42.

Montallano vs La Consolacion College of Manila (Illegal Dismissal)

FACTS:

Montallana was a faculty member of La Consolacions College of Arts and Sciences.

On January 16, 2009, Mrs. Nerissa D. Del Fierro-Juan (Juan), the Assistant Dean of
the College of Arts and Sciences and the immediate superior of Montallana, filed a
formal administrative complaint with La Consolacion against Montallana, charging
him of: (a) oral defamation (or slander); (b) disorderly conduct in the school
premises; and (c) discourteous/indecent behavior or using profane or obscene
language in addressing co-employees, superiors, or anybody within the school
premises. Aside from this, Mrs. Juan also filed grave oral defamation against him
before the City Prosecutors Office.

Montallana meted the penalty of suspension without pay for a period of two (2)
months and directed him to submit a written public apology to Juan.

In a letter dated April 22, 2009, Montallana sought reconsideration of his suspension
and explained that a written public apology was inappropriate at that time in view
of the pendency of a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation filed by Juan
against him before the City Prosecutors Office. He mentioned that his issuance of a
written public apology while the criminal case was being heard might incriminate
himself, adding too that it was his lawyer who advised him to invoke his right
against self-incrimination.

The request having been denied by La Consolacions President, respondent Sr.

Imelda A. Mora (Mora), in her letter dated May 12, 2009, Montallana filed a
complaint for illegal suspension and unfair labor practice, with prayer for payment
of salaries during the period of suspension, andmoral and exemplary damages
against respondents La Consolacion and Mora before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC
NCR Case No. 05-07667-09 (illegal suspension case).

In a Decision dated April 15, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of
Montallana, holding that his actions did not constitute serious misconduct. Hence,
Montallanas suspension from employment was declared illegal and respondents La
Consolacion and Mora were ordered to pay Montallana the amount of 48,000.00 as
his salary during the period of suspension.

On appeal, however, the NLRC disagreed with the findings of the LA and found
Montallanas acts to be constitutive of serious misconduct and against the rule of
honor and decency expected of any teacher. While it found sufficient basis to
impose the penalty of termination, the NLRC nonetheless sustained the two (2)-
month suspension in deference to the schools prerogative to discipline its
employees. Montallana moved for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a
Decision dated February 7, 2011. Montallana no longer elevated the matter to the
CA and the NLRCs decision became final and executory on February 28, 2011.

Thereafter, on June 1, 2011, La Consolacion, through its HRD Director, respondent

Albert D. Manalili (Manalili), directed Montallana to explain in writing why he should
not be dismissed for failure to submit his written public apology which formed part
of the disciplinary sanction that was sustained with finality by the NLRC.

In a letter dated June 9, 2011, Montallana begged for La Consolacions indulgence,

explaining that he had no intention of defying the directive to submit a written
public a pology and that his inability to comply therewith was, to reiterate, only in
view of the pendency of the criminal case against him. He, nonetheless, expressed
his willingness to comply with the directive once the said case was resolved with
finality. Finding Montallanas written explanation unsatisfactory, Manalili terminated
him from work on June 13, 2011.

Asserting that his dismissal for failure to submit a written public apology was
unjustified, Montallana filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims
against respondents La Consolacion, Mora, and Manalili (respondents).

In a Decision dated November 14, 2011, the LA dismissed Montallanas complaint,

holding that his refusal to apologize was tantamount to serious misconduct and,
hence, warranted his termination.

The NLRC reversed and set aside the LAs verdict, and thus, ordered respondents to
reinstate Montallana and to pay him backwages from the time he was illegally
dismissed up to his reinstatement.

However, the CA gave due course to respondents petition and eventually reversed
and set aside the NLRCs Decision .It found that Montallana deliberately refused to
obey the directive of the respondents to apologize and that the pendency of the
criminal case against him was not sufficient justification to excuse him from
compliance.

ISSUE: Whether or not Montallanas termination from work was lawful and justified.

HELD:

Willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or

representative in connection with his work is one of the just causes to terminate an
employee under Article 296 (a) (formerly Article 282[a]) of the Labor Code. In order
for this ground to be properly invoked as a just cause for dismissal, the conduct
must be willful or intentional, willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and
perverse mental attitude.

In the case at bar, respondents failed to prove, by substantial evidence, that

Montallanas non-compliance with respondents directive to apologize was willful or
intentional. The Court finds itself in complete agreement with the NLRC that the
disobedience attributed to Montallana could not be justly characterized as willful
within the contemplation of Article 296 of the Labor Code, in the sense above-
described.

The Decision dated May 31, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 30, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127988 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Decision dated July 31, 2012 and the Resolution dated October 16,
2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 02-000556-12,
declaring petitioner Joel N. Montallana (Montallana) to have been illegally dismissed,
are REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION deleting the order for respondents Sr.
Imelda A. Mora and Albert D. Manalili to pay Montallana his backwages.

43. STANLEY FINE FURNITURE, ELEN AND CARLOS WANG VS. VICTOR GALLANO AND
ENRIQUITO SIAREZ
GR. NO. 190486
November 26, 2014

Facts: Stanley Fine Furniture (Stanley Fine), through its owners Elena and Carlos Wang, hired
respondents Victor T. Gallano and Enriquito Siarez were hired in 1995 as painters/carpenters who
each received 215.00 basic salary per day.

In 2005, Victor and Enriquito filed a labor complaint for underpayment/non-payment of salaries,
wages, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), and 13th month pay. Victor and Enriquito
filed an amended complaint on May 31, 2005, for actual illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-
payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th
month pay, ECOLA, and Social Security System (SSS) benefit. In the amended complaint, Victor
and Enriqui to claimed that they were dismissed on May 26, 2005. Victor and Enriquito were
9

allegedly scolded for filing a complaint for money claims. Later on, they were not allowed to work.

On the other hand, petitioner Elena Briones claimed that Victor and Enriquito were "required to
explain their absences for the month of May 2005, but they refused."

The Labor Arbiter found that Victor and Enriquito were illegally dismissed and Stanley Fine was
forced to declare them dismissed due to their failure to report back to work for a considerable length
of time and also, due to the filing of an unmeritorious labor case against Stanley Fine. The labor
arbiter declared Stanley Fine guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered for the reinstatement of the
complainant and also awarded them moral and exemplary damages.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiters decision.

Victor and Enriquito filed a motion for reconsideration, which the National Labor Relations
Commission denied thus, Victor and Enriquito filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals.

The Court of Appeals found that Stanley Fine failed to show any valid cause for Victor and
Enriquitos termination and to comply with the two notice rule. Also, the Court of Appeals noted that
Stanley Fines statements that it was "forced to declare them dismissed" due to their absences
and "due to the filing of an unmeritorious labor case against it by the two complainants" were
admissions against interest and binding upon Stanley Fine. Thus: An admission against interest is
the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute since no man would
declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true. Thus, an admission against interest
binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable
mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.

The Court of Appeals, thus, granted the petition, set aside the resolutions of the National Labor
Relations Commission, and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Stanley Fine filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied.

On January 21, 2010, Elena Briones filed a petition for review. Elena alleged that she is the
"registered owner/proprietress of the business operation doing business under the name and style
Stanley Fine Furniture."She argued that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Victor and
Enriquito were illegally dismissed considering that she issued several memoranda to them, but they
refused to accept the memoranda and explain their absences. As to the statement, "due to the filing
of an unmeritorious labor case," it was error on the part of her former counsel which should not bind
her.

Issue:

Whether or not Victor Gallano and Enriquito Siarez were illegally dismissed;

Held:

There was no just cause in the dismissal of respondents. Just causes for termination of an
employee are provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Although abandonment of work is not
included in the enumeration, this court has held that "abandonment is a form of neglect of duty." To
prove abandonment, two elements must concur:

1. Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and

2. A clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and
giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if
heso desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the
evidence presented against him.

(iii) 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.

Indeed, there was malice when, as a retaliatory measure, petitioners dismissed respondents
because they filed a labor complaint. Further, Elena violated respondents' rights to substantive and
procedural due process when she failed to issue notices to explain and notices of termination.
Gone are the days when workers were reduced to mendicant despondency by their
employers. Within our legal order, workers have legal rights and procedures to claim these rights.
1wphi1

The only way for employers to avoid legal action from their workers is to give them what they may be
due in law and.as human beings. Businesses thrive through the acumen of their owners and
entrepreneurs. But, none of them will exist without the outcome of the sacrifices and toil of their
workers. Our economy thrives through this partnership based upon mutual respect. At the very least,
these are the values which are congealed in our present laws.

Apparently, in this case, the owners forgot that labor is not merely a factor of production. It is a
human product no matter how modest it may seem to them.

The Court of Appeals' decision dated July 28, 2009, and its resolution dated November 27, 2009,
reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision dated August 2, 2006, were AFFIRMED.