872 Phil. 462; 118 OG No. 5, 703 (January 31, 2022)
LEONEN, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING that the dismissal of individual complainant Orestes Delos Reyes is valid and DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[22]
When a decision of the Court of Appeals under a Rule 65 petition is brought to this court by way of a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be decided upon. As held in Meralco Industrial v. National Labor Relations Commission:This Court is not a trier of facts. Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts. Besides, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.
Career Philippines v. Serna, citing Montoya v. Transmed, is instructive on the parameters of judicial review under Rule 45:As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. In one case, we discussed the particular parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the CA's Rule 65 decision on a labor case, as follows:In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[72] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
ARTICLE 297. (282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
SECTION 16. Teacher's Obligations. — Every teacher shall:
- Perform his duties to the school by discharging his responsibilities in accordance with the philosophy, goals, and objectives of the school.
- Be accountable for the efficient and effective attainment of specified learning objectives in pursuance of national development goals within the limits of available school resources.
- Render regular reports on performance of each student and to the latter and the latter's parents and guardians with specific suggestions for improvement.
- Assume the responsibility to maintain and sustain his professional growth and advancement and maintain professionalism in his behavior at all times.
- Refrain from making deductions in students' scholastic ratings for acts that are clearly not manifestations of poor scholarship.
- Participate as an agent of constructive social, economic, moral, intellectual, cultural and political change in his school and the community within the context of national policies. (Emphasis supplied)
Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the work of the employee to constitute just cause from his separation.
In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.[75] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
In Reyes vs. People, we ruled that the expression "putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one's expression of profanity. We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily to insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon.[78] (Citation omitted)
In another occasion, a complaint for verbal abuse was filed against individual complainant by certain parents for and in behalf of their daughter, a dean's lister of respondent Adamson. However, as indicated by their parents' subsequent letter to the Director of Office for Student Affairs, they agreed to withdraw the said complaint. Their decision to withdraw the complaint was due to the parties' understanding that herein individual complainant should also withdraw his separate complaint against their daughter and the same should not reflect to their daughter's academic record.[79]
In particular, The Director of Human Resource Department Office called his attention through a memorandum for his display of unprofessional behavior. The Director personally witnessed complainant that he openly shouted and displayed dirty finger sign against his immediate superior Chairperson Milagros Urbano.
His subsequent Chairperson Dr. Josielyn Mendoza likewise previously filed a complaint against him for his unruly and disruptive behavior. Among others, Chairperson Mendoza stated that when she was presiding their social science faculty meeting and about to present a fellow professor to report the financial expenses during the previous academe conference, herein individual complainant suddenly interrupted and refused the report to proceed and angrily shouted at her "Tama na! Mag prankahan tayo!; that individual complainant exclaimed during the same meeting in front of the other faculty members that Professor Joseph Medillo seems to be the apple of the eyes of their Chairperson; that sometime in 2012, she was threatened by individual complainant saying "Kapag binigay mokay Don-don xxx ang OJT ... pasasabugin ko ang departamento xxx Wag kang tumawa, hindi ako nagbibiro, pasasabugin ko talaga ang departamento."; that she previously witnessed individual complainant challenging Professor Ricky Maano to a fist fight; that "although Prof. Delos Reyes and his infamous attitude was never an urban legend, I and the Social Science department (his mother department) have remained deaf and silent in dealing with all his temperaments through the years. There were already a number of incidents that Prof. Delos Reyes had shown his combative behaviour towards me as the chairperson of the department."
Another separate complaint, Chairperson Mendoza also stated that individual complainant without any provocation suddenly confronted her while she was having a chat with a professor. She reported that "he looked at me with furious eyes and poked a finger at my face and said: Kaya ikaw tigilan mo na ang pagsasabi na walang ginagawa ang Union! In a loud voice and in an intimidating manner. xxx Pasalamat ka at nirerespeto pa kita dahil kay Buknoy! Referring to my younger brother. xxx his notorious attitude and unprofessional behaviour is not unknown in the university. However, no matter how disruptive and unruly his behaviour may be towards other members of this University, he can freely do so with impunity."[80]
The Committee has been apprised as to the existence of a report and complaint pertaining to his drastic conduct and display of disrespectful behavior last September 1, 2014 when he confronted Dr. Josielyn M. Mendoza, his former Chair at the Social Sciences Department. Respondent has reportedly looked at Ms. Mendoza with furious eyes and poked a finger at her face and said "Kaya ikaw tigilan mo na ang pagsasabi mo na walang ginagawa ang Union!" in a loud voice and in an intimidating manner[.] She pointed in her letter-complaint that it was not the first time that respondent disrespected her. She further continued in her complaint that "His notorious attitude and unprofessional behavior is not unknown in the University. However, no matter how disruptive and unruly his behavior may be towards other members of this University he can freely do so with impunity."
In 2001, in his 201 File, the then Director for Human Resource Development Office, Ana Liza M. Ragas even cited the respondent with "display of unprofessional behavior in the office" when he was personally seen to have shouted words and resorted to dirty finger sign against his past Chairperson, Ms. Milagros Urbano. Even granting for the sake of argument, that there has been a heated exchange argument between the two, a dirty finger sign smacks of indiscipline and unprofessionalism.
On a final note, the open defiance and disrespect to school authorities and processes are magnified in this case as respondent refused to sign any order served on him. He even used, intentionally or unintentionally the letterhead of the AUFEA in his letters to the Committee and signed the same as AUFEA President when he is being complained of as a faculty member and not in his capacity as the Union President. This only shows that respondent had the propensity to commit and display among his peers and, more so, to the students a misbehavior which is a characteristics (sic) of misconduct.[81] (Citations omitted)
In determining the sanction imposable on an employee, the employer may consider the former's past misconduct and previous infractions. Also known as the principle of totality of infractions, the Court explained such concept in Merin v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., thus:The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty. Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.[83] (Citation omitted)
Indeed, the law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, and observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests.[85] (Citation omitted)
ARTICLE 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters;
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, That the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
ARTICLE 258. [247] Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for Prosecution Thereof. — Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein provided.
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices. They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days from the time they are submitted for decision.
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.
No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such administrative proceeding, the running of the period of prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall be considered interrupted: Provided, however, That the final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the requirements therein set forth.
The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it. While there are exceptions to this general rule, in the case of ULP, the alleging party has the burden of proving such ULP.
Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC that "a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process".
While in the more recent and more apt case of Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) v. Confesor, this Court enunciated:In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . .
In other words, whether the employee or employer alleges that the other party committed ULP, it is the burden of the alleging party to prove such allegation with substantial evidence. Such principle finds justification in the fact that ULP is punishable with both civil and/or criminal sanctions.[88] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
While an act or decision of an employer may be unfair, certainly not every unfair act or decision constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) as defined and enumerated under Art. 248 of the Labor Code.
There should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may be held liable under this provision of his conduct affects in whatever manner the right of an employee to self-organize. The decision of respondent GREPALIFE to consider the top officers of petitioner UNION as unfit for reinstatement is not essentially discriminatory and constitutive of an unlawful labor practice of employers under the above-cited provision. Discriminating in the context of the Code involves either encouraging membership in any labor organization or is made on account of the employee's having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code. These have not been proved in the case at bar.
To elucidate further, there can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated. A union officer has larger and heavier responsibilities than a union member. Union officers are duty bound to respect the law and to exhort and guide their members to do the same; their position mandates them to lead by example. By committing prohibited activities during the strike, de la Rosa as Vice President of petitioner UNION demonstrated a high degree of imprudence and irresponsibility. Verily, this justifies his dismissal from employment. Since the objective of the Labor Code is to ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace, the dismissal of undesirable labor leaders should be upheld.
It bears emphasis that the employer is free to regulate all aspects of employment according to his own discretion and judgment. This prerogative flows from the established rule that labor laws do not authorize substitution of judgment of the employer in the conduct of his business. Recall of workers clearly falls within the ambit of management prerogative. The employer can exercise this prerogative without fear of liability so long as it is done in good faith for the advancement of his interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or valid agreements. It is valid as long as it is not performed in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice or spite.[91] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
STATEMENT AND CLARIFICATION ON THE DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE OF A FACULTY MEMBER AT ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
Misleading information as to the reason for the dismissal from employment of Mr. Orestes delos Reyes, Jr. at Adamson University is being propagated inside and out of the campus. To put the record straight, the Administration hereby issues this statement regarding the finding of administrative culpability of Mr. delos Reyes, a faculty member and the sitting President of the Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association (AUFEA).
Mr. delos Reyes was charged and found guilty of gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior in violation of Section 16 par. 4 of the Education Act of 1982 when he, without provocation, uttered abusive language, in a loud and sharp manner, to a minor female student.
Please be informed of the following:
There was a valid charge. Let it be known that the charges against Mr. delos Reyes stemmed from a complaint of abuse of a minor under RA 7610 filed by a BS Psychology student and her mother last September 2, 2014.
There was an impartial body. The complaint has been taken cognizance of, heard and investigated by an impartial body created by the University President.
There was due process and full accord of rights. Mr. delos Reyes has been fully accorded with his rights. He was given ample opportunity to explain his side. A hearing has been conducted and parties were given the right to confront the witnesses against them and adduce further evidence. Mr. delos Reyes was even represented by his counsel during the hearing.
There is no connection between his stand on the K-12 issue and his dismissal. Contrary to Mr. delos Reyes's claims, he was not dismissed from service because of his stand on the K-12 program. Proceedings on the administrative complaint against him began on September 2, 2014, more than a month before the K-12 forum organized by the AUFEA on October 20 and 21, 2014. The University recognizes his right to freely express his viewpoint on the issue. This, however, is irrelevant to the charges made against him by the student and has no bearing on the decision to dismiss him.
The administration wishes to underscore that culpability attaches to anyone, regardless of position and status. The speculation that Mr. de los Reyes is being singled out and persecuted, as being spread by unnamed individuals, thus, giving the insinuation of union busting is untrue and false. Position in the academe or in the union does not make one immune from liability or provide an exempting circumstance. Mr. de los Reyes has been charged in his capacity as member of Faculty and not his being the President of AUFEA. His other designation is by far immaterial to the charges leveled against him.
To this end, the Administration exhorts the community to be discerning and perceptive of the kind of information and talks being disseminated on the matter stated.[94] (Emphasis in the original)
The Court holds that it is the prerogative of management to regulate, according to its discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. This flows from the established rule that labor law does not authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its business. Such management prerogative may be availed of without fear of any liability so long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers' interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or valid agreement and are not exercised in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice or spite.[96] (Citations omitted)