G.R. No. 204075 - Cornworld Breeding Systems Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204075)

Factual Background

Lucena was hired in August 1982 and eventually held a high managerial position as Vice President for Research and Development. After Laureano assumed management in January 2009, he called a special meeting on January 24, 2009 and included Lucena among the employees. Lucena claimed that during the meeting Laureano berated her for allegedly failing to attend company meetings and failing to answer his phone calls and letters. Lucena recounted that when she asked for understanding and pleaded to be treated as a person, Laureano allegedly told her to “get out” and dismissed her from the premises while directing that she be removed.

Lucena asserted that the incident caused her to suffer hypertension and led to medical confinement at Cabanatuan Family Hospital. She applied for sick leave on January 26, 2009 for seven days. On February 17, 2009, she wrote Laureano requesting payment of her salary and sales incentive pay. On the same day, the Officer-in-Charge issued a memorandum appointing Alan Canama (Canama) as Overseer of all offices under Research and Development, pursuant to a Board Resolution dated January 22, 2009.

Lucena contended that with Canama’s appointment her employment became “floating” because she allegedly no longer had authority or “personality” to attend meetings and head the department. She also alleged threats against her person and life connected to her employment, and that because of these, she could no longer report for work. She further stated that she received treatment for hypertension again on May 15, 2009. On May 25, 2009, she attended a Meeting of the Private Seeds Company in Laguna representing Cornworld; however, she claimed that two other employees were sent by Laureano to represent Cornworld in her stead. Ultimately, on June 23, 2009, Lucena instituted a complaint for constructive dismissal against Cornworld and Laureano.

The Parties’ Positions in the Labor Dispute

Cornworld and Laureano denied that Lucena was dismissed, either actually or constructively. They argued that they had lost trust and confidence in her. They claimed that Lucena refused to cooperate with the new management despite occupying a sensitive and important position, and that she absented herself from management meetings and sent assistants in her stead. Petitioners asserted that Lucena resented the January 24, 2009 incident, absented herself thereafter, and refused to report back to work, which culminated in the complaint.

On the issue of alleged abandonment, petitioners claimed that Lucena filed three separate applications for sick leave covering January 24, 2009 until March 16, 2009 but then failed to communicate with the company after her approved leave period expired. They stated they attempted to reach her through multiple phone calls, but her phone was always turned off and she gave no notice regarding her job plans. They also argued that Cornworld did not dismiss her because there was no replacement appointed to fill her position as Vice President for Research and Development; they maintained that Canama’s February 2009 appointment was only to ensure smooth and continued operations.

Lucena, for her part, maintained that her managerial role and working conditions had been rendered unbearable through the appointment of Canama, salary and benefit withholding, and humiliating conduct, thereby forcing her to forego continued employment.

Labor Arbiter Proceedings

In a Decision dated August 24, 2009, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Lucena’s complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The record presented did not persuade the Labor Arbiter to find constructive dismissal or any unlawful termination.

NLRC Proceedings and Ruling

Lucena appealed to the NLRC. In a Decision dated March 24, 2010, the NLRC ruled that there was neither constructive dismissal nor abandonment. It held that there was no abandonment in the absence of a clear intention on Lucena’s part to sever the employment relationship. Instead, it found that she manifested an intention to continue working by filing applications for leave and by returning to work. On the constructive dismissal theory, the NLRC held that Lucena failed to substantiate claims that the company had acted with insensitivity, discrimination, or disdain.

When Lucena’s motion for reconsideration was denied, the NLRC Decision affirming the dismissal of her complaint stood.

CA Proceedings: Certiorari under Rule 65

Lucena then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In its February 8, 2012 Decision, the CA granted Lucena’s petition. It held that Lucena was indeed constructively dismissed and thus entitled to monetary claims and damages. The CA ordered Cornworld to pay full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits (or their monetary equivalent) computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the finality of the decision; it also ordered separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service computed from the date of dismissal until finality; and it awarded attorney’s fees at ten percent of the total monetary award. The CA remanded the records to the NLRC for computation of backwages and other benefits, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. The CA denied Cornworld’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 24, 2012.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Procedural Disposition

Cornworld filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction on November 22, 2012. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated November 26, 2012 for being a wrong mode of appeal and for noncompliance with procedural requirements related to proofs of service. That dismissal was later reconsidered: in a Resolution dated June 4, 2014, the Court granted Cornworld’s motion for reconsideration, thereby proceeding to evaluate the petition.

In assessing the petition, the Court reiterated that Cornworld should have filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 rather than a certiorari petition under Rule 65 to assail a final judgment of the CA. The Court explained the distinct function of certiorari under Rule 65 and review under Rule 45 in relation to grave abuse of discretion and questions of law in labor cases.

Even if the petition were treated with liberality as if it were a Rule 45 petition, the Court held it remained untimely. The Court noted that the CA’s Resolution denying reconsideration was issued on July 24, 2012, received by Cornworld on August 1, 2012, and that the petition was filed on September 28, 2012. The Court concluded that Cornworld filed 58 days after receipt, far beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period under Rule 45.

Alternative Merits Review: Constructive Dismissal, Abandonment, and Due Process

The Court further stated that, even assuming arguendo it relaxed procedural rules and reviewed the merits, Cornworld failed to show that the CA gravely abused its discretion. The Court therefore sustained the CA’s finding of constructive dismissal.

To be valid, dismissal from employment had to be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with procedural due process through notice and hearing. The Court emphasized the requirement of two written notices: the first apprising the employee of the acts or omissions for which dismissal was sought, and the second informing the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss. The Court also clarified that the “hearing” requirement was satisfied as long as the employee had an opportunity to be heard; an actual hearing was not indispensable.

The Court also addressed abandonment. It described abandonment as involving two elements: (one) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (two) there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts unerringly pointing to refusal to work. The burden of proof to show unjustified refusal rested on the employer.

On Cornworld’s abandonment theory, the Court held that Cornworld failed to adduce evidence of overt acts clearly and unequivocally showing Lucena’s intention to abandon her job. The Court found that Lucena filed three separate applications for sick leave covering January 24, 2009 to March 16, 2009. It also noted the relatively prompt filing of her illegal dismissal complaint on June 23, 2009, barely a month from May 25, 2009 when she discovered that two other employees were sent to represent the company in her stead. The Court reiterated that immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint showed intent to return to work and negated abandonment. It further underscored that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot be presumed from equivocal acts.

On constructive dismissal, the Court described it as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment was rendered imposs

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204075)

The petition sought certiorari to assail the Court of Appeals rulings in CA-G.R. SP No. 116391 that found Lucena M. Alvaro-Ladia constructively dismissed from her employment by Cornworld Breeding Systems Corporation.
The Court of Appeals decision ordered Cornworld to pay full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees, and it remanded the case to the NLRC for computation.
The petitioners insisted that Lucena was neither actually nor constructively dismissed, and that she abandoned her job.
The Court ultimately dismissed the petition for wrong remedy and late filing, and it affirmed the appellate court’s finding of constructive dismissal on the merits, in any event.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were Cornworld Breeding Systems Corporation and Laureano C. Domingo.
Respondents were Hon. Court of Appeals and Lucena M. Alvaro-Ladia.
Lucena instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal against Cornworld and Laureano before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal, finding no constructive dismissal and no abandonment.
Lucena filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals granted the certiorari petition, set aside the NLRC rulings, and held that Lucena was constructively dismissed.
The petitioners sought reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied.
The petitioners then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court initially dismissed it for procedural infirmities.
The Supreme Court later granted reconsideration of its own dismissal but ultimately denied the petition for lack of merit.

Key Factual Allegations

Lucena began employment with Cornworld as a field labor employee in August 1982 and rose to become Vice President for Research and Development.
On January 16, 2009, Cornworld’s then President, Benito M. Domingo, suffered a stroke, and Laureano C. Domingo took over management.
On January 24, 2009, Laureano called a special meeting including Lucena, during which Lucena claimed she was berated for not attending meetings and failing to answer phone calls and letters.
Lucena alleged that during the confrontation, Laureano pointed at her, required her attendance at meetings, and ordered her to “get out,” and she started crying while requesting to be treated as a person.
Lucena claimed the incident caused hypertension and led to confinement at Cabanatuan Family Hospital.
Lucena applied for sick leave on January 26, 2009 for seven days.
On February 17, 2009, Lucena wrote Laureano demanding payment of salary and sales incentive pay, while the Officer-in-Charge issued a memorandum appointing Alan Canama as Overseer of all offices under Research and Development pursuant to a Board Resolution dated January 22, 2009.
Lucena asserted that with Canama’s appointment, her employment status became “floating” because she allegedly had no personality to attend meetings and head the department.
Lucena claimed threats to her person and life were made in connection with her employment, and she asserted she could no longer report for work.
Lucena continued to claim hypertension treatments on May 15, 2009.
At a May 25, 2009 meeting of the Private Seeds Company in Laguna, Lucena attended in representation of Cornworld, but Laureano allegedly sent two other employees to represent the company in her stead.
On June 23, 2009, Lucena instituted the complaint for constructive dismissal.

Employer’s Position and Defenses

The petitioners argued that they did not dismiss Lucena and that they retained her employment relationship.
They contended that Lucena was guilty of loss of trust and confidence concerns within management and that she refused to cooperate with the new management under Laureano.
They maintained that Lucena absented herself from management meetings and sent assistants instead.
They asserted Lucena resented the January 24, 2009 incident and thereafter absented herself and refused to report back, culminating in the filing of the complaint.
They claimed that before the complaint, Lucena filed three separate sick leave applications covering January 24, 2009 until March 16, 2009, but then did not communicate with Cornworld after the approved leave period expired.
The petitioners alleged that attempts to reach Lucena through numerous phone calls were futile because her phone was always turned off, and she did not provide notice or information regarding her plans with her job.
They argued that since no one was appointed to fill Lucena’s position as Vice President for Research and Development, Lucena could not claim dismissal.
They insisted that Canama’s appointment on February 17, 2009 was only to ensure smooth and continued operations of the Research and Development Department, not to terminate Lucena.
They asserted that Lucena abandoned her job and was not dismissed, whether actually or constructively.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Rulings

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit.
The NLRC found that there was neither constructive dismissal nor abandonment.
The NLRC ruled that abandonment requires a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, and it held that Lucena did not demonstrate such intention.
The NLRC held that Lucena’s filing of leave applications and subsequent return to work evidenced the intention to continue working.
The NLRC further ruled that petitioners did not constructively dismiss Lucena, because Lucena failed to substantiate claims of insensitivity, discrimination, or disdain.
The NLRC denied Lucena’s motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals treated Lucena’s certiorari petition as challenging NLRC grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals held that Lucena was constructively dismissed, and it set aside the NLRC decision and resolution.
The Court of Appeals ordered Cornworld to pay full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time Lucena’s compensation was withheld until finality of the d