G.R. No. 191938 - Mitra vs. Commission on Elections

The petition for review on certiorari was filed by Wensha Spa Center, Inc. and/or Xu Zhi Jie (petitioners) against Loreta T. Yung (respondent).
The case arose from a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by Loreta, alleging illegal dismissal.
The dismissal was allegedly effected on the advice of a Feng Shui master, raising issues of unconventional grounds for termination.

Loreta T. Yung was originally employed by Manmen Services Co., Ltd. where her performance had impressed Xu Zhi Jie.
Persuaded by Xu, who later established Wensha Spa Center, Inc. in Quezon City, Loreta transferred to the new company despite her stable employment and long service at Manmen.
She began working on April 21, 2004 as Xu’s personal assistant and interpreter with a monthly salary of P12,000.
Due to her contributions and positive changes in the company, Loreta was promoted to Administrative Manager on May 18, 2004.

On August 10, 2004, Loreta was asked to leave her office when Xu and a Feng Shui master were reportedly assessing the premises.
Following the Feng Shui consultation, Xu requested that Loreta take a leave of absence with pay for one month, which she observed.
Upon her return on September 10, 2004, she was confronted by Xu and his wife and was told she must resign owing to an alleged “mismatch” of her aura with that of Xu, as determined by the Feng Shui master.
Loreta refused to resign and subsequently filed her illegal dismissal complaint before the NLRC on the same day.

Wensha and Xu contended that the dismissal was based on internal complaints arising two months after her hiring, alleging that Loreta had engaged in behavior amounting to loss of trust and confidence.
They maintained that the decision to terminate her employment on August 31, 2004, was the result of an investigation into various complaints by employees, including allegations of causing a colleague’s resignation and inciting workplace disturbances.
In support of their version, the respondents presented affidavits, sales reports, daily time records, and other documentary evidence which were later treated as questionable due to issues of proper execution and compliance with the best evidence rule.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Loreta’s complaint for lack of merit, concluding that it was more probable that she was terminated for loss of trust and confidence.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision in its December 29, 2006, Resolution, noting that Loreta had been confronted with the alleged infractions.
Loreta, dissatisfied with the NLRC ruling and having sought a reconsideration which was denied, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari.
The CA, upon evaluating inconsistencies and evidentiary irregularities in Wensha’s submissions (such as unsigned photocopies and late-dated pleadings), reversed the NLRC ruling and directed the respondents to pay full backwages, separation pay, damages (moral and exemplary), and attorney’s fees.
In its ruling, the CA also noted that due process was not followed because Loreta was not given proper notice of the charges and an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The CA abused its discretion in reversing the factual determinations of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, whose findings were supported by expertise in labor matters.
The evidence relied on by the CA was misinterpreted, particularly the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations against Loreta.
The imposition of joint and several liability on Xu, given the separate corporate personality of Wensha, was unwarranted without evidence of malice or bad faith.
The reversal of established labor jurisprudence concerning due process and the burden of proof in instances of dismissal was erroneous.

The petition argued that these errors, both in law and in fact, amounted to grave abuse of discretion and would set a dangerous precedent if not corrected.

Whether the dismissal of Loreta T. Yung was justified or whether it violated her right to security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code.
Whether the employer adhered to the due process requirements, specifically the obligation to give notice and an opportunity to be heard before terminating her employment.
Whether the loss of trust and confidence, as claimed by Wensha, constitutes a valid ground for dismissing a managerial employee.
Whether the evidence presented by the respondents, such as affidavits, photocopied documents, and daily time records, meets the standards of the best evidence rule and is sufficient to establish just cause.
Whether the inconsistencies and irregularities in the respondents’ evidentiary submissions justify the CA’s reversal of the NLRC and LA findings.
Whether the imposition of joint and several liability on Xu Zhi Jie is appropriate, particularly in the absence of any finding of malice or bad faith on his part.