G.R. No. 142133 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. AND JOVENCIO P. BANTANG, JR., VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION) AND RUPERTO EVANGELISTA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Declaring the dismissal of complainant Ruperto Evangelista, Jr. as having been effected illegally by respondent Metro Transit Organization, Inc. and Jovencio P. Bantang, Jr.; 2. Ordering respondents to immediately reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other monetary benefits with full back wages in the amount of FORTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY PESOS AND FIFTY SIX CENTAVOS ( P 46,580.56); 3. Respondent is further ordered to pay the thirteenth month due the complainant in the amount of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY AND ONE PESOS ( P 3,881.00); 4. Respondent is further ordered to pay the award of moral damages to complainant in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ( P 25,000.00) PESOS and exemplary damages in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ( P 25,000.00); and 5. Finally, respondent is ordered to pay for and as attorneys fees the amount of TEN THOUSAND FORTY SIX PESOS AND TWENTY TWO CENTAVOS ( P 10,046.22) which is equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total award due the complainant herein. Petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiters decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for brevity). The NLRC rendered a judgment on March 7, 1996 affirming the Labor Arbiters decision but deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners did not file any motion for reconsideration. Instead, petitioners directly filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On April 30, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners. The Court of Appeals ruled that the special civil action of certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court of Appeals held that the plain and adequate remedy is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed NLRC decision, which motion is mandatory. On the merits of the case, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove Evangelistas culpability for the loss of the 2,000 pieces of tokens. Petitioners presented only the handwritten letters implicating Evangelista. The Court of Appeals doubted the veracity of the handwritten letters because the letters were not sufficiently identified. The affidavit allegedly executed by petitioners principal witness, Renato Mendoza (Mendoza for brevity), who identified Evangelista as the culprit, was not sworn to before any administering officer. The Court of Appeals also found that petitioner Bantang prepared Mendozas unsworn affidavit, and that Mendoza signed it under a threat of dismissal if he failed to cooperate with petitioners. Mendoza later renounced under oath before the investigating prosecutor his unsworn affidavit which pointed to Evangelista as the culprit. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held t