company or its
representativeand(5)fraudorwillfulbreachoftrustinrelationtotransactionscoveredbyInvoiceNo.
2921 and CE No. 2005533 as well as CE Nos. 2005413, 2005459, 2005461, 2005526, 2005460,
2005552 and 2005527 that were approved/noted by him. Solidum received a copy of the Notice on
the same date. Pending administrative investigation, Solidum was placed under preventive suspension
withoutpayforaperiodofthirty(30)days.
In a letter dated September 26, 2005,6 Solidum denied the charges and claimed that he never
defraudednordeceivedtheCompanyinhistransactions.
Continued audit investigation, however, revealed that Solidum approved/noted several CEs covering
activities for which payments were made but did not actually carried out. Unaccredited third parties
werealsoengagedintheimplementationoftheprojects.Thus,theCompanyissuedanotherNoticeto
ExplaindatedOctober21,20057toSolidum,thistimecoveringthefollowingadditionalCEs:2005416,
2005480, 2005481, 2005479, 2005512, 2005513, and 2005533. Solidum was again preventively
suspendedforanotherten(10)days.Further,theCompanyscheduledtheadministrativeinvestigation
ofthecaseonOctober26,2005.
SolidumthensentaletterdatedOctober24,20058totheCompanyrequestingcopiesofthepertinent
documents so he can prepare an intelligible explanation. In another letter dated October 26, 2005,9
Solidum stated that the investigation is highly suspicious and his extended suspension imposed undue
burden. He also reserved his right to present evidence. In his last letter dated October 28, 2005,10
Solidumdeclaredthatheshallnolongerreceiveorentertainnoticesormemorandum,exceptthefinal
decisionresolvingtheadministrativechargesagainsthim.
Thereafter, the Company issued a letter dated November 2, 2005, alleging that Solidum refused to
acceptthedocumentsthathehadrequested.Usingthisallegation,theCompanyimposedanadditional
preventivesuspensionoften(10)daysonSolidum.
Basedontheavailableevidence,theCompanydecidedtodismissSolidumforbreachoftrustinaNotice
of Decision dated November 9, 2005.11 Corollarily, a Notice of Termination was served on him on
November11,2005.
Aggrieved,SolidumfiledacomplaintdatedNovember19,2005forillegalsuspensionanddismissalwith
money claims before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC claiming that his extended suspension and
subsequentterminationwerewithoutjustcauseanddueprocess.
In a Decision dated July 3, 2006,12 the labor arbiter declared that the extended period of suspension
without pay was illegal and that Solidum was unjustly dismissed from work without observance of
proceduraldueprocess.Hewasorderedreinstatedandwasawardedbackwagesandmonetaryclaims.
The labor arbiter ratiocinated that the ground of breach of trust and confidence is restricted to
managerialemployeeshowever,nosubstantialevidencewaspresentedtoprovethatSolidumhasthe
prerogativesakintoamanagerotherthanhistitulardesignationasdepartmenthead.

TheCompanyappealedtheadversedecisionofthelaborarbitertotheNLRCbutwasdeniedforhaving
beenfiledoutoftimeand/orfornonperfection,thus:

Records show that respondents received a copy of the Decision on "July 10, 2006" (See
RegistryReturnReceipt,p.561,Record)However,respondentsfiledtheirappealonlyon
"July25,2006"xxxalreadybeyondthereglementaryten(10)calendardayperiodfor
filinganappealtotheCommission.xxx

Moreover, perusal of the appeal shows that the appeal bond attached to it is not
accompaniedbyasecuritydepositorcollateral.TheCERTIFICATEOFNOCOLLATERALxx
xthatwassubmittedbythebondingcompanystatingthatthebondwasissuedon(sic)
behalf of respondent SMART "without collateral because they are our valued client" and
that"[t]hecompanydeclaresitscommitmenttohonorthevalidityoftheforegoingbond
notwithstanding the absence of collateral" does not serve any purpose other than an
admissionthatthesecuritydepositorcollateralrequirementunderSection6,RuleVIof
the Revised Rules of [Procedure of the NLRC for perfecting an appeal was not complied
with.Needlesstostate,theabsenceofasecuritydepositorcollateralsecuringthebond
renderstheappeallegallyinfirm.13

December-2015 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 212058, December 07, 2015 STAR
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. R & G
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING, INC.,
Respondent.

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 210445, December 07, 2015 NILO B.

ROSIT, Petitioner, v. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND
DR.ROLANDOG.GESTUVO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 195547, December 02, 2015 MA.
CORAZON M. OLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 209418, December 07, 2015 W.M.
MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD R.
DALAG AND GOLDEN ROCK MANPOWER SERVICES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 SMART
COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.,
MR.
NAPOLEON
L.
NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
JOSELENIZ.SOLIDUM,Respondent.G.R.No.197836
JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. SMART
COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.,
MR.
NAPOLEON
L.
NAZARENO,ANDMR.RICKYP.ISLA,Respondent.

In its motion for reconsideration, the Company insisted that the appeal was filed within the
reglementaryperiodconsideringthatitreceivedthelaborarbiter'sdecisiononlyonJuly13,2006and
not July 10, 2006. It presented among others the Certification from Makati Central Post Office, the
pertinentpageofthelettercarrier'sRegistryBook,andtherespectiveaffidavitofthelettercarrierand
the Company's receiving clerk. It added that in case of conflict between the registry receipt and the
postmaster's certification, the latter should prevail. Likewise, the Company maintained that the surety
bondwassecuredbyitsgoodwillandtheallegedlackofcollateralorsecuritywillnotrenderthebond
invalidinviewofthesurety'sunequivocalcommitmenttopaythemonetaryaward.
Findingmeritinthemotion,theNLRCissuedaResolutiondatedJanuary26,200914reversingitsearlier
rulingandgivingduecoursetotheappeal.Itupheldthecertificationofthepostmasterovertheregistry
receiptandfoundthattherewassubstantialcompliancewiththebondrequirement,viz:
Giventhefactualmilieu,theCommissionrulesthatrespondents'appealwasindeedfiled
withintheten(10)dayperiodxxx.SincetheDecision[oftheLaborArbiter]datedJuly
3,2006wasreceivedbyrespondentsonJuly13,2006,respondentshave(sic)effectively
until July 25, 2006 (considering that July 23 was a Sunday, and July 24 was a declared
nonworkingday)xxx.

G.R. No. 207633, December 09, 2015 PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JOHNLIE
LAGANGGAYDUMPA,AccusedAppellant.

xxxx
As to the absence of security deposit or collateral, the Commission x x x finds that
respondentswereabletocomplysubstantiallywiththeprerequisitefortheperfectionof
appeal.

G.R. No. 203115, December 07, 2015 ISLAND

OVERSEAS TRANSPORT CORPORATION/PINE CREST
SHIPPING CORPORATION/CAPT. EMMANUEL L. REGIO,
Petitioners,v.ARMANDOM.BEJA,Respondent.

x x x While the appeal bond was posted without security or collateral, the Certification
datedJuly20,2006,issuedbythebondingcompanyatteststothelatter's"commitment
to honor the validity of the foregoing bond notwithstanding the absence of collateral."
Otherwise stated, the very purpose of a security or collateral should be deemed served
consideringtheguaranteeofthebondingcompanytopaytheentireamountofthebond
intheeventrespondentssufferanadversedispositionoftheirappeal.Itmattersnotthat
thebondwasissuedonbehalfofrespondentswithoutcollateralforafterall,thebondis
accompaniedbyadeclarationunderoathbearingthebondingcompany'scommitmentto
honor the validity of the surety bond and attesting that the surety bond is genuine and
shallbeineffectuntilthefinaldispositionofthecase.

G.R.Nos.21600709,December08,2015PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUZVIMINDA S.
VALDEZANDTHESANDIGANBAYAN(FIFTHDIVISION),
Respondent.
G.R. No. 204275, December 09, 2015 LILIOSA C.
LISONDRA, Petitioner, v. MEGACRAFT INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION
AND
SPOUSES
MELECIO
AND
ROSEMARIEOAMIL,Respondent.

The NLRC likewise reversed the labor arbiter's decision. It ruled that the seriousness of Solidum's
infractionsjustifiedtheadditionalperiodofsuspension.Itaddedthatthelaborarbitererredindeclaring

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

2/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
G.R. No. 201652, December 02, 2015 HEIRS OF
SIMEON LATAYAN, NAMELY: LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN,
ARIEL Q. LATAYAN, AND ETHEL Q. LATAYANAMPIL,
REPRESENTED
BY
THEIR
ATTORNEYINFACT,
LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN, Petitioners, v. PEING TAN,
JOHNNY TAN, HERMTNIGILDO CASALAN, WEBINO
VILLAREAL, DIOSCOROMOLO, DAMACINO BAYAWA,
EDGAR NARITA, YOLANDA NARITA, POLICRONIA
CAPIONES, ANDRES LOZANO, GREGORIO YAGAO,
EMILIANO GUMATAY, JESUS ALCONTIN, ADAM
DULAUON, MARIO PEREZ, LARRY CEMAFRANCA,
FELIXBERTO
BULADACO,
CIPRIANOAHIT,
BUENAVENTURA B ACALSO AND SALDE ESPIA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 196415, December 02, 2015
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent. G.R. No.
196451 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015 KABATAAN
PARTYLIST, REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON AND MARJOHARA S.
TUCAY SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONALUNIONOFSTUDENTSOFTHEPHILIPPINES
VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON OF THE
ANAKBAYAN MARC LINO J. ABILA, NATIONAL
PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE
PHILIPPINES EINSTEIN Z. RECEDES, DEPUTY
SECRETARY GENERAL OF ANAKBAYAN CHARISSE
BERNADINE I. BAEZ, CHAIRPERSON OF THE LEAGUE
OF FILIPINO STUDENTS ARLENE CLARISSE Y. JULVE,
MEMBER OF ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG
AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN
(AGHAM) AND SINING MARIA ROSA L. MARFORI,
Petitioners,
v. COMMISSION ELECTIONS, ON,
Respondent.

Solidum'sdismissalillegalandwithoutjustcauseonthebasisthatheisnotamanagerialemployee.On
the contrary, overwhelming evidence showed that Solidum holds a position of trust and has violated
various company policies. Finally, the NLRC found that Solidum was accorded procedural due process.
ThedispositiveportionoftheResolutionthusreads:
WHEREFORE,theforegoingconsidered,theCommissionherebyresolvesasfollows:
1. complainant'sMotiontoInhibitdatedJune13,2008isDENIEDforlackofmerit.
2. respondents'MotionforReconsiderationdatedJuly27,2007isGRANTEDandtheir
instantappealdatedJuly25,2006isgivenDUECOURSE.
3. theCommission'sResolutiondatedJuly4,2007isSETASIDEandVACATED.
4. the appealed Decision a quo dated July 3, 2006 is SET ASIDE and new one is
ENTEREDdismissingthecomplaintbelowforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Thus, Solidum appealed to the CA. The CA then rendered the assailed Decision dated April 4, 2011
affirmingwithmodificationtheDecisionoftheNLRC.ThedispositiveportionoftheCADecisionreads:
FOR THESE REASONS, the Court AFFIRMS the NLRC Resolution dated January 26, 2009
withtheMODIFICATIONthatpetitionerJoseLeniSolidumbepaidhissalariesandbenefits
whichaccruedduringtheperiodofhisextendedpreventivesuspension.
SOORDERED.
FromsuchDecisionbothpartiesmovedforreconsideration.TheCAdeniedsuchMotionsinaResolution
datedJuly14,2011.Fromsuchrulingoftheappellatecourt,bothpartiesappealed.Hence,theinstant
petitions.
TheIssues
InG.R.No.197763,Smartraisesthefollowingissues:
(A)

G.R. Nos. 19709697, December 07, 2015

ANTONIO Z. KING, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS
ATTORNEYINFACT, EDGARDO SANTOS, Petitioner, v.
FRANCISCO A. ROBLES, ANTONIO T. DATU, RENE A.
MASILUNGAN, RESTITUTO S. SOLOMON, RODRIGO
MENDOZA, ROMEO MENDOZA REYNALDO DATU,
JOSEPH TIU, TERESITA TIU, ROGELIO GEBILAGUIN
ANDPRESCILLAGEBILAGUIN,Respondent.
G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015 PILIPINAS
TOTAL GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.

TheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredindeclaringillegalthesecondpreventivesuspension
imposedbypetitionerSmartupontherespondent.
(B)
The Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring that petitioner Smart may not place the
respondent under another preventive suspension after discovery of additional offenses
notwithstanding that the offenses committed by the respondent warrant another
preventivesuspension.15
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

InG.R.No.197836,Solidumraisesthefollowingissues,towit:

G.R.No.210855,December09,2015ROLANDOS.
ABADILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P.
OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, AND JUDITH
OBREROTIMBRESA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 199314 [Formerly UDK No. 14553],
December 07, 2015 TAMBLOT SECURITY & GENERAL
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO ITEM,
LEONARDO PALM A, RTCARDO UCANG, FLORENCRO
AMORA, REYNALDO DANO, APOLLO JOTOJOT,
TEODORO BARONG, JUAN T. CUSI, TEODORO DE LOS
REYES, EFREN ESCOL, JOVANNE COSE, DARIO S.
GEALON,JULIOESPADAANDDARIOPAJE,Respondent.
G.R.No.192659,December02,2015PHILIPPINE
RACE HORSE TRAINER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner, v. PIEDRAS NEGRAS CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 218787, December 08, 2015 LEO Y.
QUERUBIN, MARIA CORAZON M. AKOL, AND AUGUSTO
C. LAGMAN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONSENBANC,REPRESENTEDBYCHAIRPERSON
J. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, AND JOINT VENTURE OF
SMARTMATICTIM
CORPORATION,
TOTAL
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION,
SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. AND
JARLTECH
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY PARTNER WITH BIGGEST EQUITY
SHARE,
SMARTMATICTIM
CORPORATION,
ITS
GENERAL MANAGER ALASTAIR JOSEPH JAMES WELLS,
SMARTMATIC CHAIRMAN LORD MALLOCHBROWN,
SMARTMATICASIA
PACIFIC
PRESIDENT
CESAR
FLORES, AND ANY OR ALL PERSONS ACTING FOR AND
ONBEHALFOFTHEJOINTVENTURE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 179814, December 07, 2015 WILFRED
N.CHIOK, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND RUFINA CHUA, Respondents. G.R. No. 180021
RUFINA CHUA, Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, AND
THE PEOPLE OFTHEPHILIPPINES (AS AN UNWILLING
COPARTYPETITIONER),Respondent.
G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015 REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU
OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL
PETROLEUMCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213832, December 07, 2015 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. GILBERT
MERCADOA.K.A."BONG",AccusedAppellant.

A.
WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppeal'sDecisiondatedApril4,2011and
Resolution dated July 14, 2011, ruling that the appeal of private respondent Smart filed
with public respondent NLRC was well taken within the reglementary period, is in
accordancewithlaw,rulesandprevailingjurisprudence.
B.
WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppeal'sDecisiondatedApril4,2011and
Resolution dated July 14, 2011, considering private respondent Smart's appeal with the
NLRC as perfected by upholding the validity of the appeal bond posted by said private
respondentSmarteveniftherewasnosecuritydepositorcollateral,isinaccordancewith
Section 4 and 6, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, NLRC
MemorandumCircular101,seriesof2004,andprevailingjurisprudence.
C.
WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinfailingtoconsider
theevidencepetitionershowingthatevenuptothepresent,ormorethanfive(5)years
aftertheexpirationofthe10dayreglementaryperiodtofileaperfectedappealwiththe
NLRC on July 20, 2006, private respondent Smart still fails to provide petitioner with a
certified true copy of the surety bond and copy of the security deposit required for the
perfection of the appeal under Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of
Procedure.
D.
Whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretioninupholdingthevalidityoftheappealbondfiledbyprivaterespondentSmart
despitethefactthatboththeappealbondandcollateralsecuringthesaidbondhadlong
expired.
E.
Whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the
technicalrulesarenotcontrollinginanyproceedingbeforetheNLRC.
F.
Whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the
ResolutionofpublicrespondentNLRCdatedJanuary26,2009whichsetasidethedecision
of the labor arbiter dated July 3, 2006 declaring that petitioner's preventive suspension
formorethan30dayswithoutpayisillegalandtantamounttoconstructivedismissal.
G.

G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 ARMILYN

MORILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ANDRICHARDNATIVIDAD,Respondent.

Whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that
petitioner was afforded procedural due process by private respondent under the Two
NoticeRule.

G.R. No. 215201, December 09, 2015 PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MARK
ANTHONYROAQUINYNAVARRO,AccusedAppellant.

H.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinfindingthatthose

3/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
irregularities committed by petitioner were proven by documentary evidence and
testimoniesofhisproductmanagersandmarketingassistantsdespitethefactthatnone
of those product managers and marketing assistants appeared and testified during the
hearings and, most importantly, during the hearing for crossexamination on their
submitted affidavits and documentary evidence as scheduled by the labor arbiter upon
specific request and manifestation by the petitioner invoking his constitutional right to
crossexamine.

G.R. No. 203918, December 02, 2015 SPOUSES

AMADOR C. CAYAGO, JR. AND ERMALINDA B. CAYAGO,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES EVELITO CANTARA AND
SOLEDADCANTARA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 203397, December 09, 2015 AUGUSTO
ONG TRINIDAD II, AUGUSTO ONG TRINIDAD III FOR
HIMSELF AND REPRESENTING LEVY ONG TRINIDAD
AND
ROHMEL
ONG
TRINIDAD,
MARY
ANN
NEPOMUCENO
TRINIDAD
FOR
HERSELF
AND
ASSISTING HER MINOR CHILDREN JOAQUIN GERARD
N. TRINIDAD IV, JACOB GABRIEL N. TRINIDAD, AND
JERED GYAN N. TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
BONIFACIO PALAD AND FELICIDAD KAUSAPIN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 202215, December 09, 2015 VICMAR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR ROBERT KUA,
OWNER, AND ENGR. JUANITO C. PAGCALIWAGAN,
MANAGER, Petitioners,v. CAMILO ELARCOSA, MARLON
BANDA, DANTE L. BALAMAD, RODRIGO COLANSE,
CHIQUITO PACALDO, ROBINSON PANAGA, JUNIE
ABUGHO, SBLVERIO NARISMA, ARMANDO GONZALES,
TEOFILOELBINA,FRANCISCOBAGUIO,GELVENRHYAN
RAMOS, JULITO SIMAN, RECARIDO PANES, JESUS
TINSAY, AGAPITO CANAS, JR., OLIVER LOBAYNON,
SIMEON BAGUIO, JOSEPH SALCEDO, DONIL INDINO,
WILFREDOGULBEN,JESRILETANIO,RENANTEPAMON,
RICHIE GULBEN, DANIEL ELLO, REXY DOFELIZ,
RONALDNOVAL,NORBERTOBELARGA,ALLANBAGUIO,
ROBERTO PAGUICAN, ROMEO PATOY, ROLANDO
TACBOBO, WILFREDO LADRA, RUBEN PANES, RUEL
CABANDAY,ANDJUNARDABUGHO,Respondent.

I.
WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinfindingthatherein
petitioner is a fiduciary employee and is therefore covered by the trust and confidence
ruletoawiderlatitude.
J.
Whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that
petitionerisamanagerialemployee.
K.
WhetherornotthepublicrespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinfindingthatthere
wasjustandvalidcausetoterminatethepetitionerfromtheservice.16
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

TheCourt'sRuling
Thepetitionsmustbedenied.
Solidum's2ndpreventivesuspensionisvalid
InG.R.No.197763,Smartcontended:
Onthesamevein,therespondentwasvalidlyplacedundersecondpreventivesuspension
for the reason that pending investigation of separate and distinct set of offenses
committed by the respondent as contained in the second Notice to Explain dated 21
October2005(AnnexFhereof),hiscontinuedpresenceinthecompanypremisesduring
the investigation poses serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the
employerandcoworkers.17

G.R.No.188638,December09,2015PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND NORTHERN
MARINE MANAGEMENT, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO A.
CRISTINO,DECEASEDANDREPRESENTEDBYHISWIFE
SUSANB.BERDOS,Respondent.
G.R.No.211543,December09,2015DOMINGOG.
PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 209039, December 09, 2015 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MIRAFLOR
UGANIELLERIO,AccusedAppellant.
G.R.No.209559,December09,2015ENCHANTED
KINGDOM, INC., Petitioner, v. MIGUEL J. VERZO,
Respondent.

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Ontheotherhand,Solidumclaimsthathispreventivesuspensionof20daysisanextensionofhisinitial
30daysuspensionand,hence,illegalandconstitutesconstructivedismissal.
Smart'spositionisimpressedwithmerit.
The relevant provisions regarding preventive suspensions are found in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Omnibus Rules), as amended by
DepartmentOrderNo.9,Seriesof1997,whichreadasfollows:
Section8.Preventivesuspension. The employer may place the worker concerned under
preventive suspension only if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent
threattothelifeorpropertyoftheemployerorofhiscoworkers.

G.R.No.160399,December09,2015THECITYOF
ILOILO, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JERRY P.
TREAS,Petitioner,v.HON.JUDGERENEB.HONRADO,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
29, ILOILO CITY, ANDJPV MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION
TESTING & CAR CARE CENTER, CO., REPRESENTED BY
JIMP.VELEZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 159979, December 09, 2015 CAPITAL
INSURANCE AND SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner, v. DEL
MONTEMOTORWORKS,INC.,Respondent.

Section 9. Period of suspension. No preventive suspension shall last longer than

thirty(30)days.Theemployershallthereafterreinstatetheworkerinhisformerorina
substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension
providedthatduringtheperiodofextension,hepaysthewagesandotherbenefitsdueto
theworker.Insuchcase,theworkershallnotbeboundtoreimbursetheamountpaidto
him during the extension if the employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to
dismisstheworker,(Emphasissupplied)

G.R. No. 213696, December 09, 2015 QUANTUM

FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. MARCELINO ESLOYO AND
GLENMAGSILA,Respondent.

Byapreventivesuspensionanemployerprotectsitselffromfurtherharmorlossesbecauseoftheerring
employee. This concept was explained by the Court in Gatbonton v. National Labor Relations
Commission:18
Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the
company's property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or
misfeasance committed by the employee. The employer may place the worker
concernedunderpreventivesuspensionifhiscontinuedemploymentposesaseriousand
imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his coworkers. However,
whenitisdeterminedthatthereisnosufficientbasislojustifyanemployee'spreventive
suspension,thelatterisentitledtothepaymentofsalariesduringthetimeofpreventive
suspension.(Emphasissupplied)

G.R. No. 209040, December 09, 2015 PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RODOLFO
PATEODAYAPDAPAN,AccusedAppellant.
G.R.No.166581,December07,2015SOLIDBANK
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND
DANILO H. LAZARO, Respondents. G.R. No. 167187
DANILO H. LAZARO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND
SOLIDBANKCORPORATION,Respondents.

Such principle was applied by the Court in Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures/Mary Ann Dela Vega v.
Esteban,19whereitwasruled:

G.R. No. 200901, December 07, 2015 SM

INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ESTELA
MARFORIPOSADAS,MARIAELENAPOSADASANDAIDA
MACARAIGPOSADAS.Respondents.

Preventive suspension is a measure allowed by law and afforded to the employer if an

employee'scontinuedemploymentposesaseriousandimminentthreattotheemployer's
life or property or of his coworkers. It may be legally imposed against an employee
whoseallegedviolationisthesubjectofaninvestigation.

G.R. No. 208113, December 02, 2015 DOLORES

DIAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
LETICIAS.ARCILLA,Respondents.

In this case, the petitioner was acting well within its rights when it imposed a 10day
preventivesuspensiononEsteban.Whileitmaybethattheactscomplainedofwere
committed by Esteban almost a year before the investigation was conducted,
still,itshouldbepointedoutthatEstebanwasperformingfunctionsthatinvolve
handling of the petitioner's property and funds, and the petitioner had every
right to protect its assets and operations pending Esteban's investigation.
(Emphasissupplied)

G.R. No. 182375, December 02, 2015 HADJA

RAWIYA SUIB, Petitioner, v. EMONG EBBAH AND THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 22ND DIVISION,
MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 211210, December 02, 2015 RADAR
SECURITY & WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v.
JOSED.CASTRO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213814, December 02, 2015 RAFAEL B.
QUILLOPA, Petitioner, v. QUALITY GUARDS SERVICES
ANDINVESTIGATIONAGENCYANDISMAELBASABICA,
JR.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 193964, December 02, 2015 ENGINEER
BEN Y. LIM, RBL FISHING CORPORATION, PALAWAN
AQUACULTURE CORPORATION, AND PENINSULA
SHIPYARD CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON.
SULPICIO G. GAMOSA, OFFICERINCHARGE, NCIP
REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE, REGION IV AND

WhiletheOmnibusRuleslimitstheperiodofpreventivesuspensiontothirty(30)days,suchtimeframe
pertainsonlytooneoffensebytheemployee.Foranoffense,itcannotgobeyond30days.However,if
the employee is charged with another offense, then the employer is entitled to impose a preventive
suspension not to exceed 30 days specifically for the new infraction. Indeed, a fresh preventive
suspensioncanbeimposedforaseparateordistinctoffense.Thus,anemployeriswellwithinitsrights
topreventivelysuspendanemployeeforotherwrongdoingsthatmaybelaterdiscoveredwhilethefirst
investigationisongoing.
As in this case, Smart was able to uncover other wrongdoings committed by Solidum during the
investigation for the initial charges against him. These newly discovered transgressions would, thus,
require an additional period to investigate. The first batch of offenses was captured in the September
21,2005NoticetoExplainissuedbySmart.Thenoticecoversfraudorwillfulbreachoftrustinrelation
totransactionscoveredbyInvoiceNo.2921andCENo.2005533aswellasCENos.2005413,2005
459, 2005461, 2005526, 2005460, 2005552 and 2005527 that were noted by him. For these

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

4/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
offenses,Solidumwasissuedapreventivesuspensionwithoutpayfor30days.

TAGBANUA INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY OF

BARANGAY BUENAVISTA, CORON, PALAWAN, AS
REPRESENTED BY FERNANDO P. AGUIDO, ERNESTO
CINCO, BOBENCIO MOSQUERA, JURRY CARPIANO,
VICTORBALBUTAN,NORDITOALBERTO,EDENGPESRO,
CLAUDINA BAQUID, NONITA SALVA, AND NANCHITA
ALBERTO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 197792, December 09, 2015 CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. MADLAWI B.
MAGOYAG,Respondent.
G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 MELANIEE.
DEOCAMPO,Petitioner,v.RPN9/RADIOPHILIPPINES
NETWORK,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 204172, December 09, 2015 HON.
HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY
AS
ACTING
SECRETARY
OF
THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), ATTY. JOEL L. JACOB, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS OFFICERINCHARGE, LEGAL SERVICE
(DPWH), ATTY. OLIVER T. RODULFO, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS HEAD, INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE,
(DPWH), AND HON. JAIME A. PACANAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
(DPWH), REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, Petitioners, v.
ALVAROY.APURILLO,ERDAP.GABRIANA,JOCELYNS.
JO, IRAIDA R. LASTIMADO, AND FRANCISCO B.
VINEGAS,JR.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 215424, December 09, 2015 ADINA B.
MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

OnOctober21,2005,Smart,however,issuedanothernoticetoexplaintoSolidumthistimeinvolving
additional CEs: 2005416, 2005480, 2005481, 2005479, 2005512, and 2005513. Solidum was
again preventively suspended for twenty (20) days. The preventive suspension of 20 days is not an
extension of the suspension issued in relation to the September 21, 2005 Notice to Explain but is a
totally separate preventive suspension for the October 21, 2005 Notice to Explain. As earlier pointed
out, the transactions covered by the 30day preventive suspension are different from that covered by
the 20day preventive suspension. Such being the case the court aquo was incorrect when it treated
said suspension as an "extension" and, consequently, it is a miscue to award Solidum the payment of
backsalariesandbenefitscorrespondingtothe20daypreventivesuspensionofSolidum.
AstotheissuesraisedbySoliduminG.R.No.197836,thesamearebereftofmerit.
Smart'sappealfromtheDecisionofthelaborarbiterwasfiledwithinthereglementaryperiod
SolidumcontendsthatSmart'smotionforreconsiderationofthelaborarbiter'sDecisionwasfiledoutof
time.Theissuehereis:WhendidSmartreceiveacopyoftheDecision?Theconfusionoriginatedfrom
thedatestampedbythereceivingclerkofSmartonthereceivingcopyoftheDecisionasJuly10,2006.
SmartclaimsthatthestampeddatewaserroneousasitactuallyreceivedacopyoftheDecisiononlyon
July 13, 2006. Such claim is supported by the certification from the postmaster of the Makati Central
Post Office, the letter carrier's Registry Book, and the affidavits of the letter carrier and Smart's
receivingclerk.Withsuchoverwhelmingevidence,therecanbenootherconclusionexceptthatSmart
received a copy of the Decision on July 13, 2006 and filed their motion for reconsideration within the
prescribed10dayperiodonJuly25,2006,asJuly24,2006fellonaSunday.Thus,Smart'sMotionwas
timelyfiled.
Smartsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsofanappealbond
Next,SolidumquestionsthevalidityoftheappealbondfiledbySmart,pointingoutthelackofaproof
ofsecuritydepositorcollateralnecessarytoperfectitsappealtotheNLRC.Torecall,Section6,RuleVI
ofthe2005NLRCRevisedRulesofProcedurestates:

G.R. No. 179741, December 09, 2015 HEIRS OF

SPOUSES HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N.
MARINAS, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA,
RODRIGO FRIANEZA, ALEJANDRA FRIANEZA, HILARIO
VILLENA, SATURNINO VILLENA, FEDERICO FLORES,
PEDROFLORESANDMARCELINARAMOS,Respondents.

Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director
involvesamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthe
posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond
equivalentinamounttothemonetaryaward,exclusiveofdamagesandattorney'sfees.
In case of surety bond, the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court, and shall be accompanied by
originalorcertifiedtruecopiesofthefollowing:

G.R. No. 190482, December 09, 2015

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED
BY MS. FRITZI C. PANTOJA IN HER CAPACITY AS
PROVINCIALAGRARIANREFORMOFFICEROFLAGUNA,
Petitioner, v. IGMIDIO D. ROBLES, RANDY V. ROBLES,
MARYKRISTB.MALIMBAN,ANNEJAMAICAG.ROBLES,
JOHN CARLO S. ROBLES AND CHRISTINE ANN V.
ROBLES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
NEXT
MOBILE,
INC.
(FORMERLY
NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONSPHILS.,INC.),Respondent.
G.R. No. 174387, December 09, 2015 BF
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
WERDENBERG
INTERNATIONALCORPORATION,Respondent.

xxxx
c)proofofsecuritydepositorcollateralsecuringthebond:provided,
that a check shall not be considered as an acceptable security. (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, Solidum claims that the lack of proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond renders
thebondirregularandtheappeallegallyinfirm.
Wedisagree.
AsaptlyfoundbytheNLRC,substantialcompliancewiththerulesonappealbondshasbeenrepeatedly
heldbythisCourttobesufficientfortheperfectionofanappeal:
Theperfectionofanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodandinthemannerprescribed
by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal and
effectively renders the judgment final and executory. As provided in Article 223 of the
Labor Code, as amended, in case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal
bytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybondissued
by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount
equivalenttothemonetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom.

G.R.No.209689,December02,2015MARISSAB.
QUIRANTE, Petitioner, v. OROPORT CARGO HANDLING
SERVICES,INC.,ETAL.Respondents.
G.R. No. 202877, December 09, 2015 NARRA
NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND
MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATEDMINESCORPORATION,Respondent.

However, not only in one case has this Court relaxed this requirement in order to bring
about the immediate and appropriate resolution of cases on the merits. In Quiambaov.
NationalLaborRelationsCommission,thisCourtallowedtherelaxationoftherequirement
whenthereissubstantialcompliancewiththerule.Likewise,inOngv.CourtofAppeals,
the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is
substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant
showswillingnesstopostapartialbond.TheCourtheldthat"whilethebondrequirement
onappealsinvolvingmonetaryawardshasbeenrelaxedincertaincases,thiscanonlybe
donewheretherewassubstantialcomplianceoftheRulesorwheretheappellants,atthe
veryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopaybypostingapartialbond."20

G.R.No.202947,December09,2015ASBREALTY
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ORTIGAS & COMPANY
LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213229, December 09, 2015 FILINVEST
ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. CENTURY IRON WORKS,
INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 210215, December 09, 2015 ROGELIO S.
NOLASCO, NICANORA N. GUEVARA, LEONARDA N.
ELPEDES, HEIRS OF ARNULFO S. NOLASCO, AND
REMEDIOSM.NOLASCO,REPRESENTEDBYELENITAM.
NOLASCO Petitioners, v. CELERINO S. CUERPO,
JOSELITO ENCABO, JOSEPH ASCUTIA, AND DOMILO
LUCENARIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206942, December 09, 2015 VICENTE C.
TATEL, Petitioner, v. JLFP INVESTIGATION AND
SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN,
AND/ORPAOLOC.TURNO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
AGRIBIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v.
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),
MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG
AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASIO,
DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG,
LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY.
MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY
MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO
KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN.
ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR
EDWARDS.HAGEDORNANDEDWINMARTHINELOPEZ,
Respondents. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
PetitionerinIntervention. G.R. No. 209276
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Furthermore,consideringthatitistheNLRCthathasinterpreteditsownrulesonthismatter,theCourt
is inclined to accept such interpretation. The Court has held, "By reason of the special knowledge and
expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better
positiontopassjudgmentonthosematters."21Moreover,theNLRCproperlyrelaxedtherulesonappeal
bonds.
The NLRC has the power and authority to promulgate rules of procedure under Article 218(a) of the
LaborCode.Assuch,itcansuspendtherulesifitfindsthattheinterestsofjusticewillbebetterserved
if the strict compliance with the rules should be relaxed. In short, a substantial compliance may be
allowedbytheNLRCespeciallyinthiscasewherethepartywhichsubmittedthebondisamultibillion
companywhichcaneasilypaywhatevermonetaryawardmaybeadjudgedagainstit.Evenifthereisno
proofofsecuritydepositorcollateral,thesuretybondissuedbyanaccreditedcompanyisadequateto
answerfortheliabilityifanytobeincurredbySmart.
Solidumisnotentitledtoreinstatement
Next, Solidum claims that due to the extension of his period of preventive suspension, he must be
considered as having been constructively dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and backwages. To
supporthisclaim,SolidumcitesMaricalumMiningCorporationv.Decorion22Suchcase,however,isnot
factually on all fours with the instant case. In Maricalum, the Court ruled that Decorion was illegally
constructively dismissed, which is why he was entitled to reinstatement. Here, Solidum was validly
dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. Thus, his reliance on Maricalum is misplaced and will not
justifyhisreinstatement.
AstoSolidum'sclaimofdenialofdueprocess,suchissuesarefactualinnature.ThisCourt,notbeinga
trieroffacts,willnotpassuponsuchissues,asruledinNahasv.Olarte:23

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

5/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
OF
APPEALS,
GREENPEACE
SOUTHEAST
ASIA
(PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA
PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP.
TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR.
ANGELINAGALANG,LEONARDOAVILAIII,CATHERINE
UNTALAN,ATTY. MARIA PAZLUNA, JUANITO MODINA,
DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR.
WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR.,
FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON,
MAYOREDWARDS.HAGEDORNANDEDWINMARTHINE
LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC.
PetitionerinIntervention. G.R. No. 209301
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS
FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE
SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT
SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN
MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO
AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ
LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR.
ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY.
HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO
MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S.
HAGEDORN
AND
EDWIN
MARTHINE
LOPEZ,
Respondents. G.R. No. 209430 UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST
ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA
PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP.
TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR.
ANGELINAGALANG,LEONARDOAVILAIII,CATHERINE
UNTALAN,ATTY. MARIA PAZLUNA, JUANITO MODINA,
DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR.
WENCESLAO KIAT, ATTY. HARRY R. ROQUE, JR.,
FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON,
MAYOREDWARDS.HAGEDORNANDEDWINMARTHINE
LOPEZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 169694, December 09, 2015
MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC.,
EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS, INC., AND ANDREW L.
TAN, Petitioners, v. MAJESTIC FINANCE AND
INVESTMENT CO., INC., RHODORA LOPEZLIM, AND
PAULINACRUZ,Respondents.

The Court is not a trier of facts factual findings of the labor tribunals when affirmed by
theCAaregenerallyaccordednotonlyrespect,butevenfinality,andarebindingonthis
Court.
Notably,Solidum'sallegationthathewasdeniedhisrighttocounselwaspassedupontheNLRCinthis
wise:
Similarly, the Commission is not convinced with Labor Arbiter Pati's finding that the
complainantwasdeprivedonhisrighttocounselwhenhewasnotallowedtobeassisted
byhiscounselattheallegedinvestigationheldonSeptember21,2005.Otherthanhis
bareclaim,thereisnoevidenceonrecordbuttressingcomplainant'sclaim.24xx
x(Emphasissupplied)
Similarly,Solidumcontendsthathedidnotreceiveotherdocumentsnecessaryforhimtobeapprisedof
thechargesagainsthim.Sucharealsoissuesoffact.TheNLRCruledonthismatterinthiswise:
The Commission is likewise not convinced with the finding of Labor Arbiter Pati that
complainant was deprived of due process when he was not furnished copies of the
documentshereferredtoinhisletterdatedOctober24,2005therebypromptinghimnot
to attend the hearings on October 26 and 28, 2005. There is evidence to show that
respondents furnished copies of the documents requested by complainant but
whichthelatterrefusedtoreceivedwhentheyweresenttohisresidence.25xx
x(Emphasissupplied)
It is not necessary that witnesses be crossexamined by counsel of the adverse party in
proceedingsbeforethelaborarbiter
Solidum further alleges that he was denied the right to crossexamine the witnesses who submitted
affidavitsinfavorofSmartthus,theaffidavitsmustbeconsideredhearsayandinadmissible.Insupport
ofsuchcontention,SolidumcitesNaguitv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission26
Suchcontentionismisplaced.
The controlling jurisprudence on the matter is the ruling in the more recent Philippine Long Distance
TelephoneCompanyv.Honrado,27wheretheCourtruled:
It is hornbook in employee dismissal cases that "[t]he essence of due process is an
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain one's side x x x. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all
instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy." Neither is it necessary that the witnesses be crossexamined by
counselfortheadverseparty.(Emphasissupplied)
The Court explained the reason why crossexamination is not required in the proceedings before the
labor arbiter in Reyno v. Manila Electric Company,28 citing Rabago v. National Labor Relations
Commission29wheretheCourtruled:
xxxTheargumentthattheaffidavitishearsaybecausetheaffiantswerenotpresented
for crossexamination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly
observedinproceedingsbeforeadministrativebodiesliketheNLRCwheredecisionsmay
bereachedonthebasisofpositionpapersonly.xxx
Clearly, the alleged denial of Solidum's request to crossexamine the witnesses of Smart does not
render their affidavits hearsay. Thus, these pieces of evidence were properly considered by the labor
tribunal.
SolidumwasamanagerialemployeeofSmart
Next,Solidumarguesthatheisnotafiduciaryormanagerialemployeeand,therefore,cannotbelegally
dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Article 212(m) of the Labor Code defines a
ManagerialEmployeeas:

(m)'Managerialemployee'isonewhoisvestedwithpowersorprerogativestolaydown
and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff recall,
discharged,assignordisciplineemployees.xxx
TheNLRCfoundthatSolidumwasamanagerialemployeeinthiswise:
ThefactsonhandindubitablyshowthatcomplainantoccupiedthepositionofDepartment
Meadandheldthesamewithtrustandconfidenceasrequiredhimunderhisemployment
contract. As Department Head of the Smart Buddy Activations and Usage Group,
complainant led and directed his subordinates composed of product managers, product
officers, and senior marketing assistants to achieving the company's marketing goals.
Moreover, complainant appears to have the authority to devise, implement and
control strategic and operational policies of the Department he was then
heading. Likewise, it cannot be denied that complainant's Department has a budget of
millions of pesos over which he exercises the power to allocate to different marketing
projectsconceptualizedbyhimand/orhissubordinates.Therecordswouldalsoshowthat
for complainant's services, he received a monthly salary in the hefty amount of
P233,910.00,monthlyallowanceofP19,000.00,andbonusesandincentivesofmorethan
P7Million.
Under the foregoing facts, complainant's duties and responsibilities, coupled with the
amountofsalariesheisreceivingandotherbenefitsheisentitledto,certainlyshowthat
hispositionofDepartmentHeadismanagerialinnature.30(Emphasissupplied)
Solidumdeniesthatheisamanagerialemployeebystatingthatjustbecausehedirectedsubordinates,
heshouldbeconsideredamanagerialemployee.Healsoarguesthatjustbecausehehadalargesalary
does not mean that he was a managerial employee. Finally, Solidum denies having the power to lay
downandexecutemanagementpolicies.

Notably, however, Solidum does not deny having "the authority to devise, implement and control
strategicandoperationalpoliciesoftheDepartmenthewasthenheading."Thisisclearlytheauthority
tolaydownandexecutemanagementpolicies.Consequently,theCAaffirmedthesefindings.Thus,the
NLRCandtheCAcorrectlyfoundthatSolidumwasamanagerialemployee.Assuch,hemaybevalidly
dismissedforlossoftrustandconfidence.
Therulingsoftrialcourtincriminalcasesgenerallydonotbindthelabortribunals
Further, Solidum alleges that he did not commit any dishonestyrelated offense that would justify
Smart'slossofconfidenceinhim.Hesupportssuchallegationwiththerulingsoftwo(2)trialcourtsof
MakatiCitythatruledthatSolidumdidnotcommitanyfraudinthesubjecttransactions.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

6/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
Solidum'srelianceontherulingsofthetrialcourtsismisplaced.Hisacquittalbeforesuchcourtscannot
bindthelabortribunal.
InAmadeo Fishing Corporation v. Nierra,31 the Court ruled that "an acquittal in criminal prosecution
does not have the effect of extinguishing liability for dismissal on the ground of breach of trust and
confidence." While in Vergara v. National Labor Relations Commission,32 the Court was even more
succinctandruledthatthefilingofthecomplaintby.thepublicprosecutorisasufficientgroundfora
dismissalofanemployeeforlossoftrustandconfidence,towit:
The Court finds adequate basis for private respondent's loss of trust and confidence in
petitioner,xxxBesides,theevidencesupportingthecriminalcharge,foundafter
preliminaryinvestigationassufficienttoshowprimafacieguilt,constitutesjust
causeforhisterminationbasedonlossoftrustandconfidence.Toconstitutejust
cause, petitioner's malfeasancedid notrequirecriminal conviction. Verily,petitionerwas
dismissed not because he was convicted of theft, but because his dishonest acts were
substantiallyproven,(Emphasissupplied)
Intheinstantcase,boththeNLRCandtheCAfoundSolidumguiltyoftheallegedactsthatconstituted
groundsforhisdismissalforlossoftrustandconfidence,whichweresummarizedbytheCAasfollows:
First, Solidum noted two versions of CE No. 2005533 with description "Buy SIM
Download All You Can" but containing different particulars. Specifically, the second CE
includedchargesfromvariousradiostationswhicharenotfoundinthefirstCE.However,
theCompanydiscoveredthattheonlyprojectswithapprovedradiocomponentswerethe
"MindanaoKolekMoToPromo"whichendedonJuly15,2005the"VisayasKolekMoTo
Promo"whichendedonAugust15,2005,andthe"SmartDownloadandWin"withpromo
periodfromAugust22toOctober22,2005.The"BuySIMDownloadAllYouCan"hasno
approvedradiocomponent.Moreover,Solidumsubmittedcertificatesofperformancefrom
variousradiostationswhichareoutsideofthepromoperiods.
Second, in the implementation of several projects, Solidum endorsed unaccredited third
parties, which is already a violation of established company policies. One of these
corporations is M&M Events, Inc., which turned out as a nonexisting corporation. The
Smart Senior Product Officer Ma. Luisa Suguitan even testified that she has not worked
with an agency such as M&M Events, Inc. Worse, the said entity cannot be found in its
declaredbusinessaddressandtheVATregistrationnumberappearingonitssalesinvoice
is registered under a different company. Moreover, Solidum approved CE No. 2005459
and CE No. 2005460, pertaining to different projects, but with attached invoices from
M&MEvents,Inc.bearingthesamedateandamount.Finally,Solidumdeviatedfromthe
existing company procedures. He presented CEs to his subordinate product manager for
signaturewithhisapprovalalreadyaffixed.Later,itwasdiscoveredthatthedulysigned
CEswerealteredwithouttheknowledgeoftheproductmanager.Heevendictatedtothe
agency the title to be used and the details that should be included in the CEs. The CEs
werethenforwardeddirectlytohiminsteadoftheSmartmarketingpointperson.Solidum
alsochargedcertainprojectsagainstthebudgetofanotherapprovedprogram.
Such findings of the NLRC and affirmed by the CA are binding on this Court. Thus, Solidum's petition
mustalsofailonthispoint.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionofJoseLeniZ.SoliduminG.R.No.197836isherebyDENIED.Thepetition
of petitioners Smart Communications, Inc, et al. in G.R. No. 197763 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Court of Appeals Decision dated April 4, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the
award of salaries and benefits that accrued during the period of extended preventive suspension is
DELETED.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Peralta,Villarama,Jr.,Reyes,andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:
1Rollo(G.R.No.197763),pp.4459.PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarioV.

Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and

EdwinD.Sorongon.
2Id.at6167.
3Rollo(G.R.No.197836),pp.656658.
4Id.at597599.
5Id.at422.
6Id.at601607.
7Id.at630633.
8Id.at639640.
9Id.at636638.
10Id.at666.
11Id.at10381044.
12Id.at344403.
13Id.at405406.
14Id.at410437.
15Rollo(G.R.No.197763),pp.2627.
16Rollo(G.R.No.197836),pp.131134.
17Rollo(G.R.No.197763),p.29.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

7/8

9/28/2016 G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v.
18G.R.No.146779,January23,2006,479SCRA416,421422.
19G.R.No.192582,April7,2014,720SCRA765,777.
20Pasos v. Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 192394,

July3,2013,700SCRA608,622623.

21Encinas v. Agustin, G.R. No. 1873 17, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 240,

266267.

22G.R.No.158637,April12,2006,487SCRA182.
23G.R.No.169247,June2,2014,724SCRA224,234.
24Rollo(G.R.No.197836),p.435.
25Id.at434.
26G.R.No.120474,August12,2003,408SCRA617.
27G.R.No.189366,December8,2010,637SCRA778,783784.
28G.R.No.148105,July22,2004,434SCRA660,667.
29G.R.No.82868,August5,1991,200SCRA158,164165.
30Rollo(G.R.No.197836),p.421.
31G.R.No.163099,October4,2005,472SCRA13,32.
32G.R.No.117196,December5,1997,282SCRA486,497.

Adsby Google
Adsby Google
Adsby Google

LawGR
CaseGR
VSGR

CourtCases
GRNo
LaborLaw

GRV
GRL
GRGR

CaseGR
CourtGR
LawCases

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

QUICKSEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2013

2014

2015

2016

Main Indices of the Library --->

Copyright19982016ChanRoblesPublishingCompany

|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015decemberdecisions.php?id=1055

2012

Go!

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com

RED

8/8