Case Summary (G.R. No. 230664)
Factual Background
Edward M. Cosue began his employment with Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation (FIDC) on August 23, 1993, originally as a construction worker before transitioning to a regular employee serving as a janitor and maintenance staff. On July 10, 2014, FIDC's Property Management Division Head, Melissa Tanya Germino, asked him to stay in the building to watch over the generator and assist newly hired security guards. During this duty, Cosue noticed what he believed to be suspicious behavior involving two security guards and an unidentified accomplice regarding missing electrical wires. Subsequently, on July 16, 2014, Germino verbally suspended him for a period lasting until August 13, 2014, based on suspicions of theft.
Petitioner’s Legal Action
On October 9, 2014, Cosue filed a complaint against FIDC and associated individuals for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages, seeking damages and attorney fees. He argued that he was wrongfully suspended and claimed that additional compensations such as holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay were unpaid or underpaid. Respondents contended that Cosue was not dismissed but rather suspended pending an investigation.
Respondents' Defense
FIDC responded by asserting that Cosue's suspension was valid due to suspected misconduct, specifically his unauthorized entry into the electrical room alongside another employee to investigate missing wires. They claimed Cosue was neither dismissed nor absent without leave and highlighted that the allegation of theft was based on the finding of wires in the bag of a fellow employee.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FIDC on February 12, 2015, stating that the evidence did not support Cosue's claim of illegal dismissal. It established that Cosue remained under preventive suspension during the purported date of his dismissal and found no evidence suggesting he abandoned his job. However, the Arbiter awarded him salary differentials due to proven underpayment.
NLRC and Court of Appeals Decisions
In subsequent appeals, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision, emphasizing no termination occurred and corroborating the findings that the suspension was appropriate. The appellate bodies dismissed Cosue's claims for additional monetary benefits as they were not properly raised in the initial complaint or position papers.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, clarifying that only questions of law are typically reviewed in Rule 45 petitions, and found no merit in Cosue's claim of constructive dismissal. It
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230664)
Case Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The petitioner, Edward M. Cosue, contests the Decision dated December 2, 2016, and Resolution dated February 23, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolutions confirming the Labor Arbiter's finding of no illegal dismissal.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Edward M. Cosue
- Respondents: Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation, Melissa Tanya F. Germino, and Antonio A. Fernando
Background of the Case
- Edward M. Cosue began employment with Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation (FIDC) on August 23, 1993, initially as a construction worker and later as a janitor/maintenance staff.
- On July 10, 2014, he was asked by Melissa Tanya Germino to supervise the generator due to power outages.
- Cosue reported suspicious activity involving security guards and an unidentified man, leading to his suspension from July 16 to August 13, 2014, on suspicion of theft.
- A formal complaint was filed by Cosue on October 9, 2014, alleging illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries.
Respondents' Defense
- The respondents contended that the suspension was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative pending investigation into the alleged theft of electrical wires.
- They argued that no illegal dismissal occurred and that any absence from work was due to an agreement for Cosue to volunt