JAVINES v. XLIBRIS

Ramon Manuel Javines, Petitioner vs. Xlibris a.k.a. Author Solutions, Inc., Joseph Steinbach, and STELLA Mars Ouano, Respondents

G.R. No. 214301 

June 1, 2017 

FACTS: 

Javines was hired by respondent Xlibris as Operations Manager on September 1, 2011. Approximately 10 months after, the former was terminated for falsifying/tampering three meal receipts. The falsification was discovered on July 5, 2012 when Javines submitted the meal receipts for reimbursement to the finance department. Prompted by said discovery, the company's Finance Officer prepared an incident report on the same day. 

Consequently, a Notice to Explain was issued on July 6, 2012 to Javines for alleged violation of Sections 9.5 and 9.6 of the Employee's Code of Conduct and charging him with acts constituting dishonesty. Xlibris obtained certified copies of the meal receipts tampered. Javines submitted his written explanation, denying having tampered the receipts. He explained that as Operations Manager, he is responsible for securing reimbursement for expenses incurred by the supervisors under him. He further explained that it is the supervisors who submitt the receipts to him and for which, he prepares a reimbursement request. Once the reimbursement is made, Javines distributes the cash to the supervisor concerned. Javines argued that while he prepares the request for reimbursement, he has no knowledge or part in the tampered receipts. 

On July 13, 2012, an administrative hearing was held. Javines failed to explain why and how the incident transpired. Instead,he requested for further investigation since, at that time, he allegedly could not recall who submitted the receipts to him. Consequently, on the same day, notices to explain were sent to the supervisors under Javines. In their written accounts, the supervisors• denied participation in the tampered receipts. 

On July 27, 2012, Xlibris terminated Javines' employment through an "end of employment notice. Javines then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The complaint was, however, dismissed by the Labor Arbiter who found that Javines' dismissal was for just cause and with due process. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Javines failed to move for reconsideration of the NLRC's decision while Xlibris' motion for partial reconsideration was denied. Thus, only Xlibris elevated the case to the CA on certiorari on the sole issue that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that it failed to comply with the requirements of procedural due process. Javines reiterated his position that he was not afforded procedural due process because his request for further investigation for purposes of identifying the source of the questioned meal receipts was never granted. Additionally, Javines questioned the cause of his dismissal on the argument that Xlibris failed to prove by substantial evidence the misconduct imputed against him. The CA partially granted the petition. 

However, the CA reduced the award of nominal damages from Php10, 000 to Php1, 000 considering that the altered meal receipts show a discrepancy of Php 10,010. The CA denied Javines' motion for reconsideration, prompting the latter to file the instant Petition. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the NLRC'S finding that Javines was dismissed for just cause. 

HELD: 

No, the court held in the negative. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC uniformly held that Javines' employment was terminated for just cause under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. It is undisputed that from this unanimous finding, Javines failed to move for reconsideration nor challenged said ruling before the CA. 

Consequently, the NLRC decision finding Javines to have been dismissed for just cause became final. For failure to file the requisite petition before the CA, the NLRC decision had attained finality and had been placed beyond the appellate court's power of review. Although appeal is an essential part of judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege. Settled are the rules that a decision becomes final as against a party who does not appeal the same and an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below. Hence, the finding that Javines was dismissed for just cause must be upheld. 

In the petition for certiorari filed before the CA, Xlibris only questioned the award of nominal damages for failure to comply with procedural due process. Emphatically, neither Xlibris nor Javines further questioned the CA's award on this point. As such, the issue as to whether the requirements of procedural due process to constitute a valid dismissal were complied with has been resolved with finality. In any event, such involves a question of fact which the Court does not allow in a petition filed under Rule 45. It has been consistently held that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law and does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence upon which the courts a quo had based its determination. 

Hence, the petition was denied.