G.R. No. 229703 , December 04, 2019
Editha Salindong Agayan, Petitioner, vs. Kital Philippines Corp., Ricardo Consunji III and Jocelyn Cavaneyro, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Editha Salindong Agayan was hired by respondent Kital Philippines Corporation on March 30, 2011, as Head of Telecommunications. On September 8, 2014, she was dismissed from employment. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, retirement benefits, illegal suspension, moral damages, and exemplary damages against respondents.
Petitioner averred that her dismissal was illegal and without just cause. She claimed that after she reported anomalies allegedly committed by respondent Jocelyn Cavaneyro to company president Ricardo Consunji III, Consunji’s behavior became irritable. She refused Consunji’s order to fire an employee, Rosalinda Maranan, believing there was no valid ground. She also refused Consunji’s demand to provide a list of the company’s Relations Managers (RMs), believing it was confidential company practice. She later emailed the company’s foreign principal about Consunji’s alleged assault and threats. She was subsequently placed under preventive suspension, given a notice to explain, and finally terminated.
Respondents countered that petitioner was dismissed for just causes. She emailed the foreign principal with false accusations, refused to accept Consunji’s authority, was organizing a competing company, interfered in disciplinary actions against Maranan, refused the lawful order to provide the list of RMs and PLDT accounts, and allowed Maranan to use a non-existent title.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but awarded petitioner her last pay and an unpaid PLDT leasing commission. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, deleting the award for the PLDT leasing commission and ordering payment of salary for 27 days instead. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari and affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision finding petitioner’s dismissal valid.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision ruling that petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision ruling that petitioner is not entitled to the unpaid PLDT leasing commission.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. On the validity of dismissal: The Court found that petitioner’s dismissal was for just causes—willful disobedience and breach of trust—and that procedural due process was observed. The refusal to provide the list of RMs upon the order of the company president, a lawful and reasonable instruction related to company operations, constituted willful disobedience. Her act of emailing the foreign principal with accusations against company officers, despite an internal grievance procedure, constituted a breach of trust reposed in her as a managerial employee. The Court upheld the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, which are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.
2. On moral and exemplary damages: The Court ruled that petitioner is not entitled to moral or exemplary damages. Moral damages require a showing of bad faith, fraud, oppression, or dismissal contrary to good morals. Exemplary damages require a showing of a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner of dismissal. The Court found no sufficient basis to justify such awards.
3. On the unpaid PLDT leasing commission: The Court upheld the deletion of the award, agreeing with the NLRC and Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to substantiate her claim with clear and convincing evidence. The commission was contingent upon collection, and the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the exact amount due or that collections were fully made.