SECOND DIVISION Court, the special civil action for certiorari is available in cases where

the concerned "tribunal, board or o cer exercising judicial functions

[G.R. No. 106341. September 2, 1994.] had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Antonio v.
DELFIN G. VILLARAMA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL National Labor Relations Commission , We held that the plain and
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GOLDEN adequate remedy expressly provided by law is a motion for
DONUTS, INC., respondents. reconsideration of the assailed decision, and the resolution thereof,
which is not only expected to be but would actually have provided
SYLLABUS adequate and more speedy remedy than a petition for certiorari.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE FOR
1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; REQUIREMENTS OF REQUIREMENT. — The rationale for this requirement is to enable
REVISED CIRCULAR NO. 1-88 the court or agency concerned to pass upon and correct its mistakes
AND CIRCULAR NO. 28-91; NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH without the intervention of a higher court.
WOULD RESULT IN THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF
4. ID.; ACTIONS; STRICT RUL
PETITION. — At the outset, we note that the Petition was not
accompanied by a certi ed true copy of the assailed July 16, 1992 RELAXED TO RULE ON
NLRC Resolution, in violation of Revised Circular No. 1-88. Neither SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED. — Be that as it may, we allowed
was there any certi cation under oath that "petitioner has not the petition to enable us to rule on the signi cant issues raised before
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues us, viz: (1) whether or not petitioner's right to procedural due process
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different Divisions was violated, and (2) whether or not he was dismissed for a valid or
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of his just cause.
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme 5. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof or any CODE; EMPLOYMENT; TERMINATION; FORMAL CHARGE,
other tribunal or agency," as required under Circular No. 28-91. It is REQUIRED. — The procedure for terminating an employee is found
settled that noncompliance with the provisions of Revised Circular in Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code, viz: ". . . "(b) Subject to the
No. 1-88 and Circular No. 28-91, would result in the outright constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to
dismissal of the petition. be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause
2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283
of this Code the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment
AVAILABLE WHERE THERE IS NO
is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of
APPEAL, NOR ANY PLAIN SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity
REMEDY IN THE COURSE OF LAW to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his counsel if
AVAILABLE TO AGGRIEVED PARTY; MOTION FOR he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations
RECONSIDERATION, PLAIN AND ADEQUATE REMEDY promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor
PROVIDED BY LAW. — Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or loss of trust and con dence is a good ground for dismissing a
legality of his dismissal by ling a complaint with the regional branch managerial employee. It can be proved by substantial evidence which
of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving is present in the case at bench. x x x As a managerial employee,
that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on petitioner is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He failed to live
the employer. . . ." (emphasis supplied) up to this higher standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his
moral perversity. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE PROTECTS NOT against his subordinate, he provides a justi able ground for his
ONLY RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO dismissal for lack of trust and confidence.
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES; CASE AT BAR. — This procedure
protects not only rank-and- le employees but also managerial 9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEPARATION PAY; NOT PROPER
employees. Both have the right to security of tenure as provided for in WHERE DISMISSAL WAS VALID. — We next rule on the
Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. In the case at bench, monetary awards due to petitioner. The public respondent erred in
petitioner decided to seek reconsideration of the termination of his awarding separation pay of P17,000.00 as indemnity for his dismissal
service thru his August 16, 1989 letter. While admitting his error, he without due process of law. The award of separation pay is proper in
felt that its gravity did not justify his dismissal. Considering this the cases enumerated under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code,
stance, and in conformity with the aforequoted Article 277 (b) of the and in cases where there is illegal dismissal (for lack of valid cause)
Labor Code, petitioner should have been formally charged and given and reinstatement is no longer feasible.
an opportunity to refute the charges. Under the facts in eld, we hold
that petitioner was denied procedural due process. 10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY OF P1,000.00 FOR NON-
OBSERVANCE OF DUE
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IMMORALITY, VALID GROUND, PROCESS IN DISMISSING EMPLOYEE. — But this is not to state
CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner claims that his alleged immoral act was that an employer cannot be penalized for failure to give formal notice
unsubstantiated, hence, he could not be dismissed. We hold otherwise. and conduct the necessary investigation before dismissing an
The records show that petitioner was confronted with the charge employee. Thus, in Wenphil vs. NLRC and Paci c Mills, Inc. vs.
against him. Initially, he voluntarily agreed to be separated from the Alonzo, this Court awarded P1,000.00 as penalty for non-observance
company. He took a leave of absence preparatory to his separation. of due process.
This agreement was con rmed by the letter to him by Mr. Prieto dated
August 7, 1989. A few days after, petitioner reneged on the 11. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; MORA
agreement. He refused to be terminated on the ground that the DAMAGES NOT
seriousness of his offense would not warrant his separation from RECOVERABLE WHERE THERE IS NO BAD FAITH OR
service. So he alleged in his letter to Mr. Prieto dated August 16, MALICE IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF AN
1989. But even in this letter, petitioner admitted his "error" vis-a-vis EMPLOYEE. — Petitioner is not also entitled to moral and exemplary
Miss Gonzaga. As a manager, petitioner should know the evidentiary damages. There was no bad faith or malice on the part of private
value of his admissions. Needless to stress, he cannot complain there respondent in terminating the services of petitioner.
was no valid cause for his separation.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LOSS OF TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE, VALID GROUND; CASE AT BAR. — Moreover,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 12. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR I would like to tender my resignation from my
CODE; EMPLOYMENT; post as Clerk Typist of Materials Department effective
TERMINATION; SEPARATION PAY; EMPLOYEE ENTITLED immediately.
TO VACATION AND SICK LEAVES AND PROPORTIONATE It is really my regret to leave this company which
13TH MONTH PAY. — Petitioner is entitled, however, to his unused has given me all the opportunity I long desired. My ve
vacation/sick leave and proportionate 13th month pay, as held by the (5) months stay in the company have been very
labor arbiter. These are monies already earned by petitioner and gratifying professionally and nancially and I would not
should be unaffected by his separation from the service. entertain the idea of resigning except for the most
shocking experience I have had in my whole life.

DECISION Last Friday, July 7, 1989, Mr. Del n Villarama

and Mr. Jess de Jesus invited all the girls of Materials
Department for a dinner when in (sic) the last minute the
other three (3) girls decided not to join the group
PUNO, J :
anymore. I do (sic) not have second thought(s) in
p

Sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies. It is accepting their invitation for they are my colle(a)gues
reprehensible enough but more so when in icted by those with moral and I had nothing in mind that would in any manner
ascendancy over their victims. We rule that it is a valid cause for prompt me to refuse to what appeared to me as a simple
separation from service. and cordial invitation. We went to a restaurant along
Makati Avenue where we ate our dinner. Mr. Villarama,
First, the facts. On November 16, 1987, petitioner DELFIN Mr. Olaybar and Mr. Jess de Jesus were drinking while
VILLARAMA was employed by private respondent GOLDEN we were eating and (they) even offered me a few drinks
DONUTS, INC., as its Materials Manager. His starting salary was and when we were nished, they decided to bring me
P6,500.00 per month, later increased to P8,500.00. home. While on my way, I found out that Mr. Villarama
was not driving the way to my house. I was wondering
On July 15, 1989, petitioner Villarama was charged with why we were taking the wrong way until I found out that
sexual harassment by Divina Gonzaga, a clerk-typist assigned in his we were entering a motel. I was really shock(ed). I did
department. The humiliating experience compelled her to resign from not expect that a somewhat reputable person like Mr.
work. Her letter-resignation, dated July 15, 1989, reads:
LLpr
Villarama could do such a thing to any of his
"MR. LEOPOLDO H. PRIETO subordinates. I should have left the company without
any word but I feel that I would be unfair to those who
President
might be similarly situated. I hope that you would nd
Golden Donuts, Inc. time to investigate the veracity of my allegations and
Dear Sir: make each (sic) responsible for his own deed. (emphasis
ours)
Thank you very much and more power.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Very respectfully yours, "DEAR SIR:
DIVINA GONZAGA" MAY I REQUEST FOR A RECONSIDERATION ON
The letter prompted Mr. Leopoldo Prieto, President of Golden THE DECISION HANDED DURING OUR MEETING
Donuts, Inc., to call petitioner to a meeting on August 4, 1989. OF AUGUST 4, 1989, TERMINATING MY
Petitioner was then required to explain the letter against him. It SERVICES WITH THE COMPANY EFFECTIVE
appears that petitioner agreed to tender his resignation. Private AUGUST 5, 1989.
respondent moved swiftly to separate petitioner. Thus, private THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION OF THE
respondent approved petitioner's application for leave of absence with MATERIALS DEPARTMENT, WHICH I
pay from August 5-28, 1989. It also issued an intero ce memorandum, HAD BEEN HEADING FOR THE PAST 21
dated August 4, 1989, advising "all concerned" that petitioner was no MONTHS, TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
longer connected with the company effective August 5, 1989. 1 Two COMPANY FAR OUTWEIGHS THE ERROR THAT I
(2) days later, or on August 7, 1989, Mr. Prieto sent a letter to HAD COMMITTED. AN ERROR THAT MUST NOT
petitioner con rming their agreement that petitioner would be officially BE A BASIS FOR SUCH A DRASTIC DECISION.
separated from the private respondent. The letter reads:
AS I AM STILL OFFICIALLY ON LEAVE UNTIL
"Dear Mr. Villarama: THE 29th, OF THIS MONTH, MAY I EXPECT THAT
This is to o cially con rm our discussion last I WILL RESUME MY REGULAR DUTY ON THE
Friday, August 4, 1989, regarding your employment 29th?
with us. As per our agreement, you will be o cially ANTICIPATING YOUR FAVORABLE REPLY.
separated from the company effective August 23, 1989.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
May I, therefore, request you to please submit or
(SGD.)
send us your resignation letter on or before the close of
DELFIN
business hours of August 22, 1989.
G.
Please see the Personnel & Industrial Relations VILLARA
Office for your clearance. MA"

Very truly yours, For his failure to tender his resignation, petitioner was
dismissed by private respondent on August 23, 1989. Feeling
(SGD). LEOPOLDO H.
aggrieved, petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case 2 against private
PRIETO, JR. respondent.
President"
In a decision dated January 23, 1991, Labor Arbiter Salimar V.
In the interim, petitioner had a change of mind. In a letter dated Nambi held that due process was not observed in the dismissal of
August 16, 1989, petitioner sought reconsideration of the petitioner and there was no valid cause for dismissal. Private
management's decision to terminate him, viz: respondent GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. was ordered to: (1) reinstate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner DELFIN G. VILLARAMA to his former position, without ARBITER ON 4 FEBRUARY 1991 TO (sic) AT
loss of seniority rights, and pay his backwages at the rate of P8,500.00 LEAST THE PROMULGATION OF THE ASSAILED
per months from August 1989, until actual reinstatement; (2) pay RESOLUTION ON (sic) 16 JULY 1992.
petitioner the amount of P24,866.66, representing his unused vacation
leave and proportionate 13th month pay; (3) pay petitioner IN ANY EVENT, PETITIONER IS ALSO
P100,000.00, as moral damages, and P20,000.00, as exemplary ENTITLED TO HIS UNUSED VACATION LEAVE
damages; and (3) pay the attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of AND PROPORTIONATE 13TH MONTH PAY IN
the entire monetary award. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF P24,866.66, ADJUDGED
BY THE LABOR ARBITER.
Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission. On July 16, 1992, public respondent reversed the THE AWARD OF MORAL AND
decision of the labor arbiter. The dispositive portion of its Resolution EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
reads: BY THE LABOR ARBITER IS JUSTIFIED.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the We affirm with modification the impugned Resolution.
decision appealed from is hereby set aside and a new At the outset, we note that the Petition was not accompanied by
one entered declaring the cause of dismissal of a certi ed true copy of the assailed July 16, 1992 NLRC Resolution, 3
complainant as valid; however, for the procedural in violation of Revised Circular No. 188. Neither was there any certi
lapses, respondent (Golden Donuts, Inc.) is hereby cation under oath that "petitioner has not commenced any other action
ordered to indemnify complainant (petitioner) in the or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
form of separation pay equivalent to two months' (sic) Court of Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal
pay (for his two years of service, as appears (sic) in the or agency, and that to the best of his knowledge, no such action or
records), or the amount of P17,000.00. proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
"SO ORDERED." different Divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency," as
required under
Hence, this petition where the following arguments are raised: Circular No. 28-91. It is settled that non-compliance with the
provisions of Revised Circular No. 1-88 and Circular No. 28-91,
THE ALLEGED IMMORALITY CHARGED would result in the outright dismissal of the petition. 4
AGAINST PETITIONER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. In addition, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
special civil action for certiorari is available in cases where the
THE MERE ADMISSION OF THE
concerned "tribunal, board or o cer exercising judicial functions had
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS ENTITLES acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
PETITIONER TO REINSTATEMENT. discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
IN ANY EVENT, PETITIONER IS ENTITLED remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Antonio v. National Labor
TO HIS SALARIES FROM RECEIPT BY PRIVATE Relations Commission, 5 we held that the plain and adequate remedy
RESPONDENT OF THE DECISION OF THE LABOR expressly provided by law is a motion for reconsideration of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 assailed decision, and the resolution thereof, which is not only decision taken by the employer shall be without
expected to be but would actually have provided adequate and more prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the
speedy remedy than a petition for certiorari. The rationale for this validity or legality of his dismissal by ling a complaint
requirement is to enable the court or agency concerned to pass upon with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations
and correct its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. 6 In Commission. The burden of proving that the termination
this case, the assailed July 16, 1992 Resolution of the National Labor was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the
Relations Commission was received by petitioner's counsel on July employer. . . ." (emphasis supplied)
23, 1992. 7 Petitioner did not le a motion for reconsideration, instead,
he commenced this special civil action for certiorari. Be that as it may, This procedure protects not only rank-and- le employees but
we allowed the petition to enable us to rule on the signi cant issues also managerial employees. Both have the right to security of tenure
raised before us, as provided for in Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. In
viz: (1) whether or not petitioner's right to procedural due process was the case at bench, petitioner decided to seek reconsideration of the
violated, and (2) whether or not he was dismissed for a valid or just termination of his service thru his August 16, 1989 letter. While
cause. cdrep
admitting his error, he felt that its gravity did not justify his dismissal.
Considering this stance, and in conformity with the aforequoted
The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Article Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code, petitioner should have been
277 (b) of the Labor Code, viz: formally charged and given an opportunity to refute the charges.
Under the facts in eld, we hold that petitioner was denied procedural
"x due process.
xx
xx We not come to the more important issue of whether there was
x valid cause to terminate petitioner.
xx Petitioner claims that his alleged immoral act was
x unsubstantiated, hence, he could not be dismissed. We hold otherwise.
The records show that petitioner was confronted with the charge
"(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers
against him. Initially, he voluntarily agreed to be separated from the
to security of tenure and their right to be protected
company. He took a leave of absence preparatory to his separation.
against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause
This agreement was con rmed by the letter to him by Mr. Prieto dated
and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under
August 7, 1989. A few days after, petitioner reneged on the
Article 283 of this Code the employer shall furnish the agreement. He refused to be terminated on the ground that the
worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a seriousness of his offense would not warrant his separation from
written notice containing a statement of the cause for service. So he alleged in his letter to Mr. Prieto dated August 16,
termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity
1989. But even in this letter, petitioner admitted his "error" vis-a-vis
to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of
Miss Gonzaga. As a manager, petitioner should know the evidentiary
his counsel if he so desires in accordance with company
value of his admissions. Needless to stress, he cannot complain there
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines
was no valid cause for his separation. LLphil
set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Moreover, loss of trust and con dence is a good ground for and 284 of the Labor Code, 9 and in cases where there is illegal
dismissing a managerial employee. It can be proved by substantial dismissal (for lack of valid cause) and reinstatement is no longer
evidence which is present in the case at bench. As further observed by feasible. But this is not to state that an employer cannot be penalized
the Solicitor General: for failure to give formal notice and conduct the necessary
investigation before dismissing an employee. 10 Thus, in Wenphil vs.
". . . assuming arguendo that De Jesus and NLRC 11 and Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Alonzo, 12 this Court awarded
Gonzaga were sweethearts and that petitioner merely P1,000.00 as penalty for non-observance of due process. LLjur

acceded to the request of the former to drop them in the

motel, petitioner acted in collusion with the immoral Petitioner is not also entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
designs of De Jesus and did not give due regard to There was no bad faith or malice on the part of private respondent in
Gonzaga's feeling on the matter and acted in terminating the services of petitioner.
chauvinistic disdain of her honor, thereby justifying 13
public respondent's nding of sexual harassment. Thus,
petitioner not only failed to act accordingly as a good Petitioner is entitled, however, to his unused vacation/sick
father of the family ascendancy and authority over the leave and proportionate 13th month pay, as held by the labor arbiter.
group in the matter of morality and discipline of his These are monies already earned by petitioner and should be
subordinates, but he actively facilitated the commission unaffected by his separation from the service.
of immoral conduct of his subordinates by driving his WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed resolution of
car into the motel." public respondent is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION
(Comment, April 29, 1993, p. 9) that the award of separation pay is DELETED. Private respondent is
ordered to pay petitioner the amount of P1,000.00 for nonobservance
As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a more exacting of due process, and the equivalent amount of his unused vacation/sick
work ethics. He failed to live up to this higher standard of leave and proportionate 13th month pay. No pronouncement as to
responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity. And costs.
when such moral perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate,
he provides a justi able ground for his dismissal for lack of trust SO ORDERED.
and con dence. It is the right, nay, the duty of every employer to
protect its employees from over sexed superiors.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

To be sure, employers are given wider latitude of discretion in

terminating the employment of managerial employees on the ground Footnotes
of lack of trust and confidence. 8
1. The effectivity of petitioner's separation was August
We next rule on the monetary awards due to petitioner. The 23, 1989, but he was no longer considered connected
public respondent erred in awarding separation pay of P17,000.00 as with private respondent effective August 5, 1989, as
indemnity for his dismissal without due process of law. The award of per the office memorandum.
separation pay is proper in the cases enumerated under Articles 283
2. Docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-01-04771-89.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Petitioner, however, submitted a certified xerox copy 87673, January 24, 1992; SMC vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
of the "Notice of Decision or Resolution Entered," (re: 88088, January 24, 1992, 205 SCRA 348.
Resolution dated July 16, 1992).
4. Gallardo v. Rimando, G.R. No. 91718; Adm. Mat. No.
RTJ-90-577, Gallardo v. Quintos, 18 April 1991, En
Banc, Minute Resolution; Imperial Textile Mills Inc.,
v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., First
Division, January 13, 1993, Minute Resolution.
5. G.R. No. 101755, Minute Resolution, January 27,
1992.
6. Zurbano vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et
al, G.R. No. 103679, December 17, 1993.
7. Rollo, p. 2.
8. Dolores vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 87673, January 24, 1992;
SMC vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 88088, January 24, 1992,
205 SCRA 348.
9. In Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
87371, August 6, 1990, 188 SCRA 370, 375, we
reiterated the rule that "separation pay shall be allowed
as a social justice only in those instances where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
character."
10. Aurelio vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 99034, April 12, 1993,
221 SCRA 443.
11. G.R. No. 80587, February 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 69.
12. G.R. No. 78090, July 26, 1991, 199 SCRA 617.
13. Suario vs. BPI and NLRC, G.R. No. 50459, August 25,
1989 176 SCRA 689; Dolores vs. NLRC, G.R. No.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com