G.R. No. 182486 - PHILBAG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, VS. PHILBAG WORKERS UNION-LAKAS AT GABAY NG MANGGAGAWANG NAGKAKAISA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, they should not be considered as having accumulated twelve (12) demerit points, respectively[,] which would justify their dismissal from [the] service. [22] In Mauricios case, the CA found Reinosos report not credible despite the companys insistence that she could not have fabricated the report. It noted two elements in the report which made it dubious: (1) it was dated June 28, 2004 or more than a month after the incident transpired; and (2) it did not state when the incident allegedly happened. The CA wondered why Reinoso reported the incident one month after its occurrence. It asked how the company can make an intelligent investigation when Reinoso did not even mention the date when the incident occurred. If Mauricio and four of his co-employees stopped working for two hours why did Reinoso not do anything about it? In view of these lapses, the CA considered Reinosos report a mere afterthought. It concluded that the company failed to prove its allegation that Mauricio violated Section B(5) of its rules and regulations. With respect to Camacho, the CA acknowledged that indeed, she did not report for work from March 15 to 21, 2004 (7 days), without filing a leave of absence. It was not convinced, however, that she deliberately disregarded the company rules on the matter. The CA thus ruled that Mauricio and Camacho were illegally dismissed. Accordingly, it ordered the company to pay them backwages and separation pay as it considered reinstatement to be no longer viable due to the passage of time. The company moved for reconsideration, reiterating essentially the same arguments it raised before the CA and, additionally, contending that the case has become academic since it had already ceased operations due to serious business losses. The CA denied the motion. It rejected the companys business closure defense, holding that Mauricios and Camachos monetary awards could still be pursued during liquidation, pursuant to Section 122 of the Corporation Code. More importantly, it reminded the company that the two employees were dismissed without just cause and, therefore, not covered by Article 283 of the Labor Code under which, an employer who closes its business due to serious financial losses is not required to grant separation pay to the dismissed employees. The Parties Positions The Company Aside from the petition itself, [23] the company submitted a comment (to the unions reply) [24] and a memorandum. [25] It prays for the nullification of the CA rulings on the grounds that: (1) the CA had no jurisdiction over the petition for review as it was filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period; (2) the CA committed a misapprehension of the facts and the evidence; and (3) the CA erred in directing the payment of backwages and separation pay. On its first assignment of error, the company argues that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It contends that under Article 262-A of the Labor Code, th