Today is Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A, MAMORU ONO and JUNICHI HIROSE, Respondents.

DECISION

nd Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals dated 24 May 2005 and 7 September 2005, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 85065. The appe
RC CA No. 034872-03, which ruled that petitioner’s dismissal from employment was legal; and its Resolution which denied petitioner

ilippine laws and is engaged in the business of designing automotive wiring harnesses for automobile manufacturers. Private respon

the top-ranking Filipino Manager, she acted as the liaison between the Japanese management and the Filipino staff.

y in particular, but was later acquired by PET management. In her letter, Balonzo complained that Tirazona humiliated her while she w
ease. This allegedly occurred despite Balonzo’s possession of a medical clearance that proved her fitness to return to work. Balonzo

accordingly in a letter6 wherein she denied the accusations against her. Tirazona stated that her only intention was to orient Balonzo a
atened to file a libel case against Balonzo for allegedly trying to destroy her reputation and credibility.
Balonzo during the incident on January 14, 2002. It also appreciates the concern you profess for the welfare of PET employees.

nature of the issue, a little more circumspection could have readily avoided the incident which it cannot be denied caused unnecessa
mption (that Ms. Balonzo would request for a leave extension) was in fact wrong and she had a medical certificate attesting her fitnes

with favor your notice to file legal action. Management believes that you share the idea that issues regarding employee relations are

tely to Ono and Balonzo. The letter to Ono states:

your corporation.

nclusion that Ms. Tirazona was guilty of the unfounded and baseless charges presented by Ms. Fe Balonzo in her letter-complaint da
azona requested for an independent investigation of the case in order to thresh out all issues, ferret out the truth and give her the op

was rendered by you on mere allegations expressed in a letter-complaint to an unknown addressee.

strained to formally demand payment of P2,000,000.00 in damages, injured feelings, serious anxiety and besmirched reputation that

egret, we will institute legal procedures to protect our client’s interests.

unfounded accusations against Tirazona.

ormed her that they were considering her termination from employment by reason of serious misconduct and breach of trust. Accordin

y the denial of her repeated requests for reinvestigation of the Balonzo incident, and that the same was personally addressed to Mam

the only issue for consideration was Tirazona’s "ill-advised response to the Management’s disposition to the Fe Balonzo incident," fo

he scheduled hearing. She further stated that since the management had already prejudged her case, she would only participate in t
d Employment (DOLE).

eset to 10 April 2002, which would be presided by PET’s external counsel.

gement informed them through a memorandum14 dated 12 April 2002 that the hearing was carried out despite their absence. Neverth

s claims, to wit: that Balonzo’s charges were unfounded and baseless; that she had been denied due process; and that she would no
ntial letter addressed to PET directors Ono and Fukuoka, containing the legal opinion of PET’s counsel regarding her case.

er guilty of serious misconduct and breach of trust because of her demand against the company and her invasion of PET’s right to pr

mages against PET, docketed as NLRC-CA No. 034872-03.

, holding that the latter’s termination from employment was illegal.

e was against Ono in his personal capacity, not against the company. The decision also ruled that PET failed to discharge the burden
ht to due process when she was denied a fair hearing.

004, the dispositive portion of which reads:

anuary 27, 2003 and a new one is entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.18

nt was in accordance with law. It ruled that Tirazona’s demand letter addressed to Ono constituted a just cause for dismissal, as the s
uch as Tirazona’s demand for a special panel was without any legal basis. Furthermore, petitioner breached the company’s trust whe

2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:

ISMISSED for lack of merit and our Decision dated 30 January 2004 is thus AFFIRMED with finality.20

5, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85065.
mber 2005, Tirazona now impugns before this Court the Court of Appeals Decision dated 24 May 2005, raising the following issues:

I.

E WROTE THE TWO MILLION PESO DEMAND LETTER FOR DAMAGES, WARRANTING HER DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMEN

II.

S IN THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER TIRAZONA FROM EMPLOYMENT.

a was legally dismissed from employment.

r Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The appropriate remedy would have been for Tirazona to file an appeal through a Petition for Review

be present: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions: (2) such tribun
remedy in the ordinary course of law.22

equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or per

r resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the sixty (60)-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of

"a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals x x x may file with the Sup

ppealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.26

for Certiorari under Rule 65. Said Decision partakes of the nature of a judgment or final order, thus, is reviewable only through an ap

ted by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a s
predicament being the effect of his deliberate inaction. [Emphasis ours.]

ertain to purported errors of judgment committed by the appellate court in its appreciation of the allegations, evidence, and arguments
nting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

was not an innocent mistake but a deliberate choice.

view on Certiorari.28 Tirazona stated therein that she received the notice of the Court of Appeals Resolution denying her Motion for R
days, with her counsel citing extreme pressures of work.

ed period was to end on 7 November 2005. However, Tirazona failed to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari within the said period.

hrough a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. That she filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and only after
a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned b
r Rule 56, Sec. 5(f) of the Revised Rules of Court, a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits an outright dismissal.31

civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, her petition is in reality an appeal under Rule 45 as her petition raises pure questions of law. T
rticipation.33 She thus urges this Court to suspend the application of its own rules on grounds of equity and substantial justice, consid

een filed under Rule 45, the same must comply with the reglementary period for filing an appeal. This requirement is not only manda
ce the instant petition was filed after the lapse of the extended period for filing an appeal, the same should be dismissed outright.

paramount consideration in this case is an employee’s right to security of tenure, and in order to provide Tirazona the amplest opport

r Petition as an appeal under Rule 45, it still finds that the Petition must be denied for lack of merit.

was illegal for having lacked both a legal basis and the observance of due process.

r a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. Clearly, dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of

sing an employee. It is an established principle that loss of confidence must be premised on the fact that the employee concerned ho
order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concer

ee against a director, not against the company and, by itself, cannot constitute a breach of trust and confidence. The company’s notic
h the powers and prerogatives stated in Article 212(m)38 of the Labor Code. As such, her alleged hostility towards her co-workers and

to consider the instant Petition as an appeal under Rule 45, then only pure questions of law will be entertained.39

s a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same mus
nces. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.40

ckground of both her demand letter and the PET’s notice of charge against her. Similarly, the determination of whether Tirazona is a
was clearly established against Tirazona, the Court will have to sift through and evaluate the respective evidence of the parties as we

gain, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constit

latter’s factual findings. Long established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded with
2Though this doctrine is not without exceptions,43 the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.

t of Appeals:

as addressed to an officer and representative of the corporation. The accusations in the aforesaid demand letter were directed again
n only act through its officers, agents and representatives.

found in the records, would clearly show that petitioner Tirazona has absolutely no basis for a P2 million demand, coupled with lawsu
d by Ms. Balonzo. As the records would indubitably show, petitioner Tirazona was never charged of any offense with respect to the F
be more circumspect in handling the incident or situation like this [sic]. As fully evidenced in the last paragraph of the said letter, it sta
 with favor your notice to file legal action. Management believes that you share the idea that issues regarding employee relations are

er honor and dignity. This, instead of seeking a dialogue with respondent PET on her felt grievance, petitioner Tirazona through her la
a trivial matter.

sions affecting her employer’s rights and interest, would undoubtedly show that she is no longer worthy of being a recipient of the tru

nagerial employee, to wit:

a managerial employee of respondent PET. From the very start, her dismissal was premised on the fact that she is a managerial and
k and file employee of respondent PET, especially that she herself admitted in her pleading that she is a managerial employee:

so the right to be protected from the baseless accusations of a Rank and File Employee for she [petitioner] is a part of the manageme

wo written notices, nor was she afforded a hearing with her participation prior to her dismissal.

ed. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of those elements can

t notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, while the second notice informs th

odied in the Notice of Charge dated 25 March 2002 where PET informed Tirazona that it was considering her termination from emplo
st the company, and (2) her demand for two million pesos in damages, with a threat of a lawsuit if the said amount was not paid. The

she was dismissed.

dministrative hearing set by PET 10 April 2002. Tirazona rejected the company’s appointment of its external counsel as the investigat
e contrary, this Court’s ruling in Foster Parents Plan International/Bicol v. Demetriou48 is controlling:

e, pertains in the first place to the employer, as well as the authority to determine the existence of said cause in accordance with the
or his duly designated representative; and the investigation cannot be thwarted or nullified by arguing that it is the employe
ay subsequently be passed upon by the corresponding labor arbiter (and the NLRC on appeal) upon the filing by the aggrieved empl

e party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy. What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.49
n and gave her the chance to submit a supplemental written explanation. Only when Tirazona again failed to comply with the same d

trary a penalty to mete out for whatever violation that she has committed, if indeed there was one.
onfidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be

ility she has shown towards the company and her stubborn, uncompromising stance in almost all instances justify the company’s term
ployer’s view that she cannot be trusted. In fine, the Court cannot fault the actions of PET in dismissing petitioner.

ision of the Court of Appeals dated 24 May 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

gned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CERTIFICATION

reby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of th

Jacinto and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; id. at 20-46.

oyment, for serious misconduct and breach of trust, arising from your counsel’s demand letter dated 27 February 2002 x x x wherein y

nevitable lawsuit if your baseless demands are not satisfied within five (5) days from receipt of the demand letter.

and an open display of disloyalty. Being part of the management, you as an officer is [sic] required not to assert any adverse interest
terest.

written explanation and justify why your services should not be terminated for serious misconduct and breach of trust.
90 SCRA 751, 762.

. 951, 955 (2002).

antos, G.R. No. 132467, 18 October 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 373.

989, 176 SCRA 385, 390, cited in Asian Construction And Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,

nt for any of the following causes:

oyer or duly authorized representative.

1999).

own and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.

admits of certain exceptions, though none of which are present in the instant petition, namely: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounde
cts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the CA went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admission
ch they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the resp
No. 139233, 11 November 2005, citing Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 834, 846 (1998)].

cited in Binay v. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 255-256.

ting Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 405 (2003).

ers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 143341, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 193, 205-206.

0, 351.

tex Industries v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150278, 9 August 2007, 529 SCRA 631, 652.

y 1991, 198 SCRA 748, 761.

(Third Division), 354 Phil. 1056, 1063 (1998).

Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive