Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~upreme
<lCourt
:ffla:nila:
SECOND DIVISION
MYLENE CARVAJAL,
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson
/\BAD,*
VILLARAM/\, JR.,**
PEREZ, and
REYES, JJ.
-versus-
Promulgated:
AUG. 0 1 LU~~\~-
Respondents.
,, 12 \\\\Y-~1.\.
\AM
X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
DECISION
Pli~RI~Z,
J.:
or Appeals
*
**
.~}
X/
Decision
Decision
following were the reasons for her termination: 1) she is not an effective
frontliner; 2) she has mistakenly cleared a check; 3) tardiness; 4)
absenteeism; and 5) shortage.10
On 9 June 2005, the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally
dismissed. Respondents were held solidarily liable for payment of money
claims. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
9
10
Id. at 110.
Records, pp. 3-4.
Decision
The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was dismissed without due
process because she was not afforded the notice in writing informing her of
what respondent (the Bank) would like to bring out to her for the latter to
answer in writing. The Labor Arbiter also did not consider unsatisfactory
performance as a valid ground to shorten the six-month contract of
petitioner with the Bank.12
The decision of the Labor Arbiter was partially appealed to the NLRC
by petitioner. Petitioner contended that she should be considered a regular
employee and that the computation by the Labor Arbiter of backwages up to
the end of her probationary contract is without basis. In its Comment,
respondent argued against the illegality of petitioners dismissal and their
joint and solidary liability to pay complainants monetary claims. On 31
May 2006, the NLRC affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiters
Decision and ordered for petitioners reinstatement, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is
hereby affirmed with MODIFICATION ordering the respondents to
reinstate the complainant to her former position, without loss of any
seniority rights and other monetary benefits and to pay her full backwages
from the date of her dismissal to the date of her reinstatement, actual or in
payroll.
All other aspect[s] of the assailed decision stands.13
11
12
13
14
Rollo, p. 117.
Id. at 116.
Id. at 69.
Id. at 72-73.
Decision
Petitioner elevated the case to this Court via petition for review on
certiorari, raising the following errors allegedly committed by the Court of
Appeals:
15
16
Id. at 183.
Id. at 18.
Decision
Indeed, respondents did not assail the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. It
was in fact petitioner who partially appealed the Labor Arbiters
computation of backwages.
We disagree.
petitioners dismissal was an issue that was squarely before the NLRC.
When the NLRC decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, from which
the issue was elevated to us, we had a situation where the findings of facts
are conflicting. Thus, we find applicable the rule that while generally, only
questions of law can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the rule admits of certain exceptions, namely:
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings
of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions
Decision
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings
of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record.17
17
18
Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA
500, 504 citing Uy v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 157851, 29 June 2007, 526 SCRA 73, 83-84.
Aliling v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, 25 April 2012; Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Hon.
Brion, 517 Phil. 309, 320 (2006) citing Sociedad Europea De Financiacion, S.A v. Court of
Appeals, 271 Phil. 101, 110-111 (1991) citing further Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. v.
Philippine International Co., Inc., 118 Phil. 150, 156 (1963); Miguel v. Court of Appeals, 140 Phil.
304, 312 (1969).
Decision
: Trainee- Teller
: Main Branch
: Probationary (6 months)
: October 28, 2003
: P5,175.00 (262)
Rollo, p. 101.
Her
Decision
Petitioner knew, at the time of her engagement, that she must comply
with the standards set forth by respondent and perform satisfactorily in order
to attain regular status. She was apprised of her functions and duties as a
trainee-teller.
performance.
20
21
Id. at 108-109.
Id. at 68.
Decision
10
23
Decision
11
Tamsons Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192881, 16 November 2011 citing
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation v. Ranchez, supra note 22 at 142 citing
further Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6; Magis Young
Achievers Learning Center v. Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 421, 431432 citing International Catholic Migration Commission v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 251 Phil. 560, 567 (1989).
Decision
12
In finding for illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiter held that the
dismissal was without due process. We hold otherwise. As elucidated by
this Court in Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Magtibay, Jr.:25
assured the bank that she would, in her daily schedules, make adjustments to
make amends.
25
26
Taken
Decision
13
together with her low performance rating and other infractions, petitioner
was called by the head of Human Resources who discussed with her the
reasons for the discontinuance of her probationary appointment before she
was Connally served the termination letter on that very same day.
There
In
sum,
petitioner
was
validly
dismissed
from
probationary
27
With a valid reason for petitioner's dismissal coupled with the proper
observance of due process, the claim for back wages must necessarily fail.
SO ORDERED.
PEREZ
77
1\zuccna, Jr.. EVERYONE,<; LA !JOt? CO[){';, p. 325 citing fnlemaliona/ Catholic !lfigralion
Commission v. National l~ahor Relations Commission, supra note 24 at 5G8-5G9.
Decision
14
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
~
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
~~~----e==--...::=-
L._M-kRTIN S. VILLARA
Associate Jus( e
Associate .Justice
CERTIFICATION
l certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion or
the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R./\. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)