San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC 161 SCRA 719

FACTS:

The respondent Ernesto Ibias was employed by the petitioner SMC on December 24, 1978 as an operator.

According to SMCs Policy on Employee Conduct, absences without permission or AWOP are absences not covered either by a certification of the plant doctor that the employee was absent due to sickness or by duly approved application for leave of absence filed at least 6 days prior to the intended leave, are subject to disciplinary action.

The same policy also punishes falsification of company documents or records.

The respondent was AWOP on the following dates:

Ø  January 2, 4, 11 1997

Ø  April 26, 28, 29 1997

Ø  May 5, 7, 8, 13, 21, 22, 28, and 29 1997

For his absences on January 2, 4, 11 and April 28 and 29, he was given a written warning that he incurred 5 AWOPs and for his absences on April 28 and 29 and May 7 and 8, the respondent was alleged to have falsified his medical consultation card.

Ø  On June 17 and 23 1997, SMC conducted an administrative investigation and concluded that the respondent committed offenses of excessive AWOPs and falsification of company documents and accordingly dismissed him.

Ø  On March 30, 1998, respondent filed a complaint against SMC for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found that the imposition of termination of employment based on his AWOPs was disproportionate since SMC failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it had strictly implemented its company policy on absences. It also noted that termination based on the alleged falsification of company records was unjustified in because SMC failed to establish respondent’s guilt.  

ü  On September 2, 1998 the labor arbiter rendered his decision that the respondent was illegally dismissed and ordered for reinstatement and payment of full back wages, benefits and attorney’s fees.

ü  SMC appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC affirmed with modification the decision of the labor arbiter. NLRC found that there was already a strained relationship between the parties such that reinstatement was no longer feasible, so instead granted a separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service. The NLRC deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

Ø  On September 3, 1999, SMC filed its Petition for Certiorari. The cases were consolidated.

Ø  On June 28, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC but modifying the monetary award. The Court of appeals disagreed with application of the doctrine of strained relations because it deprives an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. The Court of Appeals ordered respondents back wages to be computed from the date of his dismissal up to the time when he was actually reinstated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent was terminated from service with just cause.

HELD:

Ø  The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer’s dismissal of an employee, and not even preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient.

ü  In the case at bar, SMC was unable to prove, by substantial evidence, that it was respondent who made the unauthorized entries. SMCs Guide on Employee Conduct punishes the act of falsification of company documents or records but it does not punish mere possession of a falsified document.

The issue of unauthorized absences, however, is another matter.

Ø  SMC acted well within its rights when it dismissed respondent for his numerous absences. Respondent was afforded due process and was validly dismissed for cause. The respondent was not punished for his subsequent AWOPs and he was aware of the number of AWOPs he incurred but still incurred futher AWOPs.

ü  Respondents argue that the SMC is inconsistent in the implementation of its policy on employees attendance. The Court disagreed, stating that “in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively.”

Petition granted.

Navarro v. Civil Service Commission 226 SCRA 522

Facts:

On June 21, 1989, cable drums were stolen worth P21, 250 from Ford Stockyard in Mariveles Bataan. The cable drums were owned by Takaoka Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. The suspect for the stolen cable drums is the Petitioner Mario Navarro.

On October 18, 1990, the Senior Deputy Administrator of Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) approved an Order terminating the services of Navarro and finding him guilty as charged.

Navarro appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). On July 25, 1991, the MSPB rendered its decision setting aside the Order issued by the Senior Deputy Administrator of EPZA on October 18, 1990. The decision of the MSPB also reinstated Navarro with payment and back wages and other benefits due him from the time of his dismissal. On December 11, 1991, the MSPB denied the motion for reconsideration of the EPZA.

On November 6, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Bataan dismisses the criminal case filed against Navarro and his co-accused for qualified theft. EPZA sought to reverse the decision of the MSPB before the CSC and on July 16, 1992, the CSC rendered its decision setting aside the MSPB’s decision dated December 11, 1991 and the CSC found Navarro guilty of grave misconduct and reimposed the penalty of dismissal. The CSC also denied in its Resolution dated September 11, 1992 the motion for reconsideration of Navarro.

In the recourse, Navarro claims that the CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction in deciding the case without considering other pertinent evidence but the EPZA filed for the dismissal of the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a manifestation to support the plea of the Petitioner in the argument that there can be no appeal in the MSPB’s decision exonerating Navarro. On May 6, 1993, the OSG granted the CSC 10 days to comment but no comment was filed and on August 5, 1993, the CSC filed for extension time to comment but no comment was still filed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Civil Service Commission and the Export Processing Zone Authority acted without jurisdiction.

HELD:

The MSPB rendered a favorable decision for Navarro and this fact alone should have prevented EPZA from appealing to the Commission on the bases of prevailing jurisprudence.

Under P.D. 807 or The Philippine Civil Service Law, the CSC has no appellate jurisdiction over MSPB’s decisions exonerating officers and employees from administrative charges and P.D. 807 does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees. The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative cases involving suspension for more than thirty days or removal or dismissal from office. P.D. 807 provides that appeals shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision. The party adversely affected by the decision refers to the government employee whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action.

EPZA, for appealing MSPB’s decision and exonerating Navarro from administrative charge and CSC, for taking recognizance of, and deciding the appeal shows that both EPZA and CSC acted without jurisdiction.

Disbursement Acceleration Program

Disbursement Acceleration Program

Facts:

Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP was implemented to speed up the funding of government projects. The DAP enables the Executive to realign funds and according to Secretary Abad the funds under the DAP were usually taken from:

1)    Unreleased appropriations

2)    Unprogrammed funds

3)    Appropriations unreleased from the previous year

4)    Budgets from slow-moving projects

The allotted funds mentioned above will be withdrawn by the Executive and these funds will be declared “savings” by the Executive and will be reallotted to other priority projects of the government.

The power of the purse or to make appropriations is vested in the Congress. In the exercise of the power to augment, it effectively allows the transfer of a portion of or even the whole appropriation made in one item in the General Appropriations Act to another item within the same office.

The DAP controversy was precipitated when Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered on September 25, 2013 a privilege speech in the Senate of the Philippines and revealed that some senators, including himself, had been allotted an additional P50 Million each as an “incentive” for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive projects were also funded.

In transferring appropriated funds, there must be a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commission to transfer funds within their respective offices. The funds to be transferred are savings generated from appropriations for their respective office. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices.

Petitioners claim that the funds used in the DAP (unreleased appropriations and withdrawn unobligated allotments) were not actual savings because according to the provisions of the General Appropriations Act, the savings should be understood to refer to the excess money or when the Project, Activity Programs for which the funds had been appropriated were actually implemented and completed, or finally discontinued or abandoned.

They insist that savings could not be realized with certainty in the middle of the fiscal year; and that the funds for slow-moving projects could not be considered as savings because such Project, Activity Program had not actually been abandoned or discontinued yet.

A valid transfer of funds is that the purpose of the transfer should be to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices.

Issue:

Whether or not the Executive exceeded his powers to augment items in the budget within Executive Branch of the Government.

Held:

Yes. When the Executive withdrawn the unobligated funds and declared the withdrawn funds as savings, there is no valid transfer of funds because under the definition of savings in the General Appropriations Act, there can only be savings occur when there is an excess in the funding of a certain project once it is completed, finally discontinued, or abandoned and there can be no savings in the middle of fiscal year.

Under the DAP, funds were already withdrawn in the middle of the fiscal year and declared as savings and withdrawn funds even when the projects were not actually been completed, finally discontinued, or abandoned.

Cross-border augmentations are prohibited by Section 25(5) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

In Section 25(5) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however the President, Senate President, House Speaker, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations”

When the Executive withdrawn funds from unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments and declared it as savings, the savings must only be used in their respective offices to avoid any cross-border augmentations. Secretary Abad admitted making some cross-border augmentations during an oral argument on January 28, 2014

Under the DAP, the funding of projects, activities and programs were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.