Case Digest (G.R. No. 169227)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169227)
Facts:
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Virgilio E. Pulgar, G.R. No. 169227, July 05, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.PRRM is a non-stock, non-profit, non-governmental organization; Virgilio Pulgar was manager of PRRM’s Tayabas Bay Field Office (TBFO). After Pulgar was reassigned to the central office, PRRM—through investigator Goyena Solis—prepared an investigation report (dated February 13, 1997) alleging missing or improperly accounted funds and that some submitted receipts were fictitious or manufactured. PRRM furnished Pulgar a copy of the report and a memorandum requesting explanation.
In a February 24, 1997 letter, Pulgar admitted that reported expenses did not reflect actual expenditures, explained he sometimes reallocated funds among projects, admitted submitting some non-genuine receipts to meet central-office requirements, and disclosed he opened a bank account (Capitol Bank Account No. 2-042-00188-9) purportedly holding TBFO savings of P206,958.50; he offered to attend a meeting on February 28 to explain. At a March 4, 1997 meeting Pulgar produced a Cooperative Bank passbook showing P207,693.10 under an account in his name, claiming it represented TBFO savings.
Two factual narratives developed. PRRM asserted that Pulgar went on leaves (March 3–10; March 20–25; April 1–15, 1997) and, after his last leave, did not return—constituting abandonment to evade liability; PRRM was surprised when Pulgar filed an illegal dismissal complaint on April 3, 1997. Pulgar asserted he was barred from entering PRRM premises on March 31, 1997, his personal effects were boxed and stored, and his March 17 letter complaining of lack of opportunity to confront Solis was ignored; he thus claimed constructive dismissal.
Pulgar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal (also claiming illegal suspension and unpaid benefits, later dropping some claims) before the Labor Arbiter. On March 31, 1999 the Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal, awarded full backwages but declined moral/exemplary damages and granted separation pay instead of reinstatement. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in its January 28, 2000 decision (NLRC NCR CA No. 019914-99) and dismissed Pulgar’s complaint, accepting PRRM’s abandonment theory.
Pulgar sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; the CA, in a May 25, 2005 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 62036, granted Pulgar’s petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding PRRM failed to rebut Pulgar’s allegations (barred entry; removal of effects) and presented no evidence of abandonment. PRRM’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and PRRM then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court, challenging whether Pulgar was illegally dismissed and asking this Court also to order the return of the alleged PRRM funds in Pulgar’s custody.
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review factual findings in a Rule 45 petition, given the conflicting findings below?
- Was Virgilio Pulgar illegally dismissed by PRRM, or did he effectively terminate/abandon his employment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)