THE Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled in favor of a former employee of a logistics company, declaring her dismissal illegal and reversing a prior decision by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In a decision posted on Feb. 17, the appellate court’s thirteenth division ruled that JRS Business Corp. (JRS) failed to establish just cause for dismissing the petitioner and failed to comply with due process requirements.
“Having been unjustly dismissed, [the petitioner] is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to her full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time her compensation was withheld,” according to the 38-page ruling written by Justice Mary Josephine D.P. Lazaro.
The court ordered JRS to pay the petitioner her unpaid salary for the period of preventive suspension without pay from June 29 to July 29, 2020, if unpaid; full back wages from her date of dismissal on July 29, 2020, until the finality of the ruling, less her suspension of three months; separation pay instead of reinstatement computed from the beginning of employment on Nov. 12, 2010 until the finality of this judgment; moral damages worth P50,000; exemplary damages of P50,000; and attorney’s fees of 10% of the monetary award.
It also ordered the company to pay a total monetary award subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per year from the finality of the ruling until full payment.
The appellate court said a dismissal must be within the parameters of law and under the tenets of equity and fair play.
It said the Constitution looks with compassion on the working class and seeks to protect their rights.
“A worker’s employment is (a) property in a constitutional sense, and he/she cannot be deprived thereof without due process and unless the deprivation is commensurate to his/her acts and degree of moral depravity,” it noted. “An employer’s power to discipline his employees must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.”
An employer must be cautious in terminating the services of his employees, and dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious, it added.
“Due process must be observed and employers should respect and protect the rights of their employees. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there be just and valid cause, (but) it must also be supported by evidence.”
The tribunal also said the NLRC had gravely abused its discretion when it ruled against the petitioner, as its findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and its ruling was not in line with applicable law and jurisprudence.
“There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law,” the court noted.
According to the court, an NLRC decision is final and not subject to appeal or review by the court. However, an exception is a review by the CA only in cases where there is grave abuse of discretion.
When the appellate court reviews an NLRC decision, it is only limited to the question of whether the NLRC acted arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously, in the sense that grave abuse of discretion is understood under the law, the rules and jurisprudence, it noted. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
