Case 1.220434
Case 1.220434
r-r-1'\ , ..
\U ,Di ii D fl
D
u
IJ
FIRST DIVISION
Promulgated:
TEODORE GILBERT ANG,
Respondent. "JUL 2 2 ~019
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
.. On official leave .
Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division.
Rollo, pp. 35-96.
{!--
2
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and
Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, concurring; id. at 9-28.
3
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justice Romero F. Barza and
Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring; id. at 30-33.
4
Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palafia, with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo
and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, concurring; id. at 341-351.
5
Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palafia, with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo
and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, concurring; id. at 359-360.
6
Penned by Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga; id. at 249-260.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 220434
This case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal with money
claims by respondent Teodore Gilbert Ang (respondent) against the
petitioners' SM Development Corporation (SMDC), Joann Hizon (Hizon)
SMDC's Head of Human Resources Department, Atty. Mena Ojeda, Jr.
(Atty. Ojeda, Jr.) SMDC's Vice President Legal, and Rosaline Qua (Qua)
SMDC 's President (collectively, petitioners)
The records show that respondent was hired by SMDC as its Project
Director since December 2006. In his complaint, he alleged that sometime in
January 2012, he applied for a two-week vacation leave, from March 30,
2012 to April 15, 2012, which was approved by Qua. 7
On March 20, 2012, Atty. Ojeda, Jr. and Hizon called him for a
meeting where he was informed that the management, without stating
specific reasons, wants him to resign from his current work.
On March 26, 2012, he received a text message from Atty. Ojeda, Jr.,
stating that due to his "imminent resignation," Henry Sy, Jr., is requesting
him to make the necessary turnover of his functions to Ms. Imee Landicho.
He received another text message on March 28, 2012 from Atty. Ojeda, Jr.,
with the same tenor.
Id. at IO.
Id.
{f
Decision 3 G.R. No. 220434
In the Show Cause Notice 10 dated April 16, 2012, he was charged with
gross and habitual neglect of duties and loss of trust and confidence due to
the following infractions and omissions: (1) SM Synergy's non-collection of
P4.5M cost of repainting of Clusters 1 & 2 in Chateau Elysee; (2) violation
of Chateau's Master Deed and Presidential Decree No. 957 in relation to the
discrepancy of residential and parking slots at Field Residences; (3) sale of
non-existing parking slots at Field Residences; (4) sale of storage areas at
Field Residences not covered by license to sell; (5) failure to clear with the
COO the expense in the amount of P52,000.00 Philippine Currency, for the
holding of the 2010 Chateau Elysee Basketball League; (6) SMDC Subsidy
of P21M OpEx for Field Residences in 2010-11 due to delay in the
amendment of MDDR; and (7) low sales generated from Chateau.
On May 17, 2012, he informed Hizon that his suspension was over
and he will report back to work; but he received a phone call from the HRD
Manager that he does not need to report to work because he was already
dismissed. He then called Hizon asking for an explanation, and the latter
asked him for a meeting where he was served with a termination letter dated
May 15, 2012. 11 He was surprised to learn of an alleged May 7 and 9, 2012
administrative hearing mentioned in the said termination letter because he
was never given any notice or even notified of the said hearings. 12
For their part, the petitioners averred that sometime in 2012, the
management of SMDC received reports on several incidents and negligent
acts directly involving respondent as Project Director which resulted in
pecuniary loss to SMDC or which exposed the corporation and its officers to
possible criminal, administrative and civil sanctions. Several meetings were
then held between respondent and the management of SMDC to discuss
these incidents. These reports were consolidated and attached to a
Memorandum dated April 16, 2012 with the subject "Show-[C]ause Notice."
However, respondent did not submit any explanation to the charges hurled
against him and even failed to attend the administrative hearings despite due
notice. Thus, a decision was rendered to dismiss him effective May 16,
2012. 14
q
9
Rollo, p. 11.
10
Id. at 433-435.
II
Id. at 444-445.
12
Id.atll-12.
13
Id. at 135-137.
14
Id. at 12-13.
15
Supra note 6.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 220434
showing that there was a just and valid cause for respondent's dismissal on
the grounds of incompetence and gross and habitual neglect of duties.
In a Decision 17 dated April 26, 2013, the NLRC dismissed the appeal
for lack of merit and affirmed the LA' s decision. The NLRC held that
respondent's position as a Project Director is imbued with trust and
confidence. The charges and violations, as well as his neglectful acts, were
inadequately met by his explanations; thus, he was dismissed for loss of trust
and confidence.
On October 2, 2014, the CA granted the petition and reversed and set
aside the ruling of the labor tribunals. The CA found that respondent has
been illegally dismissed and ordered the petitioners to: ( 1) reinstate
respondent without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; (2) pay full
backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the
time of his actual reinstatement; and (3) pay attorney's fees equivalent to
10% of the total monetary award.
The CA held that the allegation of gross and habitual neglect of duty
is not supported by any substantial evidence. Aside from the Inter-Office
Memorandums dated March 27, 2012, March 30, 2012 and April 16, 2012,
enumerating the alleged infractions of respondent, there were no other
documentary evidence such as but not limited to audit reports or affidavits
showing that respondent was responsible for the said infractions. The CA
also observed that respondent has been with SMDC since December 2006,
and for the past six years he has no previous record of inefficiency,
infractions or violations of company rules.
The CA also said that the basis for the loss of trust and confidence
was not clearly established because there was no evidence showing that
respondent abused the trust reposed in him by the petitioners with respect to
his responsibility as Project Director.
The CA further held that the notice requirements have not been
properly observed. There was also no compliance with the imperatives of
hearing or conference. The CA pointed out that the records of this case was
bereft of any showing that a hearing or conference was conducted on May 7
and 9, 2012 to explain respondent's side. Even the computer printout of the
shipment tracking form notifying the respondent of the said hearings states,
"shipment delivered to Gersally Sambrano/landlady." Thus, the petitioners
16
17
18
19
Rollo, pp. 261-279.
Supra note 4.
Rollo, pp. 352-357.
Id. at 363-3 81.
q
Decision 5 G.R. No. 220434
Issue
Settled is the rule that the Court may review factual issues in a labor
case where the factual findings of the CA are contrary to those of the labor
tribunals which is the case herein. Here, the LA and the NLRC are one in
ruling that respondent was validly dismissed from work while the CA ruled
otherwise. Considering these divergent positions, the Court deems it
necessary to review, re-evaluate, and re-examine the evidence presented and
draw conclusions therefrom. 20
After a thorough examination of the records, the Court agrees with the
findings and conclusion of the labor tribunals.
{{
20
Stradcom Corporation v. Orpi/la, G.R. No. 206800, July 2, 2018.
21 Rollo, pp. 143, 163-164.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 220434
Set against these parameters, the Court holds that respondent was
validly dismissed based on loss of trust and confidence. Respondent was not
an ordinary company employee. His position as one of SMDC's Project
Director is clearly a position of responsibility demanding an extensive
amount of trust from petitioners. The entire project account depended on the
accuracy of the classifications made by him. It was reasonable for the
petitioners to trust that respondent had basis for his calculations and
specifications. The preparation of the project is a complex matter requiring
22
Article 297. Termination by Employer. - An employer may terminate an employee for any of the
following causes:
23
xxxx
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative.
Casco v. National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 200571, February 19, 2018.
t
Decision 7 G.R. No. 220434
attention to details. Not only does these projects involve the company's
finances, it also affects the welfare of all the other employees and clients as
well.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
CERTIFICATION