GR 152234; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152234; April 15, 2010
DIVERSIFIED SECURITY, INC., Petitioner, vs. ALICIA V. BAUTISTA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Alicia Bautista was employed by petitioner Diversified Security, Inc. as an Executive Pool Secretary. Petitioner alleged that respondent was incompetent and subsequently assigned her to menial tasks and transferred her to a Makati branch office. Petitioner claimed respondent failed to report to this new assignment, effectively abandoning her job. Conversely, respondent contended that she was illegally dismissed on October 31, 1997, without valid cause, notice, or hearing. She filed an illegal dismissal case in December 1997. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, awarding separation pay and proportionate 13th-month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the illegal dismissal finding but modified the award to include full backwages and recomputed separation pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed the NLRC’s ruling with modification, deleting the personal liability of petitioner’s corporate officers.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the findings of the NLRC that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and finality. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA were unanimous in their factual conclusion that respondent was dismissed without just cause and without the requisite procedural due process. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from these consistent findings.
The legal logic rests on the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Petitioner’s argument that it did not dismiss respondent was deemed untenable. The Court reasoned it is contrary to human nature for an employee to undergo the rigors of litigation without cause. Crucially, petitioner’s own pleadings admitted it considered respondent as “resigned” starting November 1997, which corroborated her claim of dismissal in October 1997. Since the dismissal was illegal, Article 279 of the Labor Code applies, entitling the employee to reinstatement and full backwages. However, where reinstatement is no longer viable, separation pay is awarded as an alternative. The CA correctly ordered the payment of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service and full backwages from the time of illegal termination. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the final computation of these awards.