755 PHIL. 882
We resolve in this petition for review on
certiorari1 the challenge to the Court of Appealsa (CA) decision
2 dated March 26, 2013 and resolution
3 dated August 30, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 117822. These assailed CA rulings affirmed the National Labor Relations Commissionas (
NLRC) decision
4 dated August 13, 2010, which also affirmed the Labor Arbiteras (
LA) February 28, 2010 decision.
The Antecedent Facts
On April 1, 2008, the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines, Inc. (
CBTL) hired Rolly P. Arenas (
Arenas) to work as a abaristaa at its Paseo Center Branch. His principal functions included taking orders from customers and preparing their ordered food and beverages.
5 Upon signing the employment contract,
6 Arenas was informed of CBTLas existing employment policies.
To ensure the quality of its crewas services, CBTL regularly employs a amystery guest shoppera who poses as a customer, for the purpose of covertly inspecting the baristasa job performance.
7In April 2009, a mystery guest shopper at the Paseo Center Branch submitted a report stating that on March 30, 2009, Arenas was seen eating non-CBTL products at CBTLas
al fresco dining area while on duty. As a result, the counter was left empty without anyone to take and prepare the customersa orders.
8On another occasion, or on April 28, 2009, Katrina Basallo (Basallo), the duty manager of CBTL, conducted a routine inspection of the Paseo Center Branch. While inspecting the storeas products, she noticed an iced tea bottle being chilled inside the bin where the ice for the customersa drinks is stored; thus, she called the attention of the staff on duty. When asked, Arenas muttered, a
kaninong iced tea?a and immediately picked the bottle and disposed it outside the store.
9After inspection, Basallo prepared a store manageras report which listed Arenasa recent infractions, as follows:
- Leaving the counter unattended and eating chips in an unauthorized area while on duty (March 30, 2009);
- Reporting late for work on several occasions (April 1, 3 and 22); and
- Placing an iced tea bottle in the ice bin despite having knowledge of company policy prohibiting the same (April 28, 2009).10
Based on the mystery guest shopper and duty manageras reports, Arenas was required to explain his alleged violations. However, CBTL found Arenasa written explanation unsatisfactory, hence CBTL terminated his employment.
11Arenas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. After due proceedings, the LA ruled in his favor, declaring that he had been illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LAas decision.
CBTL filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. CBTL insisted that Arenasa infractions amounted to serious misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and breach of trust and confidence. To support these allegations, CBTL presented Arenasa letter
12 where he admitted his commission of the imputed violations.
On March 26, 2013, the CA issued its decision dismissing the petition. The CA ruled that Arenasa offenses fell short of the required legal standards to justify his dismissal; and that these do not constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience, and gross negligence, to merit his termination from service. The CA denied CBTLas motion for reconsideration opening the way for this present appeal
via a petition for review on
certiorari.The main issue before us is whether CBTL illegally dismissed Arenas from employment.
The Petition
CBTL argues that under the terms and conditions of the employment contract, Arenas agreed to abide and comply with CBTLas policies, procedures, rules and regulations, as provided for under CBTLas table of offenses and penalties and/or employee handbook.
13 CBTL cites
serious misconduct as the primary reason for terminating Arenasa employment. CBTL also imputes dishonesty on the part of Arenas for not immediately admitting that he indeed left his bottled iced tea inside the ice bin.
Our Ruling
We DENY the petition.
As a rule, in
certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA does not assess and weigh each piece of evidence introduced in the case. The CA only examines the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, whose absence points to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
14 In the case of
Mercado v. AMA Computer College,
15 we emphasized that:
As a general rule, in
certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. x x x
16 [Italics supplied]
Our review of the records shows that the CA did not err in affirming the LA and the NLRCas rulings. No grave abuse of discretion tainted these rulings, thus, the CAas decision also warrants this Courtas affirmation. The infractions which Arenas committed do not justify the application of the severe penalty of termination from service.
First, Arenas was found eating non-CBTL products inside the storeas premises while on duty. Allegedly, he left the counter unattended without anyone to entertain the incoming customers. Second, he chilled his bottled iced tea inside the ice bin, in violation of CBTLas sanitation and hygiene policy. CBTL argues that these violations constitute willful disobedience, thus meriting dismissal from employment.
We disagree with CBTL.
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these two elements must concur: (1) the employeeas assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
17Tested against these standards, it is clear that Arenasa alleged infractions do not amount to such a wrongful and perverse attitude. Though Arenas may have admitted these wrongdoings, these do not amount to a wanton disregard of CBTLas company policies. As Arenas mentioned in his written explanation, he was on a scheduled break when he was caught eating at CBTLas
al fresco dining area. During that time, the other service crews were the one in charge of manning the counter. Notably, CBTLas employee handbook imposes only the penalty of written warning for the offense of eating non-CBTL products inside the storeas premises.
CBTL also imputes gross and habitual neglect of duty to Arenas for coming in late in three separate instances.
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of, or failure to exercise even a slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
18 There is habitual neglect if based on the circumstances, there is a repeated failure to perform oneas duties for a period of time.
19In light of the foregoing criteria, we rule that Arenasa three counts of tardiness cannot be considered as gross and habitual neglect of duty. The infrequency of his tardiness already removes the character of habitualness. These late attendances were also broadly spaced out, negating the complete absence of care on Arenasa part in the performance of his duties. Even CBTL admitted in its notice to explain that this violation does not merit yet a disciplinary action and is only an aggravating circumstance to Arenasa other violations.
20To further justify Arenasa dismissal, CBTL argues that he committed serious misconduct when he lied about using the ice bin as cooler for his bottled iced tea. Under CBTLas employee handbook, dishonesty, even at the first instance, warrants the penalty of termination from service.
21For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employeeas duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
22However, the facts on record reveal that there was no active dishonesty on the part of Arenas. When questioned about who placed the bottled iced tea inside the ice bin, his immediate reaction was not to deny his mistake, but to remove the bottle inside the bin and throw it outside. More importantly, when he was asked to make a written explanation of his action, he admitted that the bottled iced tea was his.
Thus, even if there was an initial reticence on Arenasa part, his subsequent act of owing to his mistake only shows the absence of a deliberate intent to lie or deceive his CBTL superiors. On this score, we conclude that Arenasa action did not amount to serious misconduct.
Moreover, the imputed violations of Arenas, whether taken singly or as a whole, do not necessitate the imposition of the strict and harsh penalty of dismissal from service. The LA, NLRC and the CA all consistently ruled that these offenses are not grave enough to qualify as just causes for dismissal. Factual findings of the labor tribunals especially if affirmed by the CA must be given great weight, and merit the Courtas respect.
As a final remark, we note that petitioner Walden Chu (
Chu) should not be held jointly and severally liable with CBTL for Arenasa adjudged monetary awards. The LA and the NLRC ruled for their solidary liability but the CA failed to dispose this issue in its decision.
A corporation is a juridical entity with a legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it.
23 Thus, as a general rule, an officer may not be held liable for the corporationas labor obligations unless he acted with evident malice and/or bad faith in dismissing an employee.
24In the present case, there was no showing of any evident malice or bad faith on Chuas part as CBTLas president. His participation in Arenasa termination was not even sufficiently alleged and argued. Hence, he cannot be held solidarily liable for CBTLas liabilities to Arenas.
WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in its decision of March 26, 2013 and its resolution of August 30, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 117822, except with respect to the liability of petitioner Walden Chu. We thus absolve petitioner Walden Chu from paying in his personal capacity the monetary awards of respondent Rolly P. Arenas. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and
Leonen, JJ., concur.