Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moresco vs. Cagalawan (Labor-Evidence)
Moresco vs. Cagalawan (Labor-Evidence)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 175170
September 5, 2012
- P 189,096.00
2. Exemplary damages
- P 10,000.00
3. Moral damages
- P 20,000.00
- P 21,909.60
P 241,005.60
SO ORDERED.26
Proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission
MORESCO II and Cagalawan both appealed the Labor Arbiters Decision.
In its Memorandum on Appeal,27 MORESCO II invoked the liberal application of
the rules and prayed for the NLRC to admit its evidence on appeal. MORESCO
Cagalawan filed a Motion for Reconsideration 32 but the same was denied by
the NLRC in a Resolution33 dated April 26, 2004.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
Cagalawan thus filed a Petition for Certiorari 34 with the CA. In a
Decision35 dated July 26, 2005, the CA found the NLRC to have gravely
abused its discretion in admitting MORESCO IIs evidence, citing Section 3,
Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure36 which prohibits the parties from
making new allegations or cause of action not included in the complaint or
position paper, affidavits and other documents. It held that what MORESCO II
presented on appeal was not just an additional evidence but its entire
evidence after the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision adverse to it. To the CA,
MORESCO IIs belated submission of evidence despite the opportunities given
it cannot be countenanced as such practice "defeats speedy administration of
justice" and "smacks of unfairness."
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor
Arbiter is reinstated with the modification that if reinstatement of petitioner is
not feasible, he should be paid separation pay in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.37
MORESCO II filed a Motion for Reconsideration 38 insisting that it may present
evidence for the first time on appeal as the NLRC is not precluded from
admitting the same because technical rules are not binding in labor cases.
Besides, of paramount importance is the opportunity of the other party to
rebut or comment on the appeal, which in this case, was afforded to
Cagalawan.
Cagalawan, for his part, filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, 39 seeking
modification of the Decision by ordering his reinstatement to the position of
Disconnection Lineman instead of Collector.
In a Resolution40 dated September 6, 2006, the CA maintained its ruling that
MORESCO IIs unexplained failure to present evidence or submit a position
paper before the Labor Arbiter for almost 12 months from receipt of
Cagalawans position paper is intolerable and cannot be permitted. Hence, it
denied its Motion for Reconsideration. With respect to Cagalawans motion,
the same was granted by the CA, viz:
Anent petitioners Partial Motion for Reconsideration, We find the same
meritorious. The records of this case reveal that prior to his constructive
dismissal, petitioner was a Disconnection Lineman, not a Collector, assigned
at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Hence, We modify the dispositive portion of
Our July 26, 2005 Decision, to read:
IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter
is reinstated with modification that petitioner be reinstated to his position as
Disconnection Lineman in Balingasag, Misamis Oriental with further
modification that if reinstatement of petitioner is not feasible, he should be
paid separation pay in accordance with law. 41(Emphasis in the original.)
Issues
real and substantial, and not merely apparent." 50 MORESCO II has miserably
failed to discharge the onus of proving the validity of Cagalawans transfer.
Clearly, not only was the delay in the submission of MORESCO IIs evidence
not explained, there was also failure on its part to sufficiently support its
allegation that the transfer of Cagalawan was for a legitimate purpose. This
being the case, MORESCO IIs plea that its evidence be admitted in the
interest of justice does not deserve any merit.
Ke-e and Subrado, as corporate officers,
could not be held personally liable for
Cagalawans monetary awards.
In the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, the manager of MORESCO II was held to
have acted in an arbitrary manner in effecting Cagalawans transfer such that
moral and exemplary damages were awarded in the latters favor. However,
the said Decision did not touch on the issue of bad faith on the part of
MORESCO IIs officers, namely, Ke-e and Subrado. Consequently, no
pronouncement was made as to whether the two are also personally liable for
Cagalawans money claims arising from his constructive dismissal.
Still, we hold that Ke-e and Subrado cannot be held personally liable for
Cagalawans money claims.
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a
breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of
the nature of fraud."51 Here, although we agree with the Labor Arbiter that Kee acted in an arbitrary manner in effecting Cagalawans transfer, the same,
absent any showing of some dishonest or wrongful purpose, does not amount
to bad faith.
Suffice it to say that bad faith must be established clearly and convincingly as
the same is never presumed.52Similarly, no bad faith can be presumed from
the fact that Subrado was the opponent of Cagalawans father-in-law in the
election for directorship in the cooperative. Cagalawan's claim that this was
one of the reasons why he was transferred is a mere allegation without proof.
Neither does Subrado 's alleged instruction to file a complaint against
Cagalawan bolster the Iatter's claim that the former had malicious intention
against him. As the Chairman of the Board of Directors of MORESCO II,
Subrado has the duty and obligation to act upon complaints of its clients. On
the contrary, the Court finds that Subrado had no participation whatsoever in
Cagalawan's illegal dismissal; hence. the imputation of bad faith against him
is untenable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 26, 2005 or
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 84991 and its Resolution dated
September 6, 2006, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached .in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Spic N Span Services Corporation v. Paje, G.R. No. 174084, August 25,
2010, 629 SCRA 261, 268-269.
2
Id. at 32-34.
Id. at 216-220; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and concurred
in by Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez.
9
Id. at 90-91.
10
Id. at 52.
11
Id. at 62.
12
Id. at 63.
13
Id. at 64.
14
Id. at 61.
15
Id. at 65.
16
Id. at 66.
17
Id. at 67.
18
19
Id. at 35-47.
20
Id. at 69.
21
Id. at 68.
22
23
Id. at 71-72.
24
Id. at 73.
25
Id. at 75-79.
26
Id. at 79.
27
Id. at 80-89.
28
Id at 93.
29
Id. at 95-101.
30
31
32
Id. at 106-111.
33
Id. at 32-34.
34
Id. at 2-22.
35
Id. at 133-141.
36
facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or
causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits
and other documents. Unless otherwise requested in writing by both parties,
the Labor Arbiter shall direct both parties to submit simultaneously their
position papers/ memorandum with the supporting documents and affidavits
within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with
proof of having furnished each other with copies thereof.
37
CA rollo, p. 140.
38
Id. at 201-205.
39
Id. at 197-200.
40
Id. at 216-219.
41
Id. at 219.
42
Rollo, p. 210.
43
Iran v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 261, 274 (1998).
44
Genuino Ice Company, Inc. v. Magpantay, 526 Phil. 170, 188 (2006).
46
Travelaire and Tours Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 355 Phil.
932, 937-938 (1998).
48
49
Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 185352, August
10, 2011, 655 SCRA 300, 309.
50
Jebsens Maritime Inc. v. Undag, G.R. No. 191491, December 14, 2011.
51
52
Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. v. Francisco, G.R. No. 167751, March 2, 2011,
644 SCRA 394, 409.