Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Lunesa O. Lansangan and Rocita Cendaña were accused of "stealing company time" via an anonymous e-mail to the General Manager of respondent Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc. An investigation ensued, and petitioners submitted written explanations admitting their wrongdoing. Respondent terminated petitioners for "extremely serious offenses" as defined in its Code of Discipline. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners guilty of "dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust" under Article 282 of the Labor Code. However, the Arbiter ordered reinstatement without backwages as a measure of equitable and compassionate relief due to their prior unblemished records, remorse, the harshness of the penalty, and a defective attendance monitoring system. Respondent appealed the reinstatement aspect to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioners, without appealing the finding of guilt, moved for a writ of reinstatement. After further proceedings, the NLRC granted respondent's appeal, deleting the reinstatement aspect and setting aside the writ of execution and garnishment. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the finding of misconduct but ordered respondent to pay petitioners backwages from October 20, 2004 (date of Arbiter's decision) to June 30, 2005 (date of NLRC Decision), citing Article 223 of the Labor Code and Roquero v. Philippine Airlines. Both parties filed motions for partial reconsideration, which were denied. Only petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners contend that the CA erred in limiting the payment of backwages and in concluding that they committed serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust, arguing that dismissal was too severe a penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting the payment of backwages to the period from October 20, 2004, to June 30, 2005. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that petitioners committed serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust, and whether dismissal was too severe a penalty.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the payment of backwages, finding that petitioners were not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was valid and not illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of backwages and the applicability of Article 223 and Roquero v. Philippine Airlines: The Court held that Article 223 of the Labor Code and the ruling in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines are not applicable in this case. Article 223 pertains to interim relief granted to a dismissed employee while the illegal dismissal case is pending appeal, which is not the situation here. The Arbiter's finding that petitioners committed "dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and fraud, or breach of trust" had become final because petitioners did not appeal this finding before the NLRC. Instead, they moved for the execution of the reinstatement aspect of the Arbiter's decision. The Court emphasized that the employer, respondent Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc., was the one that appealed to the NLRC, solely to question the propriety of the reinstatement order, and it succeeded. Therefore, the dismissal was considered valid, not unjust. On the issue of whether petitioners committed serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust, and the severity of the penalty: The Court found that the Arbiter's decision finding petitioners guilty of "dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and fraud, or breach of trust" had become final and binding upon the petitioners, as they failed to appeal this specific finding. The Court reiterated the principle that payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed, as stated in Agabon v. NLRC. Since the dismissal was found to be valid and not unjust, petitioners are not entitled to full backwages. Article 279 of the Labor Code, which provides for reinstatement and full backwages in cases of unjust dismissal, was cited as inapplicable here because the dismissal was not found to be illegal. The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit.
Main Doctrine
An employee dismissed for serious misconduct, fraud, or breach of trust, where such finding has become final due to the employee's failure to appeal, is not entitled to backwages as the dismissal is considered valid, and not unjust.