ARMANDO ALILING,
Petitioner,
-
versus -
JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL BERSAMIN,
JJ.
F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE Promulgated:
WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Respondents.
|
|
G.R. No. 185829
Present:
VELASCO,
JR., J., Chairperson
PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ.
Promulgated:
April
25, 2012
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
x x x.
Petitioner was illegally dismissed
To justify fully the dismissal of an
employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just
cause and that the employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal. As a
complementary principle, the employer has the onus of proving with clear,
accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence the validity of the dismissal.[34]
WWWEC had failed to discharge its
twin burden in the instant case.
First off, the attendant
circumstances in the instant case aptly show that the issue of petitioner’s alleged
failure to achieve his quota, as a ground for terminating employment, strikes
the Court as a mere afterthought on the part of WWWEC. Consider: Lariosa’s
letter of September 25, 2004 already betrayed management’s intention to dismiss
the petitioner for alleged unauthorized absences. Aliling was in fact made to
explain and he did so satisfactorily. But, lo and behold, WWWEC nonetheless
proceeded with its plan to dismiss the petitioner for non-satisfactory
performance, although the corresponding termination letter dated October 6,
2004 did not even specifically state Aliling’s “non-satisfactory performance,”
or that Aliling’s termination was by reason of his failure to achieve his set
quota.
What WWWEC considered as the evidence
purportedly showing it gave Aliling the chance to explain his inability to
reach his quota was a purported September 20, 2004 memo of San Mateo addressed to the latter. However, Aliling
denies having received such letter and WWWEC has failed to refute his
contention of non-receipt. In net effect, WWWEC was at a loss to explain the
exact just reason for dismissing Aliling.
At any event, assuming for argument that
the petitioner indeed failed to achieve his sales quota, his termination from
employment on that ground would still be unjustified.
Article 282 of the Labor Code considers any of
the following acts or omission on the part of the employee as just cause or ground
for terminating employment:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;
(b)
Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee
of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e)
Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis supplied)
In Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35]
the Court considered inefficiency as an analogous just cause for termination of
employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code:
We
cannot but agree with PEPSI that “gross inefficiency” falls within the purview
of “other causes analogous to the foregoing,” this constitutes, therefore, just
cause to terminate an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. One is analogous to another if it is
susceptible of comparison with the latter either in general or in some specific
detail; or has a close relationship with the latter. “Gross inefficiency” is
closely related to “gross neglect,” for both involve specific acts of omission
on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his
business. In Buiser vs. Leogardo,
this Court ruled that failure to observed prescribed standards to inefficiency
may constitute just cause for dismissal. (Emphasis supplied.)
It did so anew in Leonardo v. National Labor Relations
Commission[36] on the following rationale:
An employer is entitled to impose
productivity standards for its workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be
visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. Thus,
[t]he
practice of a company in laying off workers because they failed to make the
work quota has been recognized in this jurisdiction. (Philippine American Embroideries vs.
Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634, 639). In the case at bar, the
petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them
constitute a just cause of their dismissal, regardless of the permanent or
probationary status of their employment. Failure
to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work
assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal.
Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work
quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. This management prerogative of requiring standards may be availed of so
long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employer's interest. (Emphasis supplied.)
In fine, an employee’s failure to
meet sales or work quotas falls under the concept of gross inefficiency, which
in turn is analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a just cause for
dismissal under Article 282 of the Code. However, in order for the quota
imposed to be considered a valid productivity standard and thereby validate a
dismissal, management’s prerogative of fixing the quota must be exercised in
good faith for the advancement of its interest. The duty to prove good faith,
however, rests with WWWEC as part of its burden to show that the dismissal was for
a just cause. WWWEC must show that such quota was imposed in good faith. This
WWWEC failed to do, perceptibly because it could not. The fact of the matter is
that the alleged imposition of the quota was a desperate attempt to lend a semblance
of validity to Aliling’s illegal dismissal. It must be stressed that even WWWEC’s
sales manager, Eve Amador (Amador), in an internal e-mail to San Mateo, hedged on whether petitioner
performed below or above expectation:
Could not quantify level of performance as he
as was tasked to handle a new product (GX). Revenue report is not yet
administered by IT on a month-to-month basis. Moreover, this in a way is an
experimental activity. Practically you have a close monitoring with Armand with
regards to his performance. Your assessment of him would be more accurate.
Being an experimental activity and
having been launched for the first time, the sales of GX services could not be reasonably
quantified. This would explain why Amador implied in her email that other bases
besides sales figures will be used to determine Aliling’s performance. And yet,
despite such a neutral observation, Aliling was still dismissed for his dismal
sales of GX services. In any event, WWWEC failed to demonstrate the reasonableness
and the bona fides on the quota imposition.
Employees must be reminded that while
probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they enjoy the constitutional
protection of security of tenure. They can only be terminated for cause or when
they otherwise fail to meet the reasonable standards made known to them by the
employer at the time of their engagement.[37]
Respondent WWWEC miserably failed to prove the termination of petitioner was
for a just cause nor was there substantial evidence to demonstrate the
standards were made known to the latter at the time of his engagement. Hence,
petitioner’s right to security of tenure was breached.
x x x."
