G.R. No. 195584 . November 10, 2021
VICENTE A. BERNARDO AND RESURRECCION BERNARDO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF VIREX ENTERPRISES, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIAL O. DIMAYA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Vicente A. Bernardo and Resurreccion Bernardo, doing business as Virex Enterprises, are engaged in installing air-conditioning units. Respondent Marcial O. Dimaya was a team leader. In July 2007, Dimaya’s team performed an installation job. During the job, the team used a drain pipe not listed in their request form, received an additional P300 from the client which was not declared to management, did not enter the transaction in their service report, left the official receipt blank, and Dimaya did not personally endorse the unused materials. Petitioners, following company policy, fined Dimaya’s team double the value of the missing items via salary deduction. Petitioners claim Dimaya refused to pay the penalty and subsequently stopped reporting for work. Dimaya denied the allegations, claiming the P300 was a tip received in good faith and that he was dismissed when Mr. Bernardo told him, “Huwag ka muna magpakita sa akin, mainit ang dugo ko sayo!” and “Tapos na tayo!” Dimaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled Dimaya was illegally dismissed, awarding backwages (computed until he refused a reinstatement offer during a hearing), separation pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, unpaid salaries, and attorney’s fees. The LA classified Dimaya as a field personnel, denying his overtime claim.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal due to petitioners’ failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to their memorandum of appeal. The NLRC denied their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s dismissal and noting that evidentiary matters and findings of fact were not proper in a certiorari petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the circumstances warrant a relaxation in the application of the rules of procedure regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping.
2. Whether Dimaya was illegally dismissed from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious.
On the first issue, the Court, citing Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao, held that the requirement to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to an appeal memorandum before the NLRC is mandatory. The petitioners’ failure to comply warranted the dismissal of their appeal. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rule, as the omission was not satisfactorily explained and the attached certificate in their motion for reconsideration was belated.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Dimaya was NOT illegally dismissed. The Court found that Dimaya had committed several infractions: installing an unrequested drain pipe, collecting an unauthorized P300 from the client without issuing a receipt or reporting it, failing to properly report the transaction, and not personally accounting for unused materials. These acts constituted serious misconduct and willful breach of trust, which are just causes for dismissal under Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code. The Court gave credence to petitioners’ explanation that Mr. Bernardo’s statements (“Huwag ka muna magpakita sa akin, mainit ang dugo ko sayo!” and “Tapos na tayo!”) were expressions of displeasure and not direct notices of termination. The statement “Tapos na tayo!” was supported by an affidavit as being part of a phone conversation with another person. The Court concluded Dimaya abandoned his work due to a stricken conscience or affected ego after his anomalies were discovered, and petitioners did not intend to dismiss him.
However, the Court found that petitioners failed to comply with the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process in effecting Dimaya’s dismissal. They did not serve Dimaya with a written notice specifying the grounds for dismissal and giving him a reasonable opportunity to explain. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a just cause, the absence of due process warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The CA Decision was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The finding of illegal dismissal was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissal was declared valid for a just cause but invalid due to lack of due process. Petitioners were ORDERED to pay Dimaya nominal damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). The awards for backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees were DELETED. The monetary awards for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and unpaid salaries from June 30 to July 14, 2007, as computed by the LA, were AFFIRMED, subject to a recomputation to deduct any amounts already received. All awarded amounts shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.