Title
Supreme Court
Gabriel vs. Petron Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 194575
Decision Date
Apr 11, 2018
Employee alleged harassment and constructive dismissal after promotion without benefits; courts denied procedural extension, upheld NLRC ruling, and declined to address substantive claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194575)

Employment Background

Gabriel was employed by Petron starting May 1987 and was promoted to QMS Coordinator on October 18, 2004. Despite this promotion, he did not receive a corresponding salary increase or recognition of his new role. The situation escalated following a complaint letter lodged against him by Charina Quiwa, the goddaughter of Trio, who was the General Manager of Petron's Refining Division.

Allegations and Administrative Actions

In light of Quiwa's complaint, which Gabriel denied, he claimed that the management subjected him to harassment and subsequently interpreted his actions as violations of company rules. This culminated in Gabriel filing a complaint for constructive dismissal. Petron asserted that Gabriel's re-assignment was not a promotion but part of a company reorganization and that his subsequent actions, including the use of company resources for personal business, warranted an investigation.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Gabriel, stating that his role as QMS Coordinator constituted a supervisory position and that the complaints against him were baseless, attributing them instead to malice stemming from Quiwa’s grievance. Consequently, Gabriel was awarded back wages, separation pay, and damages.

NLRC Decision

However, on April 27, 2009, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter’s decision, dismissing Gabriel’s complaint. The NLRC found that Gabriel's reassignment was a lateral transfer without promotion and that there was no substantial evidence to support his claims of harassment.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Gabriel sought to appeal the NLRC decision and initially filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 14, 2010. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) but missed the deadline for filing due to logistical challenges in securing authentication from the Philippine Consular Office. The CA dismissed his motion for extension, citing strict procedural rules.

Supreme Court Ruling

Gabriel brought his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed an error in denying his motion for extension of time to file his petition. However, the Court held that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal and that the scope of its review is limited to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.