Case Digest (G.R. No. 164635)
Facts:
Majurine L. Mauricio v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 164635, November 17, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Majurine L. Mauricio was employed by The Manila Banking Corporation (Manilabank) as an Administrative Assistant in its Legal Department beginning July 1, 1999, on probationary status. As part of the bank's pre-employment requirements, she was instructed to submit among other things identification pictures, two reference letters, and a clearance from her previous employer, Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (MBLIC). The bank gave petitioner until December 15, 1999 to submit the requirements and advised that processing of her regularization would be held in abeyance.
When petitioner failed to comply, the bank issued a memorandum dated December 27, 1999 (signed by Vice-President Clarence D. Guerrero) giving her until December 29, 1999 to submit the requirements and warning that failure to do so would result in termination effective December 29, 1999. Petitioner replied on December 28, 1999 that she could not secure the MBLIC clearance due to a pending case there and asked that employment action be held in abeyance. The bank denied the request by memorandum of the same date, citing its standing policy requiring prior submission of clearance and declining to waive the rule; it invited future consideration should she secure the clearance.
Petitioner filed on January 21, 2000 a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salary, and moral and exemplary damages against Manilabank and Guerrero. The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated September 12, 2000, dismissed the complaint, finding that the clearance requirement was reasonable, that petitioner had been given ample time and notice to comply, and that the bank lawfully denied regularization; the Arbiter also found that the withheld half-month salary had been applied to a tax deficiency and denied damages.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter by Decision dated September 24, 2001, ordering reinstatement (or separation pay), backwages, P50,000 moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Upon respondents' Motion for Reconsideration, however, the NLRC vacated its own reversal and reinstated in toto the Labor Arbiter's September 12, 2000 Decision by Decision dated May 6, 2003.
Petitioner sought relief via Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging among others that the NLRC committed grave abuse in reversing itself; the CA denied relief and held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in terminating petitioner’s probationary employment for failure to submit the required clearance. The CA den...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier decision?
- Was petitioner’s probationary employment validly terminated for failure to submit a clearance from her previous employer?
- Is petitioner entitled to backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees as previously awarded b...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)