Case Digest (G.R. No. 125303)
Facts:
The case revolves around two petitioners, Aurelio Fuerte and Danilo Leonardo, who filed separate petitions for certiorari against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Reynaldo’s Marketing Corporation (the private respondent). Aurelio Fuerte had been employed by Reynaldo’s Marketing Corporation as a muffler specialist starting on August 11, 1981. He was later appointed as a supervisor in 1988, enjoying a daily salary of P122.00 along with a weekly supervisor’s allowance of P600.00. On January 3, 1992, Fuerte was notified of his transfer to the Sucat plant due to his failure to meet sales quotas, which consequently resulted in the withdrawal of his supervisor’s allowance. In protest, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Danilo Leonardo was hired on March 4, 1988, as an auto-aircon mechanic, with his salary increasing from P35.00 per day to P90.00 upon achieving regular status. He claimed to have received a monthly allowance of P2,500.00 as part of the profit-
Case Digest (G.R. No. 125303)
Facts:
- Employment and Compensation
- AURELIO FUERTE
- Originally employed by Reynaldo’s Marketing Corporation on August 11, 1981.
- Held the position of muffler specialist with a daily wage of P45.00.
- Promoted to supervisor in 1988 with his daily wage increased to P122.00.
- Received an additional weekly supervisor’s allowance of P600.00.
- DANILO LEONARDO
- Hired on March 4, 1988 as an auto-aircon mechanic at a daily rate of P35.00.
- Upgraded to regular status six months after hiring with an increased salary of P90.00 per day.
- Allegedly also received a monthly profit-sharing allowance of P2,500.00 from the auto-aircon division until his alleged termination.
- Incidents Leading to Demotion/Alleged Termination
- Incident Involving FUERTE
- On January 3, 1992, FUERTE was summoned by the personnel manager at the company’s main office.
- He was informed of his scheduled transfer to the company’s Sucat plant due to failing to meet his sales quota.
- His supervisor’s allowance was withdrawn as a consequence of this failure.
- Despite reporting to the Sucat plant for a short period, FUERTE protested against the transfer and subsequently filed a complaint for illegal termination.
- Incident Involving LEONARDO
- On April 22, 1991, LEONARDO was informed by the same personnel manager that his services were no longer needed.
- LEONARDO alleged that he was terminated and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
- Proceedings Before the Labor Tribunal
- The case was initially heard by Labor Arbiter Jesus N. Rodriguez, Jr.
- On December 15, 1994, Labor Arbiter Emerson C. Tumanon rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners:
- Ordered reinstatement of both FUERTE and LEONARDO to their previous positions, ensuring no loss of seniority or privileges.
- Awarded backwages and monetary compensation to both petitioners.
- Appeal by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
- The NLRC modified the labor arbiter’s decision:
- FUERTE was ordered reinstated to his previous position without backwages.
- LEONARDO’s complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.
- The monetary awards, including moral damages and attorney’s fees, were deleted.
- Subsequent Motions and Consolidation
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on April 30, 1996, which was denied in a Resolution dated May 29, 1996.
- LEONARDO (represented by the Public Attorney’s Office) filed G.R. No. 125303 on July 1, 1996, and later FUERTE joined in G.R. No. 126937.
- Private respondent filed comments and moved to consolidate the petitions, which was granted by the Court on June 16, 1997.
- Respondents’ Justifications and Company Policy
- For FUERTE:
- The respondent asserted that FUERTE’s demotion was due to his failure to meet the company’s monthly sales quota.
- The company’s policy stated that failure to meet the quota for three consecutive months should automatically lead to demotion.
- Despite receiving supervisor’s allowance for part of the period in question, evidence (Exhibit “4”) showed his performance was below par from July to November 1991.
- The respondents maintained that allowance continued until an official demotion occurred on the fifth consecutive month.
- For LEONARDO:
- The company claimed he was not terminated but rather abandoned his post.
- An incident involving alleged “sideline” work and contradictory explanations led to an investigation.
- LEONARDO allegedly refused to respond to a memorandum issued to explain the incident and subsequently did not report back for work.
- The company supported its claim by evidencing his later employment with another firm, indicating abandonment.
Issues:
- Abuse of Discretion and Jurisdiction
- Whether the respondent NLRC Commissioners gravely abused their discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when granting the respondents’ appeal.
- Whether the Commissioners similarly abused their discretion in pronouncing that there was no illegal dismissal despite findings by the labor arbiter to the contrary.
- Constructive Dismissal and Demotion
- Whether the transfer and demotion of FUERTE, which resulted in the withdrawal of his supervisor’s allowance, amounted to constructive dismissal.
- Whether the disciplinary process followed, including notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the transfer and demotion, complied with due process requirements.
- Abandonment Versus Illegal Dismissal
- Whether LEONARDO’s failure to report back for work constituted abandonment.
- Whether LEONARDO was accorded due process during the investigatory proceedings regarding the “sideline” work and his subsequent non-compliance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)