Lagahit V Pacific Concord Container Lines
Lagahit V Pacific Concord Container Lines
Lagahit V Pacific Concord Container Lines
*
JENNIFER C. LAGAHIT, petitioner, vs. PACIFIC
CONCORD CONTAINER LINES/MONETTE CUENCA
(BRANCH MANAGER), respondents.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
428
429
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 429
Lagahit vs. Pacific Concord Container Lines
430
BERSAMIN, J.:
We resolve the appeal of petitioner Jennifer Lagahit
from the decision promulgated on May 10, 2006,1 whereby
the Court of Appeals (CA) disposed in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
00991 entitled Pacific Concord Container Lines and
Monette Cuenca v. National Labor Relations Commission,
Fourth Division, and Jennifer Lagahit, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed
Decision dated December 15, 2004 promulgated by
the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth
Division, Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. V-000529-
2003/RAB Case No. VII-11-2271-2002, as well as the
Resolution dated May 25, 2005 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is
ORDERED to pay private respondent the amount of
P25,000.00 as nominal damages. Further, the
preliminary injunction issued by this Court is
likewise made permanent.
_______________
431
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.2
Antecedents
In February 2000, respondent Pacific Concord Container
Lines (Pacific Concord), a domestic corporation engaged in
cargo forwarding,3 hired the petitioner as an Account
Executive/Marketing Assistant.4 In January 2002, Pacific
Concord promoted her as a sales manager with the
monthly salary rate of P25,000.00, and provided her with a
brand new Toyota Altis plus gasoline allowance.5 On
November 8, 2002, she reported for work at 9:00 a.m. and
left the company premises at around 10:30 a.m. to make
client calls. At 1:14 p.m. of that day, she received the
following text message from respondent Monette Cuenca,
to wit:
TODAY U R OFFICIALY NT CONNECTED WITH
US.
Sender: MONETTE
+639173215330
Sent: 8-Nov-2002
13:14:016
Cuenca also sent a text message to Roy Lagahit, the
petitioner’s husband, as follows:
IBALIK KARON DAYON ANG AUTO OG PALIHUG
LANG KO OG KUHA SA NYONG BUTANG OG DI
NAKO MO STORYA NI JENIFER. IL WAIT.7
Sender: MONETTE
_______________
3 Id., at p. 34.
4 Id., at p. 14.
5 Id., at p. 72.
6 Id., at pp. 16, 52.
7 Translated as: “Return the car right now and please get your things, I
will no longer talk with Jenifer. I’ll wait.” (Id. [at pp. 16, 52])
432
+639173215330
Sent: 8-Nov-2002
12:50:548
The petitioner immediately tried to contact Cuenca, but
the latter refused to take her calls. On the same day, the
petitioner learned from clients and friends that the
respondents had disseminated notices, flyers and memos
informing all clients of Pacific Concord that she was no
longer connected with the company as of November 8,
2002.9 Pacific Concord also caused the publication of the
notice to the public in the Sunstar Daily issue of December
15, 2002.10
On November 13, 2002, the petitioner sent a letter to
Pacific Concord,11 which reads as follows:
_______________
8 Id.
9 Id., at p. 185.
10 Id., at p. 186.
11 Id., at p. 152.
433
reputations to protect. Factual incidents
made as basis of my termination can help us
mutually clear our names.12
Thank you.
(Sgd)
JENNIFER LAGAHIT
Cuenca replied to the letter on November 25, 2002,13
advising the petitioner thusly:
25 November 2002
TO : MS. JENNIFER C. LAGAHIT
FM : PACIFIC CONCORD CONTAINER LINES,
INC.
CEBU BRANCH
RE : UNCOLLECTED ACCOUNTS
Herewith is the list of your uncollected accounts as
of November 22, 2002.
Kindly take note that you have personally
guaranteed the above accounts. Moreover, you have
reported it as your income and you have already
availed the commission due for the above shipments.
We are therefore holding the release of the monies
due to you until we can collect the above accounts.
x x x x
(Sgd)
MONETTE G.
CUENCA
Branch Manager
On November 26, 2002, the petitioner filed her
complaint for constructive dismissal in the Regional
Arbitration Branch
_______________
434
14 Id., at p. 49.
15 Id., at pp. 283-306.
16 Id., at pp. 288-290.
17 Id., at p. 251.
18 Id., at pp. 148-149.
19 Id., at pp. 150-151.
ment had gotten wind of her anomalous transactions.20
They submitted affidavits to support their allegations.21
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
Labor Arbiter Julie C. Rendoque rendered a decision on
June 9, 2003, declaring that the respondents were not able
to prove that the petitioner had committed acts
constituting betrayal of trust; that they had not informed
her prior to her dismissal of the offenses she had
supposedly committed;22 and that owing to the illegality of
the dismissal, they were liable for backwages and
separation pay, to wit:
WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE
FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring herein respondents GUILTY of
ILLEGALLY DISMISSING complainant from
her employment. Consequently, respondents
PACIFIC CONCORD CONTAINER LINES/
MONEETTE [sic] CUENCA are hereby ordered to
pay, jointly and severally, complainant JENNIFER
C. LAGAHIT with the following:
a. Separation Pay P25,000.00
b. Backwages P175,000.00
TOTAL============ P200,000.00
VVVVVVVV
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, through the
Cashier of this Arbitration Branch.
Other claims are DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.23
_______________
20 Id., at p. 287.
21 Id., at pp. 143-145.
22 Id., at pp. 97-98.
23 Id., at p. 100.
436
_______________
24 Id., at p. 194.
25 Id., at pp. 192-193.
26 Id., at pp. 195-202.
27 Id., at pp. 206-207.
437
_______________
439
Issues
The petitioner imputes the following errors to the CA,
namely:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GIVING
UNDUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
RESPONDENTS’ LATEST DEFENSE, THEREBY
DISTURBING THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE
LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC WHO SHARE THE
SAME FINDINGS;
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING MS.
LAGAHIT TO HAVE BEEN VALIDLY DISMISSED
ON THE GROUND OF LOSS OF TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE;
III
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO HER CLAIMS
FOR SEPARATION PAY AND BACKWAGES.31
The petitioner argues that the CA erroneously concluded
that she had been dismissed considering that the
respondents had initially denied her having dismissed her,
and claimed instead that she had voluntarily resigned; that
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had correctly concluded
that she had not resigned, but had been illegally
terminated without substantive and procedural due
process;32 and that the evidence adduced against her that
the CA relied upon to sufficiently establish her breach of
trust were speculative and hearsay.33
In contrast, the respondents aver that: (a) the petitioner
occupied a position of trust and confidence that she
breached
_______________
31 Id., at p. 23.
32 Id., at p. 24.
33 Id., at p. 27.
440
_______________
34 Id., at p. 322.
35 Id., at p. 323.
36 Id., at p. 324.
37 Id., at p. 326.
38 Now Article 297 pursuant to R.A. No. 10151. (See DOLE
Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015)
441
442
_______________
443
II
Lagahit did not breach her employer’s trust;
her dismissal was, therefore, illegal
Having settled the issue of the dismissal in the
petitioner’s favor, we next resolve whether or not the CA
correctly ruled the petitioner’s dismissal as justified on the
ground of breach of trust and confidence.
The petitioner assails the CA for upholding her
termination based on speculations and hearsay, and for
entirely disregarding the factual findings in her favor of
the LA and the NLRC.45 In contrast, the respondents
maintain that the allegation of disloyalty against her was
substantiated by the affidavits they had submitted that the
CA relied on to sustain the validity of her dismissal.46
We agree with the petitioner.
To justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer
must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just
cause, and that the employee was afforded due process
prior to dismissal. As a complementary principle, the
employer has the onus of proving the validity of the
dismissal with clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing
evidence.47 The employer’s case succeeds or fails on the
strength of its evidence, not on the weakness of that
adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle
that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the
latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.48
In its decision, the CA recognized the wide latitude of
discretion given to the management in terminating
managers for
_______________
45 Rollo, p. 25.
46 Id., at p. 324.
47 Aliling v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186,
205.
48 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Employee Labor Union v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185335, June 13, 2012,
672 SCRA 375, 394.
444
_______________
445
SALES MANAGER
Job Description
- Promotes services being offered by the company
- Must generate new accounts for the company
- Responsible for motivating the Sales Team to hit their
respective QUOTA and TARGET
- Responsible for the Strategic Planning and Action Plan
for the Sales Department
- Should submit Production Report on a weekly basis for
the Sales Department specifying each sales contribution for
the week
- Responsible in inspiring and developing confidence of
the Sales Team
- Responsible in promoting, formulating, implementing
market strategy that will help achieve the target of the
Sales Department
- Coordinates regularly with the Sales people on their
day to day activities regarding rates and operational
matters
- Keeps track all sales transactions, assist the sales
people in their problem regarding rates and operational
matters
- Gathers and provides sales leads, replied to agents’
inquiries regarding sales matters
- Transacts rates and other related cargo needs with the
shipping lines
- Promotes and maintains good relations with clients
Prepares quotation to the clients for intended shipments
- Performs other tasks, duties and responsibilities as
may be assigned from time to time
- Reports directly to the Branch Manager54
Her position as sales manager did not immediately
make the petitioner a managerial employee. The actual
work that she performed, not her job title, determined
whether she was
_______________
54 Rollo, p. 236.
446
_______________
447
_______________
59 Id., at p. 144.
60 Id.
61 Id., at p. 145.
448
_______________
449
SO ORDERED.