G.R. No. 209437 , March 17, 2021
PHILAM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND MARCIA CAGUIAT, PETITIONERS, VS. SYLVIA DE LUNA AND NENITA BUNDOC, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. (PHAI), a non-stock, non-profit homeowners’ association, and its President Marcia Caguiat terminated the employment of respondents Sylvia De Luna (Office Supervisor) and Nenita Bundoc (Cashier). An audit in September 2008 revealed irregularities, including issuance of unauthorized official and provisional receipts, unrecorded and undeposited collections, and encashment of personal checks. The audit implicated De Luna in anomalies totaling P757,630.00 and Bundoc in anomalies totaling P870,630.00. On January 20, 2009, both participated in a probe. Bundoc later took a 30-day leave. On February 17, 2009, PHAI required Bundoc to explain the issuance of unauthorized provisional receipts via registered mail (due to her instruction not to receive correspondence) and terminated her on February 26, 2009. After the final audit report, PHAI required both to appear before an investigating committee to explain the irregularities and account for the misappropriated amounts, but they allegedly failed to participate. On May 23, 2009, PHAI’s Board issued a Memorandum to De Luna demanding payment and informing her of her dismissal for dishonesty, misappropriation, and malversation of funds. De Luna had been placed under preventive suspension for 15 days, extended twice for 15 days each. Respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, among others, arguing they were not afforded due process and that the investigation was conducted without providing them the supporting documents. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissals were for just cause (loss of trust and confidence) and that due process was observed. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding of valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence but modified the ruling by holding that PHAI failed to comply with procedural due process for Bundoc (awarding her P30,000.00 nominal damages) and that De Luna’s preventive suspension exceeded the allowable 30 days by 10 days (ordering payment of her salary for those 10 days).

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the NLRC decision by finding that respondent Nenita Bundoc was denied due process and awarding her nominal damages.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the NLRC decision by finding that the preventive suspension of respondent Sylvia De Luna exceeded by 10 days and ordering payment thereof.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by making itself a trier of facts in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

RULING

1. On the jurisdictional issue: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not exceed its jurisdiction. While factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded respect and finality, the Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 65, is empowered to review whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court’s modification pertained to legal issues—compliance with procedural due process and the legality of the preventive suspension period—which are within its authority to review.
2. On due process for Bundoc: The Court sustained the Court of Appeals’ finding that PHAI failed to comply with the procedural due process requirements in Bundoc’s dismissal. The twin-notice rule requires the employer to give the employee a written notice specifying the grounds for dismissal and a reasonable opportunity to explain, followed by a written notice of termination indicating that, upon due consideration, grounds exist to justify severance. The letter sent to Bundoc on February 17, 2009, merely required her to explain the issuance of unauthorized provisional receipts and did not constitute a proper notice of charge for all the irregularities cited as grounds for her termination. Furthermore, PHAI failed to present proof that it furnished Bundoc with a second notice (notice of termination) after she allegedly failed to explain. This procedural defect rendered PHAI liable to pay Bundoc nominal damages, which the Court affirmed at P30,000.00.
3. On De Luna’s preventive suspension: The Court also sustained the Court of Appeals’ finding that De Luna’s preventive suspension exceeded the maximum 30-day period allowed under the Labor Code. The records showed her suspension was initially for 15 days and then extended twice for 15 days each, totaling 45 days. Therefore, the 10-day excess was properly ordered to be paid by PHAI. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that this issue was not raised below, noting that the factual duration of the suspension was evident from the records and could be addressed as a matter of law.
In conclusion, the Petition for Review on Certiorari was DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated February 21, 2013, and its Resolution dated October 3, 2013, were AFFIRMED. PHAI was ordered to pay Nenita Bundoc P30,000.00 as nominal damages for violation of procedural due process and to pay Sylvia De Luna her salary, allowances, and benefits for the 10-day period her preventive suspension exceeded the 30-day limit.