Case Digest (G.R. No. 230664)
Facts:
Edward M. Cosue v. Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 230664, July 24, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Edward M. Cosue was hired by Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation (FIDC) on August 23, 1993 and later became a regular janitor/maintenance employee. On the evening of July 10, 2014, Melissa Tanya Germino (Head of FIDC’s Property Management Division) asked Cosue to remain in the building to watch the generator and assist newly hired guards; he agreed. Cosue alleged that during the night he observed two guards and an unidentified man enter the electrical room with a knapsack and that the next morning the electrical wires stored in the room were missing. He and a coworker, Joel Alcallaga, later obtained the electrical room key and found the wires no longer there.
Respondents countered that bundled wires were discovered in Alcallaga’s bag on July 10 when he checked out; he briefly returned the wires but they later went missing. Investigation led Germino to issue a memorandum suspending Cosue for twenty‑five (25) days (July 16 to August 13, 2014) for entering the electrical room without permission and leaving his post; Cosue was prevented from working during the suspension. Respondents also asserted that Cosue previously had been implicated in dealings with a company accountant who stole funds, and that Cosue had been given a second chance on condition another offense would lead to termination.
On October 9, 2014, Cosue filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries against FIDC, Germino and FIDC President Antonio A. Fernando, seeking backwages, damages and unpaid benefits; in his position paper he also claimed underpaid holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the three years prior to filing. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the illegal dismissal claim for lack of evidence, held that Cosue was under preventive suspension as alleged and ordered reinstatement without backwages but awarded salary differentials of P8,819.01. The LA found no abandonment or clear intent to sever employment and therefore no dismissal.
Cosue filed a partial appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which in Resolutions dated May 29 and July 20, 2015 denied his appeal and upheld the LA’s decision. Cosue then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65; the CA, in a Decision dated December 2, 2016 and a Resolution dated Februar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, should the Supreme Court re‑examine the CA’s factual findings in this labor case?
- Was petitioner Edward M. Cosue illegally or constructively dismissed by respondents?
- Is petitioner entitled to monetary relief beyond reinstatement—specifically salary differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay (including pro rata 2014), service incentive leave pay, backwages, moral/exemp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)