J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2012-0069: HEIRS OF  ROGELIO ISIP, SR., NAMELY: CELEDONIA, ROLANDO, ROGELIO, .JR., ALL SURNAMED ISIP, AND IRENE ISIP-SILVESTRE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROLANDO ISIP VS. RODOLFO QUINTOS, RODOLFO DE GUZMAN AND ISAGANI ISIP, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME RONIRO ENTERPRISES COMPANY (G.R. NO. 172008, 01 AUGUST 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT/S: FORCIBLE ENTRY, FACTS NOT TRIED CANNOT BE TAKEN UP ON APPEAL. (BRIEF TITLE: HEIRS OF ROGELIO ISIP SR. VS. QUINTOS ET AL.)

=========================

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PONTINO OWNS A LOT. ROGELIO SR. TOOK POSESSION OF THE LOT. PONTINO SOLD HIS  LOT TO DATU BUT DATU FAILED TO PAY THE FULL PRICE. DESPITE NON-PAYMENT OF THE FULL PRICE, DATU SOLD THE LOT TO TOYO KEIKI WHO EMPLOYED ROGELIO SR.  TO MANAGE ITS WATER SYSTEM PUT UP IN SAID LOT. THE LOT WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD FROM PONTINO  TO DE GUZMAN. DE GUZMAN WITH RESPONDENTS PUT UP THE RONIRO ENTERPRISES WHICH TOOK THE WATER SYSTEM.   ROGELIO SR. DIED BUT HIS HEIRS WERE STILL OCCUPYING THE LOT. RESPONDENTS ENTICED THE HEIRS TO PUT UP A CAR REPAIR SHOP TO UNDERTAKE  REPAIRS FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY. ON THE PRETEXT BY RESPONDENTS THAT DURING AN INSPECTION BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY THE HEIRS MUST FIRST VACATE THE PROPERTY, THE HEIRS VACATED THE PROPERTY. WHEN THEY CAME BACK THEY WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED BY RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE PREMISES.  PETITIONER FILED AN EJECTMENT CASE ON GROUND OF FORCIBLE ENTRY.

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT RESPONDENTS DEPRIVED THEM OF THE POSSESSION OF THEIR LOT THROUGH DECEIT, STRATEGY, AND STEALTH. THEY AVER THAT RESPONDENTS DECEIVED THEM TO TEMPORARILY VACATE THE PREMISES ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY MUST CONVINCE THE INSURANCE INSPECTORS THAT THE PREMISES ARE BEING USED SOLELY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THEY WERE THUS ALLEGEDLY TRICKED TO MOVE OUT AND ONCE THE RESPONDENTS ACHIEVED THEIR GOAL, THEY WERE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE PREMISES BY POSTING SECURITY GUARDS AT THE GATES.

DID RESPONDENTS COMMIT FORCIBLE ENTRY?

NO. THERE IS FORCIBLE ENTRY IF POSSESSION IS ILLEGAL FROM THE BEGINNING. RESPONDENTS HAVE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. THEIR POSSESSION OF THE  PROPERTY IS THEREFORE NOT ILLEGAL. THUS, THEY DID NOT COMMIT FORCIBLE ENTRY DESPITE THEIR ALLEGED STRATEGY.

Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by, “a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x.” In cases of forcible entry, “the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PETITIONERS FURTHER ASSERT THAT THE LOT THEY OCCUPY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LOT OCCUPIED BY THE RESPONDENTS. THEY CLAIM THAT THEIR LOT IS LOCATED AT NO. 2, BARRAMEDA ST., UPPER BICUTAN, TAGUIG WHILE THE LOT OCCUPIED BY THE RESPONDENTS IS LOCATED IN LOWER BICUTAN.

CAN SC INQUIRE INTO SUCH FACT?

NO. THE POINT RAISED BY THE [PETITIONERS] X X X IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED ANYMORE AT THIS POINT SINCE IT WAS NEVER RAISED AS AN ISSUE IN THEIR APPEAL, NAY EVEN WHEN THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE COURT A QUO. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT  A TRIER OF FACTS. ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE ENTERTAINED SUBJECT ONLY TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, NONE OF WHICH ARE PRESENT IN THE INSTANT PETITION.

IT IS THE FUNCTION OF TRIAL COURTS TO RESOLVE ACTUAL ISSUES WHOSE FINDINGS ON THESE MATTERS ARE ACCORDED RESPECT AND CONSIDERED BINDING BY THE SUPREME COURT ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT. IN THIS CASE, THE METC, THE RTC AND THE CA ARE ONE IN THEIR FINDINGS THAT RESPONDENTS DID NOT FORCIBLY ENTER THE SUBJECT PREMISES. ALL THREE TRIBUNALS FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS’ POSSESSION IS LAWFUL AND LEGAL FROM THE BEGINNING.

TO READ THE CASE PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW:

SCD-2012-0069-ISIP-AUG 2102

CASE 2012-0068: JARL CONSTRUCTION AND ARMANDO K. TEJADA VS. SIMEON A. ATENCIO, 01 AUGUST 2012 (G.R. NO. 175969, 01 AUGUST 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR JUST CAUSE; BURDEN OF PROOF RE UNPAID SALARIES. (BRIEF TITLE: TEJADA VS. ATENCTIO).

======================

DISPOSITIVE:

        WHEREFORE. premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The november 29. 2005 Decision of the CoURT  of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90517 is AFFIRMED.

        SO ORDERED

======================

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE.

THE LABOR CODE AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT DOES THE LABOR CODE PROVIDES?

ARTICLE 277(B) OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 OR THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES REQUIRES ACCORDING THE EMPLOYEE BOTH NOTICE AND HEARING, THUS:

ART. 277 – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

x x x x

(b) x x x, [T]he employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations x x x.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT DOES THE IMPLEMENTING RULES SAY?

SECTION 2(D), RULE 1, BOOK VI OF THE OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE EXPOUNDS ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT EVERY EMPLOYER MUST OBSERVE IN A TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BASED ON A JUST CAUSE:

Section 2. Security of Tenure. – x x x (d)

In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code:

(i)               A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.

(ii)            A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.

(iii)         A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have beenestablished to justify his termination.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE TWO NOTICES?

THE FIRST NOTICE, WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE PROPER CHARGE, SERVES TO APPRISE THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PARTICULAR ACTS OR OMISSIONS FOR WHICH HIS DISMISSAL IS SOUGHT.

THE SECOND NOTICE ON THE OTHER HAND SEEKS TO INFORM THE EMPLOYEE OF THE EMPLOYER’S DECISION TO DISMISS HIM. THIS DECISION, HOWEVER, MUST COME ONLY AFTER THE EMPLOYEE IS GIVEN A REASONABLE PERIOD FROM RECEIPT OF THE FIRST NOTICE WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER THE CHARGE AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND DEFEND HIMSELF WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A REPRESENTATIVE, IF HE SO DESIRES.

THIS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE LAW ON THE PROTECTION TO LABOR AND THE BROADER DICTATES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH IS FATAL BECAUSE THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONDITIONS SINE QUA NON BEFORE DISMISSAL MAY BE VALIDLY EFFECTED.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

IN THIS CASE THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE WAS ENGAGED BY PETITIONER.  WHEN RESPONDENT COMPANY’S SERVICES WERE TERMINATED, PETITIONER TERMINATED ALSO THE SERVICES OF SAID EMPLOYEE. PETITIONER ARGUED THAT RESPONDENT WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM DUE TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT’S COMPANY. WAS PETITIONER CORRECT?

NO. THERE MUST BE CLEAR NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. THE CHARGES WERE MADE AGAINST THE COMPANY. THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION ALSO PERTAINS TO THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE COMPANY.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE EMPLOYEE ALLEGED THAT HE WAS NOT PAID CERTAIN SALARIES AND 13^TH MONTH PAY. WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE WHETHER SUCH BENEFITS WERE PAID? 

THE BURDEN TO PROVE RESTS ON THE EMPLOYER. THE EMPLOYER’S EVIDENCE MUST SHOW WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT IT PAID AND THAT THE EMPLOYEE ACTUALL RECEIVED THE PAYMENT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE?

THE REASON FOR THE RULE IS THAT THE PERTINENT PERSONNEL FILES, PAYROLLS, RECORDS, REMITTANCES AND OTHER SIMILAR DOCUMENTS X X X ARE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WORKER BUT [ARE] IN THE CUSTODY AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER.

TO READ  THE FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2012-0068-JARL CONSTRUCTION-AUG 2102