G.R. No. 214399 - ARMANDO N. PUNCIA, VS. TOYOTA SHAW/PASIG, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, declared Puncia to have been illegally dismissed by Toyota, thus, entitling him to reinstatement and backwages. [25] The NLRC found that Toyota illegally dismissed Puncia from employment as there were no valid grounds to justify his termination. Moreover, the NLRC observed that Toyota failed to comply with the due process requirements as: first , the written notice served on the employee did not categorically indicate the specific ground for dismissal sufficient to have given Puncia a reasonable opportunity to explain his side, since the Intra-Company Communication [26] providing the company rules failed to explain in detail that Puncia's deficiency merited the penalty of dismissal; [27] and second , Puncia's dismissal was not based on the same grounds cited in the Notice to Explain, since the ground indicated was Puncia's failure to meet the sales quota, which is different from the ground stated in the Notice of Termination, which is his unjustified absence during the scheduled hearing. [28] Both parties filed their separate motions for reconsideration, [29] which were denied in a Resolution [30] dated August 30, 2013. Aggrieved, Toyota filed a Petition for Certiorari [31] before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132615 and was raffled to the First Division (CA-First Division). In the same vein, Puncia filed his Petition for Certiorari [32] before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132674 and was raffled to the Eleventh Division (CA-Eleventh Division). [33] The CA Proceedings In a Resolution [34] dated November 29, 2013, the CA-Eleventh Division dismissed outright CA-G.R. SP No. 132674 on procedural grounds. Consequently, Puncia filed an Omnibus Motion (For Consolidation and Reconsideration of Order of November 29, 2013) [35] and a Supplement to the Omnibus Motion, [36] seeking the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 132674 with CA-G.R. SP No. 132615. In a Resolution [37] dated January 24, 2014, the CA-First Division denied the motion for consolidation on the ground that CA-G.R. SP No. 132674 was already dismissed by the CA-Eleventh Division. Thereafter, and while CA-G.R. SP No. 132674 remained dismissed , the CA-First Division promulgated the assailed Decision [38] dated June 9, 2014 (June 9, 2014 Decision) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132615 annulling and setting aside the NLRC ruling and reinstating that of the LA. It held that Toyota was able to present substantial evidence in support of its contention that there was just cause in Puncia's dismissal from employment and that it was done in compliance with due process, considering that: ( a ) Puncia's repeated failure to meet his sales quota constitutes gross inefficiency and gross neglect of duties; and ( b ) Puncia was afforded due process as he was able to submit a written explanation within the period given to him by Toyota. [39] Dissatisfied, Puncia filed a motion for reconsideration, [40] which the CA-First Division denied in the assailed Resolution [41] dated Septembe