Case Digest (G.R. No. 220434)
Facts:
SM Development Corporation, Joann Hizon, Atty. Mena Ojeda, Jr., and Rosaline Qua v. Teodore Gilbert Ang, G.R. No. 220434, July 22, 2019, the Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court.
Respondent Teodore Gilbert Ang was hired by SM Development Corporation (SMDC) as Project Director in December 2006. As Project Director for Chateau Elysee and Field Residences, respondent oversaw business planning, sales, marketing, construction, permits and licenses, finance, sales documentation, property management, customer service, inventory management and legal concerns for the projects. Petitioners included Joann Hizon (Head, Human Resources Department), Atty. Mena Ojeda, Jr. (Vice President Legal), and Rosaline Qua (SMDC President), who functioned as management actors in the administrative actions against respondent.
In early March 2012 respondent received a Notice to Explain from Atty. Ojeda, Jr. (March 7) concerning alleged cost overruns in the Field Residences project. He submitted a written explanation on March 13, 2012 addressing the various allegations and attaching documents and engineering responses to refute responsibility. On March 20, 2012 he was told in a meeting that management wanted him to resign. Text messages on March 26 and 28 instructed him to effect a turnover to Ms. Imee Landicho in view of his alleged “imminent resignation.” He proceeded on an approved vacation from March 30 to April 15, 2012.
Upon his return on April 16, 2012 respondent was served a Memorandum/Show Cause Notice directing him to explain additional enumerated accusations within five working days, to turn over work to Landicho, and informing him of a 30-day preventive suspension without pay. The Show Cause Notice listed seven specific alleged infractions (including alleged non-collection of costs, discrepancies in parking slots and sales of non-covered storage areas, uncleared expense, a P21M subsidy for OpEx, and low sales). On or about May 15–17, 2012, respondent was informed he was dismissed effective May 16, 2012 via a termination letter that referenced administrative hearings purportedly held on May 7 and 9, 2012—hearings of which respondent said he had no notice.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims before the Labor Arbiter. In a Decision dated October 29, 2012, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding substantial documentary evidence of just cause for dismissal for incompetence and gross and habitual neglect of duties. Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which in its Decision dated April 26, 2013 affirmed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal. Respondent's motion for reconsideration at the NLRC was denied.
Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated October 2, 2014 and a Resolution dated September 1, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131399, the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the NLRC decision, declared the dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority, awarded full backwages a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Court review and re-evaluate the divergent factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals in this labor case?
- Was respondent validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence?
- Did the petitioners observe procedural due process in dismissing respondent, and if not, what ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)