NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. V. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES
[G.R. No. 177816, August 3, 2011]
Perez, J.
Facts:
Maiah Leynes was hired as Property Manager for respondent NHPI’s
building maintenance business. She handled the project for their only client,
Bay Gardens Condominium. She was also responsible for the hiring and deployment
of manpower, salary and position determination as well as the assignment of the
schedules and responsibilities of employees. In one incident, Leynes had a
misunderstanding with Engr. Cantuba, the
Building Engineer assigned at the Project, regarding the extension of the
latters working hours. NHPIs Vice President
went on to issue a memorandum, attributing the incident to simple personal
differences and directing Leynes to allow Engr. Cantuba to report back for
work.
Disappointed with the foregoing management decision, Leynes
submitted to NHPIs President, a letter asking for an
emergency leave of absence for the supposed purpose of coordinating with her
lawyer regarding her resignation letter. While
NHPI offered the Property Manager position to Engr. Carlos Jose as a
consequence Leynes signification of her intention to resign, it also appears
that Leynes sent another letter to NHPI on the same day, expressing her
intention to return to work on and to call off her planned resignation upon the
advice of her lawyer. Leynes was constrained to send out a written protest
regarding the verbal information she supposedly received from Reyes that a
substitute has already been hired for her position. Leynes was further served
by petitioner with a letter and memorandum relieving her from her position and
directing her to report to NHPIs main office while she was on floating status.
Aggrieved, Leynes lost no time in filing against NHPI and its
abovenamed officers the complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries,
benefits, damages and attorney’s fees docketed before the NLRC. She claimed
that her being relieved from her position without just cause and replacement by
one Carlos Jose amounted to an illegal dismissal from employment.
NHPI and its officers asserted that the management exercise of the
prerogative to put an employee on floating status for a period not exceeding
six months was justified in view of her threatened resignation from her
position and BGCCs request for her replacement.
During the pendency of the case, however, Reyes eventually served the
DOLE Leynes with the 8 August 2002 notice terminating her services effective 22
August 2002, on the ground of redundancy or lack of a posting commensurate to
her position at the Project. Leynes was
offered by NHPI the sum of P28,188.16 representing her unpaid wages,
proportionate 13th month pay, tax refund and service incentive leave pay
(SILP).
Issue:
1) Whether or not placing
an employee on floating status is tantamount to constructive dismissal.
2) Was the complaint for
illegal dismissal proper?
3) Was the dismissal valid
on the ground of redundancy?
4) Was there a violation on
the 30 day notice requirement?
5) Was Leynes entitled to
separation pay, and other monetary awards?
Held:
1) NO. Acting on Leynes
letter protesting against the hiring of her replacement and reiterating her
lack of intention to resign from her position, the record, moreover, shows that
NHPI simply placed her on floating status until such time that another project
could be secured for her.
The rule is settled, however, that "offdetailing" is not
equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a
reasonable time and that it is only when such a "floating status"
lasts for more than six months that
the employee may be considered
to have been
constructively dismissed.
In constructive dismissal cases,
the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its
conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate
grounds such as genuine business necessity.
Article 286 of the Labor Code has been applied to other industries when,
as a consequence of the bona fide suspension
of the operation
of a business
or undertaking, an
employer is constrained to put
employees on floating status for a period not exceeding six months.
2) NO. A complaint for
illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said sixmonth and/or the actual
dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed.
3) YES. With no other
client aside from BGCC for the building management side of its business, we
find that NHPI was acting well within its prerogatives when it eventually
terminated Leynes services on the ground
of redundancy. One of
the recognized authorized
causes for the termination of employment, redundancy
exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is
reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise.
4) YES. Where dismissal
is for an
authorized cause like
redundancy, the employer is,
instead, required to serve a written notice of termination on the worker
concerned and the DOLE, at least one month from the intended date thereof.
Here, NHPI specifically made Leynes termination
from service effective
22 August 2002,
but only informed
said employee of the
same on 8 August 2002 and
filed with the
DOLE the required Establishment Termination Report
only on 16 August 2002. For its failure
to comply strictly with the 30day minimum requirement for said notice and
effectively violating Leynes right to due process, NHPI should be held liable
to pay nominal damages in the sum of P50,000.00. The penalty should
understandably be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the
employer's exercise of its management prerogative.
5) YES, AND NO. Having been
validly terminated on the ground of redundancy, Leynes is entitled to
separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service but not
to the backwages adjudicated in her favor by the Labor Arbiter. For lack of
showing of bad faith, malice or arbitrariness on the part of NHPI, there is,
however, no justifiable ground for an award of moral and exemplary damages. For
lack of factual or legal bases, we find no cause to award attorneys fees in
favor of Leynes. In the absence of the same showing insofar as NHPIs corporate
officers are concerned, neither is there cause to hold them jointly and
severally liable for the monetary awards.
Petition granted.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento