Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRST DIVISION.
411
411
412
grounds
invoked
for
petitioners
dismissal,
namely:
misappropriation of denominational funds, willful breach of trust,
serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties and
commission of an offense against the person of his employers duly
authorized representative, are all based on Article 282 of the
Labor Code which enumerates the just causes for termination of
employment. By this alone, it is palpable that the reason for
petitioners dismissal from the service is not religious in nature.
Coupled with this is the act of the SDA in furnishing NLRC with
a copy of petitioners letter of termination. As aptly stated by the
OSG, this again is an eloquent admission by private respondents
that NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. Aside from these, SDA
admitted in a certification issued by its officer, Mr. Ibesate, that
petitioner has been its employee for twentyeight (28) years. SDA
even registered petitioner with the Social Security System (SSS)
as its employee. As a matter of fact, the workers records of
petitioner have been submitted by private respondents as part of
their exhibits. From all of these it is clear that when the SDA
terminated the services of petitioner, it was merely exercising its
management prerogative to fire an employee which it believes to
be unfit for the job. As such, the State, through the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC, has the right to take cognizance of the case and to
determine whether the SDA, as employer, rightfully exercised its
management prerogative to dismiss an employee. This is in
consonance with the mandate of the Constitution to afford full
protection to labor.
Same Same Same Same Under the Labor Code, the
provision which governs the dismissal of employees, is
comprehensive enough to include religious corporations.Under
the Labor Code, the provision which governs the dismissal of
employees, is comprehensive enough to include religious
corporations, such as the SDA, in its coverage. Article 278 of the
Labor Code on postemployment states that the provisions of this
Title shall apply to all establishments or undertakings, whether
for profit or not. Obviously, the cited article does not make any
exception in favor of a religious corporation. This is made more
evident by the fact that the Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
particularly, Section 1, Rule 1, Book VI on the Termination of
Employment and Retirement, categorically includes religious
institutions in the coverage of the law.
Same Dismissal In termination cases, the settled rule is that
the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or
413
rule is that the burden of proving that the termination was for a
valid or authorized cause rests on the employer. Thus, private
respondents must not merely rely on the weaknesses of
petitioners evidence but must stand on the merits of their own
defense.
Same Same Requisites for a Valid Dismissal.The issue
being the legality of petitioners dismissal, the same must be
measured against the requisites for a valid dismissal, namely: (a)
the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given
an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself and, (b) the
dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Article 282 of
the Labor Code. Without the concurrence of this twin
requirements, the termination would, in the eyes of the law, be
illegal. Before the services of an employee can be validly
terminated, Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule
XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code further
require the employer to furnish the employee with two (2) written
notices, to wit: (a) a written notice served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to
said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his
side and, (b) a written notice of termination served on the
employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination.
Same Same Same Noncompliance therewith is fatal
because these requirements are conditions sine qua non before
dismissal may be validly effected.The first notice, which may be
considered as the proper charge, serves to apprise the employee of
the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought.
The second notice on the other hand seeks to inform the employee
of the employers decision to dismiss him. This decision, however,
must come only after the employee is given a reasonable period
from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the charge
and ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the
assistance of a representative, if he so desires. This is in
consonance with the express provision of the law on the protection
to labor and the broader dictates of procedural due process. Non
414
415
416
355359.
4
417
on 29 Octo
_______________
6
Id., at 532.
Ibid.
418
P21,060.00
B.
Allowance
P 4,770.83
C.
P 3,461.85
D.
Moral Damages
P50,000.00
E.
Exemplary Damages
P25,000.00
F.
Attorneys Fee
P22,012.27
12
SO ORDERED.
______________
10
11
Records, Vol. 1, p. 1.
12
419
NLRC resolution
_______________
13
14
420
16
Rollo, p. 188.
421
421
17
18
Ibid.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
422
the SDA
_______________
22
Rollo, p. 233.
23
423
With this clear mandate, the SDA cannot hide behind the
mantle of protection of the doctrine of separation of church
and state to avoid its responsibilities as an employer under
the Labor Code.
Finally, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, private
respondents are estopped from raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. It is already too
Emphasis supplied.
424
424
NLRC and the Labor Arbiter since the SDA had fully
participated in the trials and hearings of the case from
start to finish. The Court has already ruled that the active
participation of a party against whom the action was
brought, coupled with his failure to object to the
jurisdiction of the court or quasijudicial body where the
action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that
jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of
the case and will bar said party from
later on impugning
25
the court or bodys jurisdiction.
Thus, the active
participation of private respondents in the proceedings
before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC mooted the
question on jurisdiction.
The jurisdictional question now settled, we shall now
proceed to determine whether the dismissal of petitioner
was valid.
At the outset, we note that as a general rule, findings of
fact of administrative bodies like the NLRC are binding
upon this Court. A review of such findings is justified,
however, in instances when the findings of the NLRC
differ
26
from those of the labor arbiter, as in this case. When the
findings of NLRC do not agree with those of the Labor
Arbiter, this Court must of necessity review the records to
determine which findings should be
preferred as more
27
comformable to the evidentiary facts.
We turn now to the crux of the matter. In termination
cases, the settled rule is that the burden of proving that the
termination
was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the
28
employer. Thus, private respondents must not merely rely
________________
25
Maneja vs. NLRC and Manila Midtown Hotel, G.R. No. 124013, June
5, 1998, 290 SCRA 603, citing Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, 171 SCRA
337 (1989).
26
Lim, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 124630, February 19, 1999, 303
SCRA 432.
27
Arboleda vs. NLRC and Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 119509,
February 11, 1999, 303 SCRA 38, citing Tanala vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 314
(1996).
28
425
Id., citing Pizza Hut/Progressive Devt. Corp. vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA
531 (1996).
30
32
Ibid.
33
Id.
426
426
34
Id., at 552.
35
Id., citing Metro Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 190 (1989).
36
37
427
________________
38
Atlas Consolidated Mining & Devt. Corp. vs. NLRC and Isabelo O.
Villacencio, G.R. No. 122033, May 21, 1998, 290 SCRA 479.
39
Ibid.
40
Id.
428
428
_______________
41
TSN, June 22, 1992, pp. 198199 August 18, 1992, pp. 189191, 198
201.
429
429
_______________
43
Alma Cosep, et al. vs. NLRC and Premiere Development Bank, G.R.
Ibid.
430
430
Germano, G.R. No. 126703, December 29, 1998, 300 SCRA 702 citing
Diosdado de Vera vs. NLRC, 191 SCRA 633 (1990).
46
PLDT vs. NLRC and Enrique Gabriel, G.R. No. 106947, February 11,
1999, 303 SCRA 9, citing Madlos vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 248 (1996).
47
397.
48
Salaw vs. NLRC,supra note 30 citing Santos vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA
166 (1987).
431
431
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.