G.R. No. 230664 - Cosue vs. Ferritz Integrated Development Corp.

Petitioner Edward M. Cosue began his employment with respondent Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation (FIDC) on August 23, 1993 as a construction worker and later became a regular employee performing janitorial and maintenance duties.
The employment relationship spanned several years, during which petitioner had also been given a second chance after an earlier incident involving misdirected funds by the company accountant, Rizza Alenzuela.

At around 5 p.m., respondent Melissa Tanya Germino, Head of FIDC’s Property Management Division, instructed petitioner to remain in the building to oversee the generator due to frequent power outages. She also asked him to assist newly hired security guards on duty.
Petitioner complied and later, around 9 p.m., observed two security guards along with an unidentified man entering the electrical room. He noted that one of the guards, Gomez, appeared to be carrying a knapsack that at first looked light but then seemed to contain something heavy.
The following morning, petitioner, together with fellow maintenance personnel Joel Alcallaga, inspected the electrical room only to find that the bundled electrical wires were missing.

On July 10, 2014, after the discovery of the missing wires, petitioner was summoned by Germino who verbally suspended him from work effective July 16, 2014 to August 13, 2014.
The suspension was based on the suspicion that petitioner was involved in the misappropriation of the electrical wires after allegedly obtaining a key and entering the electrical room without proper authorization.
Respondents argued that petitioner not only left his post by accompanying Alcallaga for an unauthorized inspection of the electrical room but also had a past record that warranted a strict action should he commit another offense.

On October 9, 2014, petitioner instituted a Complaint against FIDC, Germino, and FIDC President Antonio Fernando, alleging actual illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries.
In his Position Paper, petitioner expanded his claims to include underpayment of holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. He sought moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees.
Petitioner’s complaint alleged that he was constructively dismissed when he was not allowed to resume work after his suspension despite reporting as required.

Respondents contended that on July 10, 2014, at around 7 p.m., Alcallaga’s bag was found to contain the bundled wires which he later returned to the electrical room after interrogation by security personnel.
They maintained that petitioner, along with Alcallaga, misrepresented the instructions when obtaining the key for the electrical room, and that the wires eventually went missing after the return.
According to respondents, there was an agreement for petitioner to resign, and since he failed to do so, his continued absence should be viewed as abandonment without leave.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision on February 12, 2015, dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of evidence and ordering petitioner’s reinstatement without backwages, while granting salary differentials amounting to ₱8,819.01 for underpaid salaries.
The petition also underwent a partial appeal wherein petitioner sought a declaration of “constructive dismissal” and payment of other monetary claims including service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) subsequently affirmed the LA’s findings, denying the additional claims and maintaining that there was no illegal dismissal.
Finally, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s resolution, holding that petitioner was suspended as a valid exercise of management prerogative pending an administrative investigation and not dismissed.

The Supreme Court, in a petition for review under Rule 45, noted that only errors of law were open for review, while factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, were not subject to re-examination.
The Court unanimously affirmed that petitioner was not illegally dismissed but merely suspended, and that his claim of constructive dismissal was unsubstantiated.
The Court further modified the CA’s decision by directing the computation of underpayments for holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay for the specified period, along with awarding attorney’s fees based on the total monetary award.

Whether the petitioner’s removal from work should be characterized as illegal dismissal, constructive dismissal, or merely a disciplinary suspension pending investigation.
Whether the petitioner’s subsequent non-reporting after suspension amounted to abandonment or a breach of the employment relationship.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to uphold the petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal when testimony and documentary evidence indicated that he was still under suspension.
Whether the evidence submitted by the respondents, including the security log and the memorandum of suspension, supported their contention of authorized disciplinary action.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recover unpaid wages, salary differentials due to underpayment, and additional benefits such as holiday pay, pro rata 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.
Whether claims raised for the 13th month pay for 2014, which were only introduced in the petitioner’s partial appeal, should be entertained.

Whether procedural due process was observed in the disciplining process, including the issuance (or lack thereof) of a notice to report back to work.
The applicability of the doctrine that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted in establishing the facts surrounding the petitioner’s suspension and alleged dismissal.