PRRM v. Pulgar (G.R. No. 169227; July 5, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, Respondent. PRRM v. Pulgar (G.R. No. 169227; July 5, 2010).
FACTS: Pulgar was the manager of PRRMs branch office in Quezon Province. When Pulgar was reassigned to PRRMs central office, PRRM conducted an investigation into alleged financial anomalies committed at the TBFO.
In her investigation report, Solis stated that part of the funds allotted to the TBFO was missing or not properly accounted for. The report also stated that some of the receipts that the TBFO submitted to liquidate the organizations financial transactions were fictitious and manufactured.
PRRM maintains that while the investigation was ongoing, Pulgar went on leave. After the lapse of his last leave, Pulgar no longer reported to work, leading PRRM to believe that Pulgar had abandoned his work to evade any liability arising from the investigation. PRRM was therefore surprised to learn that Pulgar had filed an illegal dismissal case.
Pulgar tells another tale. According to him, he submitted a letter to PRRM to complain that he was not given the right to confront and question Solis,but his letter went unanswered. Thereafter, he was not allowed to enter the premises of the organization. Pulgar also alleges that PRRMs representatives removed his personal properties and records from his office, placed them in boxes and kept them in storage. Believing he was constructively dismissed by PRRMs actions, Pulgar filed a complaint against PRRM for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter found in his decision that Pulgar had been illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in its decision and dismissed Pulgars complaint, giving more weight to PRRMs allegation that Pulgar abandoned his work. CA rendered the assailed decision, granting Pulgars petition and reinstating the Labor Arbiters decision.
ISSUE: Was Pulgar illegally dismissed?
HELD: While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.
Although under normal circumstances, an employees act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint against his employer is inconsistent with abandonment; in the present case, we simply cannot use that one act to conclude that Pulgar did not terminate his employment with PRRM, and in the process ignore the clear, substantial evidence presented by PRRM that proves otherwise. Our ruling on this point in Leopard Integrated Services, Inc. v. Macalinao is very relevant. We said:The fact that respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, as noted by the CA, is not by itself sufficient indicator that respondent had no intention of deserting his employment since the totality of respondent's antecedent acts palpably display the contrary. In Abad v. Roselle Cinema, the Court ruled that: The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal should be taken into account together with the surrounding circumstances of a certain case. In Arc-Men Food Industries Inc. v. NLRC, the Court ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the employer that it had not, in the first place, terminated the employee, should not simply be ignored on the pretext that the employee would not have filed the complaint for illegal dismissal if he had not really been dismissed. "This is clearly a non-sequitur reasoning that can never validly take the place of the evidence of both the employer and the employee."
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its rights which are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined, more often than not, toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.
We have previously ruled on the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction to rule on all money claims, including those of the employer, arising out of the employer-employee relationship. Unfortunately for PRRM, it never raised as an issue the money allegedly still in Pulgars custody in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, or even before the NLRC.
As a factual matter, this issue should have been raised at the earliest opportunity before the Labor Arbiter, to allow both parties to present their evidence. The rule is well-settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.
FACTS: Pulgar was the manager of PRRMs branch office in Quezon Province. When Pulgar was reassigned to PRRMs central office, PRRM conducted an investigation into alleged financial anomalies committed at the TBFO.
In her investigation report, Solis stated that part of the funds allotted to the TBFO was missing or not properly accounted for. The report also stated that some of the receipts that the TBFO submitted to liquidate the organizations financial transactions were fictitious and manufactured.
PRRM maintains that while the investigation was ongoing, Pulgar went on leave. After the lapse of his last leave, Pulgar no longer reported to work, leading PRRM to believe that Pulgar had abandoned his work to evade any liability arising from the investigation. PRRM was therefore surprised to learn that Pulgar had filed an illegal dismissal case.
Pulgar tells another tale. According to him, he submitted a letter to PRRM to complain that he was not given the right to confront and question Solis,but his letter went unanswered. Thereafter, he was not allowed to enter the premises of the organization. Pulgar also alleges that PRRMs representatives removed his personal properties and records from his office, placed them in boxes and kept them in storage. Believing he was constructively dismissed by PRRMs actions, Pulgar filed a complaint against PRRM for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter found in his decision that Pulgar had been illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in its decision and dismissed Pulgars complaint, giving more weight to PRRMs allegation that Pulgar abandoned his work. CA rendered the assailed decision, granting Pulgars petition and reinstating the Labor Arbiters decision.
ISSUE: Was Pulgar illegally dismissed?
HELD: While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.
Although under normal circumstances, an employees act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint against his employer is inconsistent with abandonment; in the present case, we simply cannot use that one act to conclude that Pulgar did not terminate his employment with PRRM, and in the process ignore the clear, substantial evidence presented by PRRM that proves otherwise. Our ruling on this point in Leopard Integrated Services, Inc. v. Macalinao is very relevant. We said:The fact that respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, as noted by the CA, is not by itself sufficient indicator that respondent had no intention of deserting his employment since the totality of respondent's antecedent acts palpably display the contrary. In Abad v. Roselle Cinema, the Court ruled that: The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal should be taken into account together with the surrounding circumstances of a certain case. In Arc-Men Food Industries Inc. v. NLRC, the Court ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the employer that it had not, in the first place, terminated the employee, should not simply be ignored on the pretext that the employee would not have filed the complaint for illegal dismissal if he had not really been dismissed. "This is clearly a non-sequitur reasoning that can never validly take the place of the evidence of both the employer and the employee."
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its rights which are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined, more often than not, toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.
We have previously ruled on the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction to rule on all money claims, including those of the employer, arising out of the employer-employee relationship. Unfortunately for PRRM, it never raised as an issue the money allegedly still in Pulgars custody in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, or even before the NLRC.
As a factual matter, this issue should have been raised at the earliest opportunity before the Labor Arbiter, to allow both parties to present their evidence. The rule is well-settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.