Case Digest (G.R. No. 182114)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 182114)
Facts:
Genesis Transport Service, Inc. and Rely L. Jalbuna, petitioners, v. Unyon ng Malayang Manggagawa ng Genesis Transport (UMMGT) and Juan Taroy, G.R. No. 182114, April 05, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Juan Taroy was hired by petitioner Genesis Transport on February 2, 1992 as a driver paid on a commission basis at 9% of gross revenue per trip. On April 20, 2002 Taroy was involved in a bus accident; following an investigation he was terminated by a notice dated May 10, 2002 on grounds of reckless driving. Taroy alleged he was preventively suspended, given an opportunity to explain, and subject to a hearing before dismissal.
Taroy filed a complaint on June 7, 2002 for illegal dismissal and payment of service incentive leave pay, later amending to implead the union (UMMGT) and to add claims for unfair labor practice (ULP), reimbursement of alleged illegal deductions for tollgate fees (introduced in 1997 and deducted from gross earnings without written authorization), and payment of service incentive leave pay. He alleged the dismissal was motivated by union activity and that other drivers who had accidents were not dismissed.
Genesis Transport defended that Taroy had a history of rule violations (poor driving, tardiness, gambling, use of shabu, smoking while driving, insubordination, reckless driving), that he was preventively suspended, was directed to explain his role in the April 20 accident, and that investigations (including internal Maintenance Department findings and a report from Columbian Motors Corporation) established reckless driving as the cause, thus justifying termination after due process.
The Labor Arbiter, by Decision dated June 30, 2004, dismissed the illegal dismissal claim, finding valid cause and that due process (notice and hearing) had been observed; it also found the union failed to prove ULP and ruled that Taroy, as a commission-paid field personnel, was not entitled to service incentive leave pay. However, the Labor Arbiter ordered refund to Taroy for the underpayment caused by toll deductions (computable on the evidence at hand as P5,273.16) and awarded 10% attorney’s fees.
Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, by Resolution of December 29, 2005, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, deleting the attorney’s fees award and declining to consider Taroy’s preventive suspension argument because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Motions for reconsideration at the NLRC were denied.
On respondents’ appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated August 24, 2007, partly granted the appeal and held that Genesis Transport violated Taroy’s statutory right to due process by placing him under preventive suspension for more than thirty (30) days in violation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code; the CA awarded nominal damages of P30,000 and reinstated the order to refund the underpayment. The CA denied reconsideration by Resolution of March 13, 2008.
Petitioners then filed the present recourse to the Supreme Court, challenging principally the CA’s rulings on the refund of alleged underpayment and on the award of nominal damages for violation of statutory due process.
Issues:
- May an issue (here, the propriety of preventive suspension) raised for the first time on appeal be considered by a reviewing court?
- Was respondent Taroy validly dismissed for just cause and afforded statutory due process?
- Were the deductions for tollgate fees taken from gross receipts (thereby reducing the base for computing Taroy’s 9% commission) illegal and did they entitle Taroy to refund of the “underpayment”?
- Was the Court of Appeals’ award of nominal damages for violation of statutory due process proper?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)