Reyes v. National Labor Relations Commission

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before this Court is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Erwin H. Reyes, seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated 10 November 20061 and 9 November 20072 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96343. In its assailed Resolutions, the appellate court dismissed petitioner's Petition for Certiorari therein for failure to give an explanation why copy of the said Petition was not personally served upon the counsel of the respondents. The present Petition arose from a Complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees filed by petitioner against respondents Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines (CCBP) and Rotaida Taguibao (Taguibao) before the Labor Arbiter on 14 June 2004.

Respondent CCBP is a corporation engaged in the business of production and distribution of carbonated drinks, and Taguibao is its Human Resource Manager. In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that he was first employed by respondent CCBP, through Interserve Manpower Agency (Interserve), as a Leadman in February 1988. Petitioner was initially assigned to the Mendiola Sales Office of respondent CCBP.

Petitioner's employment contract was renewed every five months and he was assigned a different task every time. Such an arrangement continued until petitioner was directly hired by respondent CCBP as a Route Salesman on 15 September 2000. Exactly one year from the time of petitioner's employment as a Route Salesman, respondent CCBP, thru Taguibao, terminated his services on 15 September 2001.

Since he already acquired the status of a regular employee, petitioner asserted that his dismissal from employment without the benefit of due process was unlawful. In opposing the Complaint, respondent CCBP refuted petitioner's allegation that he was a regular employee. Petitioner's employment was for a fixed period of three months, which was subsequently extended3 with petitioner's consent.

Petitioner was employed pursuant to the mini-bodega project of respondent CCBP wherein respondent CCBP sought to extend its market to areas that cannot be serviced by its regular salesmen. After the viability of this marketing scheme was found to be unsuccessful, respondent CCBP was constrained to discontinue petitioner's fixed-term employment. In addition, respondent Taguibao had no liability for terminating petitioner's employment when it was not effected in bad faith.

On 30 April 2005, the Labor Arbiter promulgated his Decision,4 favoring petitioner, since there was insufficient evidence to sustain the averment of respondents CCBP and Taguibao that petitioner's employment was for a fixed period. The Labor Arbiter noted that respondents CCBP and Taguibao failed to present a copy of petitioner's purported Contract of Employment. The only evidence adduced by respondents CCBP and Taguibao to buttress their contention of petitioner's fixed-period employment was the Affidavit of respondent Taguibao herself, which could not be afforded any evidentiary weight in the absence of independent corroborating evidence.

The Labor Arbiter thus decreed:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [herein respondents CCBP and Taguibao] as follows: (1) To reinstate [herein petitioner] to his former position as route salesman, or to any substantially equivalent position with all the rights, privileges, and benefits appertaining thereto including seniority rights; (2) To pay [petitioner] his full backwages which as of August 30, 2005 already amount to ₱565,500.00 subject to re-computation to include salary increases granted during the intervening period and during the pendency of the instant case, as well as benefits and privileges due a regular employee; and (3) To pay [petitioner] the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment sum. In compliance with the directive of the Labor Arbiter, respondents CCBP and Taguibao immediately reinstated petitioner to his former position as Route Salesman on 1 March 2006.5 However, respondents CCBP and Taguibao, by filing a Memorandum of Appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and posting the corresponding Supersedeas Bond, sought the stay of the execution of the monetary awards made by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision. Respondents CCBP and Taguibao asserted in their appeal that petitioner was merely employed for a particular project which turned out to be not viable. Petitioner was subsequently terminated from work on account of the expiration of his employment contract. Petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal was, therefore, tenuous. On 31 May 2006, the NLRC promulgated its Decision6 dismissing the appeal of respondents CCBP and Taguibao and affirming with modification the 30 April 2005 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC reduced the amount of backwages awarded to petitioner underscoring the latter's unexplained delay (more than three years) in filing his Complaint for illegal dismissal. Instead, the NLRC reckoned the computation of backwages only from the time petitioner filed his Complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.7 The NLRC further modified the Labor Arbiter's Decision by deleting the order reinstating petitioner to his former position in view of the confidential nature of the latter's employment as a salesman, which exposed him to voluminous financial transactions involving the property of respondent CCBP. The NLRC likewise deleted the Labor Arbiter's award for attorney's fees. The fallo of the NLRC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision dated 30 April 2005 is MODIFIED. The order reinstating [herein petitioner] is deleted. [Respondents CCBP and Taguibao] are hereby ordered to pay [petitioner] the following: 1avvphi1 1. Backwages: 24 October 2004 to 30 April 2005 Salary - ₱13,000 x 6.2 months = ₱ 80,200.00 13th month pay - ₱ 80,600