A.C. No. 10511 - Melad-Ong vs. Sabban

The petitioners are Merck Sharp and Dohme (Philippines) (MSD) and Peter S. Carbonell, while the respondents are Jonar P. Robles, George G. Gonito, and Christian Aldrin S. Cristobal, former health care representatives assigned at the District V-MSD Cardiovascular Unit (MSD-V).
The case involves allegations of wrongful suspension, termination, and constructive dismissal linked to questionable expense reports and other irregularities during their employment with MSD.

Respondents, along with other health care representatives in MSD-V, were summoned by Regional Sales Manager Peter S. Carbonell for a meeting.
According to the respondents, while the other representatives were dismissed shortly after being directed to leave, they were compelled to remain, setting the stage for subsequent allegations.

Jerome Sarte, the director of Human Resources, General and Legal, personally delivered an ENTE dated November 27, 2003, to the respondents.
The ENTE stated that the respondents were being placed under preventive suspension based on allegations gathered via an informer-witness.
The notice detailed specific questionable transactions regarding expense reports—for example, charges related to a PR campaign and a Journal Club Meeting—accompanied by receipts from Lorna’s Food Services which were alleged to be forged, spurious, or fictitious.
The ENTE required a written explanation within 72 hours, with the warning that failure to comply would result in indefinite withholding of salaries and benefits.

On December 1, 2003, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal suspension with the Labor Arbiter.
During a December 4, 2003 hearing, the respondents requested copies of the evidence or primary findings supporting the allegations, but the petitioners refused to furnish these documents, claiming the investigation was not a formal trial proceeding.

On December 22, 2003, Jonar and George received a Notice of Corrective Action, effectively terminating their services, while Christian was informed that his suspension had been lifted.
Jonar and George filed supplemental complaint affidavits alleging illegal termination.
Christian, upon returning to work, discovered that he was reassigned to a geographically distant district (District I of Baguio City and La Union), contrary to his request for a transfer.
Subsequently, Christian received additional ENTEs for charges similar to those already adjudicated, including dishonesty and offenses against company interest—even after securing certifications to support his innocence regarding a prior charge.
Christian’s repeated receipt of ENTEs, denial of his sick leave application, and forced acceptance of a new work assignment culminated in an oppressive work environment, prompting his resignation and an amendment of his complaint to constructive dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the respondents’ complaint for lack of merit, a ruling which was later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Notwithstanding the earlier decisions, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA partially granted the petition for certiorari by reversing the NLRC’s ruling as it pertained to respondent Cristobal, holding that his case amounted to constructive dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals departed from the accepted judicial process by allowing respondent Cristobal to file a petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s decision.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the NLRC decision regarding the respondents’ complaint, particularly in the light of the prior resolutions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Whether the reviewing court may scrutinize and review the factual determinations of the Court of Appeals when these differ from the findings of the administrative tribunals (Labor Arbiter and NLRC).