View full case

CORNWORLD BREEDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

Lucena Alvaro-Ladia (Lucena) was hired by Cornworld Breeding Systems Corporation (Cornworld) in August 1982 as a field labor employee. She eventually rose to the position of Vice President for Research and Development.

After Cornworld's President, Benito M. Domingo, suffered a stroke, Laureano C. Domingo (Laureano) took over the management of the company. In a special meeting on January 24, 2009, Laureano berated Lucena for not attending meetings and not answering his calls and letters. Lucena apologized and offered to attend all the meetings, but Laureano dismissed her and told her to get out of the premises.

As a result of the incident, Lucena was confined in the hospital for hypertension. She applied for sick leave and then wrote to Laureano for the payment of her salary and sales incentive pay. However, on the same day, a memorandum was issued appointing someone else as overseer of the Research and Development department.

Lucena claimed that with the appointment of the overseer, her employment was left on a floating status, and she experienced threats against her life. She could no longer report for work and was treated again for hypertension. She filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against Cornworld and Laureano on June 23, 2009.

Cornworld argued that Lucena was not constructively dismissed and that she had abandoned her job. They claimed that she refused to cooperate with the new management, absented herself from meetings, and did not communicate with the company even after her approved sick leave.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Lucena's complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC also found no constructive dismissal or abandonment in her case.

Lucena M. Alvaro-Ladia (Lucena) was employed by Cornworld Breeding System Corporation (Cornworld) as a bookkeeper. Lucena filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal withholding of salaries, allowances, and benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Lucena's complaint, finding no constructive dismissal or abandonment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Lucena filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, which was denied. Lucena then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The CA granted Lucena's petition, finding that she was constructively dismissed. Cornworld appealed the CA decision to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Certiorari, but the petition was dismissed for being filed under the wrong mode of appeal and for failing to comply with procedural requirements. Cornworld filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Did petitioner avail of the wrong remedy by filing a special civil action for certiorari instead of a petition for review on certiorari?

  2. Was the petition filed out of time?

  3. Did the petitioner fail to comply with the procedural requirements of serving the petition to the Court of Appeals and the counsel of the respondent?

  4. Whether or not Lucena committed abandonment of work

  5. Whether or not Lucena was constructively dismissed by Cornworld

  6. Whether or not Cornworld validly terminated Lucena based on loss of trust and confidence

  7. Whether or not there was a valid and just cause for the dismissal of the employee.

  8. Whether or not the employee is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

RULING:

  1. Yes, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a special civil action for certiorari instead of a petition for review on certiorari. The proper remedy should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court explained that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to questioning grave abuse of discretion, while a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. The Court also noted that procedural rules are not to be applied in a rigid and technical sense if their strict application will frustrate substantial justice.

  2. Yes, the petition was filed out of time. Under the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari should be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from. In this case, the petition was filed 58 days after receipt of the appellate court's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

  3. Yes, the petition lacked proof of service to the Court of Appeals and the counsel of the respondent, in violation of the rules. This infirmity also merits the outright dismissal of the petition.

  4. Lucena did not commit abandonment of work. There was no showing by Cornworld that Lucena committed overt acts that clearly and unequivocally showed her intention to abandon her job. Lucena filed applications for sick leave during her absence and immediately filed an illegal dismissal case against Cornworld, indicating her intention to return to work.

  5. Lucena was constructively dismissed by Cornworld. Lucena presented evidence that her position was effectively given to another person, her salaries and benefits were withheld while she was still on leave, and she experienced public ridicule and humiliation during meetings which affected her medical condition. These circumstances made her employment impossible and unbearable, forcing her to give up her position.

  6. Cornworld failed to prove that Lucena's termination was justified based on loss of trust and confidence. There was no evidence presented to establish that Lucena willfully breached the trust reposed in her by Cornworld.

  7. The Court found that the company failed to substantiate its claim that the employee's act was willful, intentional, knowingly and purposely done without justifiable excuse. Therefore, the dismissal of the employee is deemed illegal.

  8. The Court held that the employee is entitled to backwages and reinstatement. However, since reinstatement is no longer feasible in this case, separation pay shall be granted in lieu of reinstatement.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Procedural rules are not to be applied in a rigid and technical sense if their strict application will frustrate substantial justice.

  • A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to questioning grave abuse of discretion, while a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law.

  • Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.

  • A petition for review on certiorari should be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from.

  • A dismissal from employment must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the procedural requirements of due process, including notice and hearing. The determination of whether an employee was validly dismissed on the ground of abandonment is a factual matter.

  • Abandonment of work requires both a failure to report for work without valid or justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts.

  • Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable for the employee that it forecloses any choice except to give up continued employment.

  • The burden of proof to show unjustified refusal to go back to work in cases of abandonment rests on the employer.

  • Termination based on loss of trust and confidence requires compliance with procedural and substantive due process. The act justifying the loss of trust and confidence must be real, founded on clearly established facts, and the employee's breach of trust must be willful, intentional, and done without justifiable excuse.

  • An employee is entitled to due process before dismissal, both procedural and substantive.

  • To justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer must provide substantiated evidence that the act of the employee was willful, intentional, knowingly and purposely done without justifiable excuse.

  • In cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible, such as when there is a loss of trust and confidence, separation pay shall be granted in lieu of reinstatement.