---

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 187120               February 16, 2010

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN and EDUARDO S. RIVERA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We resolve in this Decision the petition for review on certiorari¹ filed by the Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI), assailing the decision² dated February 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98666.³

The Antecedents

The facts, as set out in the assailed decision, are summarized below.

PJI is a corporation engaged in the publication of People's Journal, People's Journal Tonight, People's Journal International, People's Taliba, Women's Journal, and Insider. In December 1978, it employed respondent Eduardo S. Rivera (Rivera) as proof reader. Rivera rose from the ranks over the years, becoming purchasing manager in 1998. His primary duty involved the canvassing and purchase of paper and other materials for PJI's day-to-day operations. He received a monthly salary of ₱25,000.00, exclusive of allowances and other benefits.

Sometime in November 2002, Women's Journal implemented a calendar insertion project requiring paper-coated materials. Rivera canvassed and purchased 68,500 sheets of C25 120 coated paper, 170 gsm size 23" x 27" from the Nation Paper Products Corporation (NAPPCO) at ₱6.50 a sheet for the total amount of ₱445,250.00.⁴

On January 8, 2003, PJI's Corporate Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Ruby Ruiz-Bruno (Ruiz-Bruno), issued a memorandum⁵ requiring Rivera to explain in writing why he "should not be terminated from employment for defrauding or attempting to defraud the Company x x x" in the canvassing and purchase of Women’s Journal’s paper requirements. The memo alluded to a "reliable quotation from NAPPCO for 68,000 sheets of this kind of paper with exactly the same specifications, shows a price of only ₱3.40/sheet." Pending investigation of the matter, PJI placed Rivera under preventive suspension.

On January 10, 2003, PJI's Audit Supervisor, Nepthalie E. Hernandez (Hernandez), submitted a report⁶ to PJI President Bobby Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) about the canvass of the price of the Women’s Journal paper requirements. The canvass showed: a price of ₱3.91/sheet from Security Commercial although no quotation from the supplier was secured; the lowest price with quotation was ₱4.12/sheet from Purity Enterprises Co.; and, a telephone canvass with NAPPCO revealed an offer of ₱3.80/sheet.

On January 13, 2003, Rivera submitted his written explanation,⁷ denying that he defrauded or attempted to defraud PJI. In support of his position, he attached a letter dated January 9, 2003 from NAPPCO's Vice-President Kenneth Chong (Chong) to Dela Cruz.⁸ Chong denied in his letter giving a quotation of P3.40/sheet for PJI's paper requirement. He explained that NAPPCO quoted a price of ₱5.80 cash on delivery (COD), but since PJI could not meet its terms, it quoted a price of ₱6.50 at 30-90 days credit.

Rivera, in a letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to Dela Cruz, explained the details of the purchase transaction with NAPPCO.⁹ As a result of this letter-explanation, Ruiz-Bruno issued a memorandum on the same day to Assistant Purchasing Manager Jean Alvarado (Alvarado), requiring her to explain the difference in the quotation of ₱6.50 from NAPPCO and ₱4.26/piece (23x27) and ₱4.68/piece (25x27) from LAMCO, another supplier.¹⁰

On the same day, Alvarado submitted her explanation,¹¹ stating that she signed the canvass sheet as instructed by Rivera, but she was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO. She claimed that the canvass sheet (No. 20800)¹² itself showed that the figures were written by Rivera himself.

In a memorandum dated February 7, 2003,¹³ Ruiz-Bruno notified Rivera of the termination of his service effective February 8, 2003, "on the ground of loss of confidence" after finding Rivera's "acts and omissions are indicative of fraud and a clear manifestation of your inability as a Manager to protect the Company's interests." The memo stated that: during the open investigation, Rivera admitted the truth of Alvarado's statements; he also admitted that the figures he wrote on the canvass sheet were fictitious because no such figures were given by LAMCO; and he purposely made the insertions to provide a comparative pricing and to facilitate the approval of the purchase order. Ruiz-Bruno further stated in her memorandum that: she interviewed NAPPCO officials who informed her that they had the available stocks cut to give PJI the exact 23" x 27" size of paper it needed, with the wastage to be passed on to PJI, thus, the price of ₱6.50/sheet; Rivera failed to disclose this detail of NAPPCO’s offer, nor did he inform the company if the waste materials were ever delivered to PJI for its disposition; and that Rivera had been talking directly with NAPPCO, contrary to what he said to Ruiz-Bruno that the purchase was based on Alvarado's canvass.

On October 14, 2003, Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PJI, Dela Cruz, Executive Vice-President Arnold Banares and Ruiz-Bruno.

The Compulsory Arbitration Decisions

On October 29, 2004, Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban found, in his decision of October 29, 2004,¹⁴ that Rivera's dismissal was for cause on the ground that he "committed acts of dishonesty, or has committed fraud." The labor arbiter observed that as purchasing manager – a position of trust and confidence – Rivera had the duty to canvass and purchase PJI’s needed materials in a manner most beneficial to the company. Rivera failed in this regard.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision, ruling that Rivera's dismissal was illegal.¹⁵ It opined that: Alvarado’s statements in her January 31, 2003 letter¹⁶ cannot prejudice Rivera as the "rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another," citing the Rules of Court in that regard;¹⁷ Rivera had not been involved in any work-related controversy; neither did he commit any infraction of company rules and regulations, nor did he have any derogatory record at PJI. Rivera cannot be held liable for fraud because PJI did not present any record of investigation showing the admissions Rivera allegedly made during the investigation.

The NLRC awarded Rivera backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on the finding that strained relations had resulted from the parties’ "respective imputations of bad faith against each other."

The NLRC denied PJI’s motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2007.¹⁸ PJI thus sought relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. PJI prayed as well for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the NLRC decision. The CA issued the writ after PJI posted a bond equivalent to the ₱1,862,687.50 award.

The CA Decision

The CA denied the petition for lack of merit.¹⁹ It fully affirmed the assailed NLRC rulings and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it issued on July 24, 2007. The CA declared that "after a thorough evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties, from the facts borne by the records in this case, we are constrained to rule that the dismissal of Rivera based on loss of confidence is not clearly established and supported by substantial evidence." PJI now seeks relief from the Court through a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.²⁰

The Petition

PJI submits that the CA seriously erred in failing to recognize that the commission of fraud by an employee is a ground under the law for termination of employment. It insists that Rivera was dismissed for cause; as manager of the Purchasing Department, tasked primarily with the canvassing and purchase of supplies for the company's operations, he handled the paper requirements of the Women's Journal project in a manner that breached his employer’s trust and confidence in him.

Specifically, PJI faults Rivera for his failure to make a thorough canvass of the price of the project's paper requirement, as well as for dishonesty that resulted in a transaction disadvantageous to the company. PJI cites Rivera’s limited canvass, covering only NAPPCO and LAMCO, where NAPPCO quoted the price of ₱6.50, while LAMCO's quotation was reflected in the canvass sheet only to show that an actual canvass had been made when in fact there was none. PJI insists that during the investigation, Rivera admitted that he inserted a fictitious quotation from LAMCO to provide the appearance of comparative pricing and that this was done after Alvarado had prepared the canvass sheet.

While PJI admits that no written report of the investigation was made, it claims that Rivera never rebutted the findings made at the investigation. When he submitted his written explanation dated January 13, 2003,²¹ he only referred to NAPPCO, not to LAMCO; he made no explanation on LAMCO's pricing, a clear indication that no canvass was made on LAMCO. Further, PJI contends that Rivera only relied on NAPPCO’s pricing which, at ₱6.50, was higher than the prices of other suppliers of the same material. It points out that an actual canvass of the unit price of the coated paper material showed that there were other suppliers offering the same material at lower prices, yet Rivera failed to canvass these other suppliers, to the company’s prejudice. PJI adds that Rivera did not only fail to conduct a proper canvass; he also failed to disclose to the company NAPPCO's quotation of ₱5.80 for a COD purchase.

PJI concludes that Rivera had been remiss in the performance of his duty in relation with the transaction, and had committed fraud and acts of dishonesty against the company, to its prejudice and loss amounting to ₱200,000.00; Rivera had as well breached the employer’s trust and confidence. All these, the company proved by substantial evidence. It finally posits that for Rivera, a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis to believe that he had breached the employer’s trust is sufficient cause for dismissal.

The Case for Rivera

In his Comment²² filed on May 29, 2009, Rivera prays that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit, for "it is very apparent that the malicious charges" brought against him "had no leg to stand on and therefore had no basis but speculation and conjectures." Rivera contends that PJI failed to prove how he committed the alleged fraud; instead, the company simulated and fabricated findings that he did not conduct a canvass before he made the purchase of the Women’s Journal’s paper requirements.

To prove his innocence, Rivera cites the January 9, 2003 letter of NAPPCO's vice president, Chong,²³ and the memorandum dated January 3, 2003 of Alvarado, to show that a canvass may be done, not only in writing, but also by phone. Also, Rivera claims that Chong denied the "reliable quotation" of ₱3.40 mentioned in Ruiz-Bruno's memo to Rivera, which quotation was even contradicted by the Report of Canvass²⁴ submitted to PJI President Dela Cruz by Hernandez; Hernandez's report was accompanied by a summary of canvass that showed a unit price of ₱6.00 for 25" x 38" coated paper required by PJI's project from both NAPPCO and LAMCO. Rivera posits that the evidence proved that there was nothing irregular with the price of ₱6.50; the verbal quotation by NAPPCO was for ₱5.80 not ₱3.40 and the ₱6.50 was anchored on credit purchase conditions that took into account the cost of money, capacity to pay, the ability to deliver, the availability of the seasonal supplies, and the texture and grammage of the supplies required.

Additionally, Rivera submits that the transaction involved the supply of paper materials for a purpose different from the paper requirements of the company's day-to-day operations. The calendar insertion project was also certified as a "rush" job by PJI's advertising department.

Rivera disputes PJI's submission that he admitted the company's assertions during the open investigation conducted by the investigating panel. He contends that PJI bears the burden of proving its allegations; the company's assertions have no factual basis as it failed to present an investigation report. In particular, Rivera questions PJI's insinuation of his guilt when he did not mention the LAMCO pricing (also ₱6.50) and referred only to NAPPCO in his explanation letter dated January 13, 2003. He contends that these insinuations are inappropriate and misleading as he was required to explain only the purchase with NAPPCO; no mention of LAMCO was made at all in Ruiz-Bruno’s memorandum. He denies that he inserted a fictitious figure for LAMCO in the canvass sheet as implied in the Alvarado memorandum because Alvarado was not aware that he included LAMCO in the canvass; nowhere did Alvarado’s memo say that the figures were fictitious, nor that he did not conduct a canvass. On the contrary, he maintains, the Alvarado memo confirmed the practice of conducting a canvass by phone and that suppliers at times do not give written quotations.

On PJI's contention that his failure to advise the company of his actions and the developments is indicative of fraud, Rivera argues that as purchasing manager, he is empowered to decide on behalf of the company purchase strategies and procedures without compromising the integrity of the company, and that he observed the standard procedures for rush transactions in the calendar insertion project. He maintains that the conduct of twenty or more canvasses would entail enormous time that could hinder the implementation of the project. He views the audit canvass the company presented in evidence as inconclusive and a mere recitation of quoted prices without any indication of the conditionalities involved. Rivera further submits that there is no truth to PJI's claim that he failed to advise the company that NAPPCO cut the available sheets that it had (25" x 38") to the required 23" x 27" measurement. He argues that he explained the matter to Dela Cruz in his letter dated January 31, 2003.²⁵

Summing up, Rivera insists that PJI failed to prove that he had been dismissed for a just cause; even managerial employees like him enjoy security of tenure, among other rights. Procedurally, Rivera contends that PJI failed to submit any question of law to the Court; the core issue of whether the company was prejudiced by the purchase of coated paper material from NAPPCO is a factual matter appropriately ruled upon by the NLRC. When subsequently sustained by the CA, these factual findings can no longer be disturbed.

The Court's Ruling

We first resolve whether the petition was properly filed in light of the private respondent’s position that it solely raises questions of fact that are improper for a Rule 45 petition.

While as a rule,²⁶ a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, we deem it appropriate to examine the facts in this review, given the conflicting factual findings between the Labor Arbiter, on the one hand and, the NLRC and the CA, on the other.²⁷ The Labor Arbiter sustained Rivera's dismissal with the finding that he committed acts of dishonesty or fraud against his employer. The NLRC and the CA held that no substantial evidence existed to support Rivera’s dismissal.

The CA declared in its assailed decision:

Verily, private respondent Rivera's explanation, embodied in his letter dated January 13, 2003 addressed to Atty. Ruby Ruiz-Bruno and his letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to PJI President Bobby dela Cruz, supported by the letter dated January 9, 2003 of NAPPCO Vice-President Kenneth Chong as well as the letter explanation dated January 31,2003 of PJI Assistant Manager Jean Alvarado, totally negated the presence of substantial evidence that would justify the dismissal of Rivera based on loss of trust and confidence. Ostensibly, as purchasing manager, Rivera opted to purchase the subject coated paper materials from NAPPCO simply because the calendar project was certified as "RUSH" by the advertising department of PJI and NAPPCO could deliver it on time apart from the unrefuted fact that PJI's term of payment is not COD but 30-90 days from delivery.

We see the case differently.

Contrary to the CA’s pronouncement, we find substantial evidence in the records to justify Rivera's dismissal. As the company's purchasing manager, Rivera held a position of trust and confidence; his role in the procurement of the company's operational requirements is critical. PJI is a publication company and is engaged in a highly competitive enterprise; it is an active player in the print media industry. As in any other industry dependent on externally-sourced materials for its operations, its continued viability rests on the cost of production, a major part of which is the cost of the printing materials on which news is written; the street selling prices of its newspapers depend on these costs, and competitors can have a decided price advantage if the cost of PJI’s printing materials is above those of the competition.

A costing issue triggered PJI's action to terminate Rivera's employment; it found the cost of the paper materials required in one of its special projects questionable because it was higher than the price of a "reliable quotation." The purchase covered 68,000 sheets of coated paper, size 23" x 27" at ₱6.50/sheet or a total price of ₱445,250.00. The "reliable quotation" from NAPPCO, the supplier, purportedly was at ₱3.40/sheet. It was Rivera who arranged the purchase, and PJI charged him of fraud for this questionable transaction.²⁸ Rivera denied the charge.²⁹ To explain his denial, he attached the letter of NAPPCO's vice president, Chong,³⁰ denying that NAPPCO made a quotation at ₱3.40. Rivera also explained that NAPPCO made a verbal quotation of ₱5.80/sheet COD and ₱6.50 at 30-90 days credit.

Had the matter involved only the ₱6.50 pricing compared to the alleged "reliable quotation" of ₱3.40, there is no question that Rivera could not be found liable as NAPPCO denied having been made any quotation at ₱3.40. As the investigation of the transaction unraveled, however, the company uncovered reasons to seriously doubt Rivera's integrity and his reliability as a purchasing manager.

In the course of the investigation, PJI looked into the files of the purchasing department and obtained a copy of canvass sheet form no. 20800 dated November 27, 2002³¹ which Alvarado signed as the canvasser of prices from NAPPCO and LAMCO which both showed the uniform quoted price of ₱6.50. On January 31, 2003, LAMCO faxed a quotation showing a price of only ₱4.68 per piece of 25" x 27" material, and only ₱4.26/piece of 23" x 27" material (no rolls), for the same kind of paper; neither price is near the ₱6.50 she wrote in the canvass sheet according to Ruiz-Bruno's memo dated the same day.³² Ruiz-Bruno thus asked Alvarado to explain the disparity in pricing.

On the same day, Alvarado submitted her explanation³³ stating that she had just come from her maternity leave; she admitted having written the canvass sheet as instructed by Rivera, but she did not bother to check the official quotation from NAPPCO since Rivera informed her that he had talked with Letty Torrevillas (Torrevillas) of NAPPCO and she also knew Torrevillas from previous dealings with her. Alvarado claimed that figures in the canvass sheet were written by Rivera himself and that she was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO in the canvass sheet. She also stated that the price difference with NAPPCO was attributable to PJI’s past failure to comply with its credit line of COD-7 days. She explained that LAMCO's quotation addressed to the audit department did not specify the payment terms, but she was sure the prices were COD/CASH.

Earlier, on January 10, 2003, audit supervisor Hernandez submitted a report³⁴ to PJI President Dela Cruz regarding the audit department's own canvass of coated paper materials from two sources: (1) NAPPCO and LAMCO, the company's two suppliers,³⁵ and (2) from other suppliers. Hernandez reported that the lowest price that his department received was ₱3.91 from Security Commercial although it did not give a quotation, with the lowest quoted price of ₱4.12 from Purity Enterprises Co. A telephone canvass with NAPPCO’s employee, Torrevillas disclosed that the standard size available from NAPPCO was 25" x 38," but NAPPCO could provide a special cut and at 3% discount; the resulting price for the size 23" x 27" material was ₱3.80/sheet.

The circumstances surrounding the purchase of the coated paper material for the company's calendar insertion project, examined in their totality, convince us that PJI had sufficient reason to terminate Rivera's employment for loss of trust and confidence. Our reading of the attendant facts shows that he arranged a purchase transaction markedly disadvantageous to the company mainly due to: (1) his failure to conduct an honest-to-goodness canvass of prices for the required paper material and (2) his dishonesty, or at least his misrepresentations, in making it appear that he canvassed two suppliers when he really dealt only with one of them.

Rivera's Failure to Conduct a Canvass

The canvass of prices of production supplies is routine work for any purchasing department. It was Rivera’s duty as purchasing manager, and that of his department, to look for prices that would be most advantageous to the company. Rivera failed to perform this duty. He allowed the purchase of materials at a price considerably higher than the quotations of other suppliers in the market. For his own reasons, he settled on one supplier on the pretext that the purchase was certified as a "rush job" by the company's advertising department, and that the material was a special kind of paper readily available from NAPPCO, the supplier of his choice.

Granting that the purchase was a "rush" request, a meaningful canvass could still have been made, had Rivera and his department exerted genuine efforts to undertake one, for even a phone canvass would do, as noted not only by Rivera, but also by Alvarado, Hernandez and Ruiz-Bruno. In fact, PJI's audit department conducted a canvass and, in no time, came out with a pricing considerably lower than ₱6.50 even at credit terms. He did not have to canvass twenty (20) or so suppliers as Rivera put it, to make a real canvass. A representative sampling of the market certainly would have served the purpose.

If only for his failure to conduct a real canvass, PJI cannot be blamed for losing its trust and confidence in Rivera.

Rivera's Misrepresentations

Rivera did not only fail to canvass the market for the company's paper requirement. Worse than this, he made it appear that he conducted a canvass, undoubtedly to reflect on paper that a canvass had been made, to enable him to comply with a basic purchase requirement and tie the company, for his own reasons, to a higher purchase cost from his favored supplier.

We find it significant that Rivera did not deny Alvarado's statement that she prepared the canvass sheet pursuant to Rivera's instructions, and that she did not bother to check the quotations from NAPPCO because Rivera told her he already talked with NAPPCO’s employee, Torrevillas. Alvarado was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO in the canvass sheet and that the numbers for LAMCO (₱6.50 and ₱445,000.00) were written by Rivera himself. To rebut Alvarado's statement, Rivera later claimed that she did not see him insert the LAMCO entries; even if the insertion was true, it did not prove that the entries referring to LAMCO were fictitious or that he did not canvass LAMCO.³⁶

We consider Rivera's rebuttal to be lame excuses. While he communicated NAPPCO's quotation to Alvarado so that the latter made no further inquiries, yet, for reasons known only to Rivera, he failed to tell Alvarado about LAMCO's quotation, if indeed there had been one. With the canvass limited to NAPPCO and LAMCO, and with just the two of them involved in the preparation of the canvass sheet, we find it indeed strange that Rivera did not tell Alvarado about LAMCO's pricing.1avvphi1

Separately from Rivera’s credibility gap on the matter of LAMCO’s insertion in the canvass and Alvarado’s statement, we consider it significant that LAMCO subsequently faxed PJI a quotation (on January 31, 2003)³⁷ different from what Rivera stated in his canvass report. Apparently, LAMCO itself did not know that a quotation for ₱6.50 under its name had been earlier submitted. This is another circumstance that counts against Rivera’s story, separately still from Ruiz-Bruno’s assertion that Rivera admitted during the investigation that the LAMCO canvass was fictitious.³⁸

Other Acts Indicative of Dishonesty

Still another occasion that smacks of dishonesty (or at least the failure to communicate critical information to the employer) relates to the letter dated January 9, 2003³⁹ of Chong that Rivera himself attached to his letter- explanation of January 13, 2007.⁴⁰ The NAPPCO official mentioned in his letter that the COD price of ₱5.80 was verbally made to PJI. This verbal quotation could have only been made to Rivera as he was the only one who obtained the NAPPCO quotation (through Torrevillas). Strangely, this ₱5.80 quotation never reached PJI until it was mentioned by Chong long after the purchase order (PO) for ₱6.50 was made on November 27, 2002.⁴¹ Stranger still, the PO itself and the canvass sheet indicated a purchase on COD terms, although the unit price was ₱6.50 in both documents. While a typographical error might have occurred, the lapse can hardly be excused since COD and credit terms are very different, and at the same time very material and critical in the business world. At the very least, Rivera had been very sloppy in missing this lapse. But whatever the cause of the discrepancy might have been, the reality is that PJI missed the price of ₱5.80 COD (already a high price compared with the prices canvassed by the company's auditing department) and settled for ₱6.50, still at COD. Thus, PJI was clearly placed at a disadvantage.

Again, separately from all the above, is the matter of the waste paper material that, as Rivera himself explained,⁴² resulted from trimming the available 25" x 38" material into the project's 23" x 27" required size. The trimming resulted in waste paper of 2" x 11" that can be retrieved from NAPPCO and resold or used for some other purposes. For PJI, this information again came too late as Rivera gave it to PJI's President Dela Cruz only on January 31, 2003, or long after the purchased materials had been ordered and delivered. Significantly, the records do not show that this feature of the transaction was ever disclosed to the company before the purchase; neither was it in the canvass sheet or in the PO, nor was it ever mentioned to any company official. Had the purchase not been investigated, PJI top management could not have learned about the waste material. To be sure, this was a loss to the company and a gain for whoever knew of this feature of the transaction and took advantage of it.

Our Conclusion

As we look at the total picture, we are convinced that a pattern of concealment and dishonesty marred the purchase of paper materials for the Women’s Journal’s special project, with Rivera playing the principal and most active role. There is no question in our mind that he failed to make a reasonable canvass of the prices of the paper materials required by a company’s special project, resulting in substantial losses to the company. As we previously stated, that a rush job was involved, is no excuse as a canvass could be done even in a day's time as shown by the audit department’s canvass. That Rivera was responsible for concealment and omissions also appears clear to us; he failed to seasonably disclose to PJI, under dubious circumstances, material information with financial impact on the purchase transaction.

Thus, we cannot but conclude that substantial evidence exists justifying Rivera’s dismissal for a just cause – loss of trust and confidence. For loss of trust and confidence to be a ground for dismissal, the law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify the dismissal.⁴³

Enough basis exists, as detailed above, to support the PJI’s position that Rivera was responsible for acts and omissions that made him unworthy of the trust and confidence PJI reposed on him. To place this conclusion in Rivera’s own terms, contrary to what he claimed, his dismissal was not on the basis of "mere speculation and conjecture," but on the basis of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. In legal terms, this is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings.⁴⁴ The fact that he had been with the company for 25 years cannot erase the conclusion that he had become a liability to the company whose interests he miserably failed to protect.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition, and accordingly SET ASIDE the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98666 and DISMISS the complaint for illegal dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

¹ Rollo, pp. 43-64; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

² Id., at 9-31; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associates Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.

³ Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.

⁴ Rollo, p. 105; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "B."

⁵ Id. at 106; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "C."

⁶ Id. at 107; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "D."

⁷ Id. at 109; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "E."

⁸ Id. at 131; Rivera's Position Paper, Annex "D."

⁹ Id. at 130; Rivera’s Position Paper, Annex "C."

¹⁰ Id. at 111; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "F."

¹¹ Id. at 112; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "G," p. 127.

¹² Id. at 104; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "A."

¹³ Id. at 113-115; PJI’s Position Paper, Annex "H."

¹⁴ Id. at 144-151; Petition, Annex "G."

¹⁵ Id. at 170-180; Petition, Annex "I."

¹⁶ Supra note 12.

¹⁷ Rule 130, Section 128.

¹⁸ Rollo, pp. 183-184; Petition, Annex "J."

¹⁹ Decision dated February 24, 2009; supra note 2.

²⁰ Supra note 1.

²¹ Supra note 7.

²² Rollo, pp. 233-269.

²³ Supra note 8.

²⁴ Supra note 6.

²⁵ Supra note 9.

²⁶ RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.

²⁷ Cadiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153784, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 232; Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158232, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 732.

²⁸ Supra note 5.

²⁹ Supra note 7.

³⁰ Supra note 8.

³¹ Supra note 12.

³² Supra note 10.

³³ Supra note 11.

³⁴ Supra note 6.

³⁵ Based on canvass sheet no. 20800.

³⁶ Rollo, p. 262; Rivera's Comment.

³⁷ Supra note 10.

³⁸ Supra note 13.

³⁹ Supra note 8.

⁴⁰ Supra note 7.

⁴¹ Rollo, p. 105.

⁴² Supra note 9.

⁴³ Ramatek Philippines, Inc. v. De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 139526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 129.

⁴⁴ Gil A. Valera, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 167278, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 42.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---