Talaga Barangay Water Service Cooperative v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Nemesia D. Opena was employed by petitioner Talaga Barangay Water Service Cooperative as a bookkeeper and cash collector in October 1979, and later promoted to System Superintendent in September 1981. She was also a committee member of the Education and Training Committee. On April 30, 1987, she was suspended for allegedly refusing to install a water line gadget for a member. On April 17, 1988, she was terminated for alleged shortage of collection, insubordination, cranky attitude, derogatory remarks, and lack of competence. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered the cooperative to pay financial assistance equivalent to three months' pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, ruling that the dismissal was illegal because only the National Assembly, not the Board of Directors, had the authority to terminate an officer and committee member, and that the alleged infractions were not sufficiently established. The NLRC ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC modified its decision, ordering reinstatement with full backwages not exceeding three years. The Petition: Petitioner cooperative filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's rulings on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion, specifically questioning the NLRC's finding that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to terminate the private respondent and that her dismissal was illegal despite alleged clear and convincing evidence of justified termination for loss of trust and confidence and conduct inimical to the employer.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Directors of the petitioner cooperative had the authority to terminate the services of the private respondent, who was an officer and committee member. Whether the dismissal of the private respondent was justified based on the alleged infractions, including shortage of collection, insubordination, and loss of trust and confidence. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its rulings.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent NLRC are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to terminate: The Court affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the Board of Directors did not have the authority to terminate the private respondent. Section 3, subsection (a) of the petitioner's Constitution and By-Laws explicitly grants the General Assembly the power to elect and remove directors, officers, and committee members for cause. The private respondent, being both an officer and a committee member at the time of her dismissal, could only be removed by the General Assembly. The Court applied the principle of statutory construction that what has not been expressly included is deemed excluded, meaning the Board's power to appoint employees did not include the power to remove officers. This lack of authority rendered the dismissal null, void, and illegal from the outset. On the justification for dismissal: The Court sustained the NLRC's finding that the alleged infractions were not sufficiently and clearly established, and that the private respondent was not culpable. The alleged shortage was explained as a payment made to a deceased member by a former president, substantiated by evidence. The insubordination regarding Ramon Magpantay's water disconnection was due to non-payment of bills, as admitted by Magpantay himself. The alleged "harassment" and "cranky attitude" were not adequately proven. The Court noted the apparent contradiction in citing both a 1984 shortage and a 1987 refusal to perform duties as grounds for termination based on loss of trust and confidence. Therefore, the grounds cited for dismissal were not satisfactorily explained or substantiated. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The NLRC correctly interpreted the petitioner's by-laws regarding the authority to dismiss officers and committee members. Its factual findings regarding the unsubstantiated nature of the charges were also supported by the records. The NLRC's initial decision to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was modified to order reinstatement with backwages after it was established that the obstacle to reinstatement (animosity with the Board President who subsequently died) was removed. This modification was found to be in line with established jurisprudence, particularly the case of Sibal v. Notre Dame of Greater Manila, where reinstatement was ordered despite strained relations if such relations were removed or if the employer's actions were oppressive.
Main Doctrine
The termination of an officer or committee member of a cooperative, who is also an officer, can only be effectuated by the General Assembly, as provided in the cooperative's by-laws, and not by the Board of Directors. Furthermore, alleged infractions must be sufficiently and clearly established, and the employee must be culpable thereof, to justify dismissal.