Javines vs. Xlibris

When a party fails to appeal a labor tribunal's unanimous finding of just cause for dismissal, that finding attains finality and is placed beyond the appellate court's power of review, even if the opposing party's certiorari petition before the CA raises a different issue.

Ramon Manuel T. Javines was hired by respondent Xlibris, also known as Author Solutions, Inc., as Operations Manager on September 1, 2011. The termination arose from the discovery that three meal receipts Javines submitted for reimbursement had been tampered with, altering the amounts from a few hundred pesos to several thousand pesos each. The company's Code of Conduct, specifically Sections 9.5 and 9.6, governed the charges of dishonesty brought against him.

Ramon Manuel T. Javines was hired by Xlibris, also known as Author Solutions, Inc., as Operations Manager on September 1, 2011. Approximately ten months later, his employment was terminated for falsifying or tampering three meal receipts submitted for reimbursement.

The falsification was discovered on July 5, 2012, when Javines submitted the meal receipts to the finance department. The company's Finance Officer prepared an incident report on the same day. The following day, July 6, 2012, a Notice to Explain was issued to Javines for alleged violation of Sections 9.5 and 9.6 of the Employee's Code of Conduct, charging him with acts constituting dishonesty. Xlibris obtained certified copies of the meal receipts from the fast food chains concerned and notified Javines that the following receipts had been tampered: KFC O.R. No. 3452 dated 3/31/12, altered from PhP540.00 to PhP5,450.00; McDonald's O.R. No. 027900, altered from PhP107.00 to PhP2,207.00; and McDonald's O.R. No. 027822 dated 4/3/12, altered from PhP164.00 to PhP3,164.00.

On July 10, 2012, Javines submitted his written explanation, denying having tampered the receipts. He explained that as Operations Manager, he was responsible for securing reimbursement for expenses incurred by the supervisors under him; the supervisors submitted the receipts to him, and he prepared the reimbursement request. Once reimbursement was made, he distributed the cash to the supervisor concerned. He maintained that while he prepared the reimbursement request, he had no knowledge of or participation in the tampered receipts. An administrative hearing was held on July 13, 2012, but Javines failed to explain why and how the incident transpired. Instead, he requested further investigation, alleging he could not recall who submitted the receipts to him. On the same day, notices to explain were sent to the supervisors under Javines; in their written accounts, the supervisors denied participation in the tampered receipts. No further hearing was conducted thereafter. On July 27, 2012, Xlibris terminated Javines' employment through an "end of employment notice."

Javines filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding just cause and due process. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed just cause but found that procedural due process was lacking, noting that no hearing was called after the supervisors denied participation, depriving Javines of the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him. The NLRC awarded PhP10,000 in nominal damages. Javines did not move for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, while Xlibris' motion for partial reconsideration was denied. Only Xlibris elevated the case to the CA via certiorari, questioning solely the NLRC's finding of lack of procedural due process.

• Finality and Scope of Review: Javines insisted that Xlibris' petition for certiorari before the CA threw open the entire case for review, such that the issue of whether he was dismissed for just cause ought to have been addressed by the CA.
• Lack of Just Cause: Javines argued that he was not dismissed for just cause and that Xlibris failed to prove by substantial evidence the misconduct imputed against him.
• Procedural Due Process: Javines maintained that he was not afforded procedural due process because his request for further investigation to identify the source of the questioned meal receipts was never granted.

• Issue Not Raised Below: Xlibris argued that the issue of whether Javines was dismissed for just cause was never raised in its petition for certiorari before the CA nor discussed in the CA decision.
• Finality of Just Cause Finding: Xlibris contended that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC unanimously found just cause for dismissal, and Javines failed to challenge those findings by interposing a timely appeal.

• Finality of Just Cause Finding: Whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's finding that Javines was dismissed for just cause, given that Javines failed to appeal that finding to the CA.

• Finality of Just Cause Finding: No. The NLRC's finding of just cause had become final and unreviewable because Javines failed to appeal it to the CA, and Xlibris' certiorari petition raised only the procedural due process issue, not the just cause determination.

• Finality of Just Cause Finding: The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC uniformly held that Javines' dismissal was for just cause under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. Javines neither moved for reconsideration of the NLRC decision nor challenged the just-cause finding before the CA. Consequently, the NLRC decision on that point attained finality and was placed beyond the appellate court's power of review. While appeal is an essential part of the judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right or part of due process but a statutory privilege; a decision becomes final against a party who does not appeal, and an appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief beyond that granted by the lower court. Javines' contention that Xlibris' certiorari petition opened the entire case for review was rejected. Although the appellate court has broad discretionary power to consider errors not assigned, it may do so only in limited instances — jurisdictional questions, clerical errors, matters necessary for a just decision, matters raised in the trial court and of record, matters closely related to assigned errors, and matters upon which determination of a properly assigned question depends. None of these instances obtained. Xlibris' certiorari petition questioned only the award of nominal damages for procedural due process, and neither party further questioned the CA's ruling on that point, such that the procedural due process issue was also resolved with finality. In any event, the just-cause issue involves a question of fact, which the Court does not allow in a Rule 45 petition. Findings of fact of labor tribunals when affirmed by the CA bind the Court, and no compelling reason existed to depart from that rule.

• Finality of Judgments — A decision becomes final and unappealable against a party who fails to appeal it, and the finality renders the ruling beyond the power of review of appellate courts. Applied here: because Javines did not appeal the NLRC's just-cause finding, it became final and could not be revisited by the CA or the Supreme Court.
• Limitation on Appellee's Relief — An appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below. Applied here: Javines, as appellee before the CA, could not secure a ruling on just cause when he had not appealed the NLRC decision on that point.
• Rule 45 Limited to Questions of Law — The Supreme Court's jurisdiction in cases brought from the CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law and does not extend to re-evaluating the sufficiency of evidence. Applied here: the just-cause issue was factual in nature and thus not reviewable under Rule 45.
• Factual Findings of Labor Tribunals — Findings of fact of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, bind the Supreme Court. Applied here: the Court found no compelling reason to depart from this rule.

• "For failure to file the requisite petition before the CA, the NLRC decision had attained finality and had been placed beyond the appellate court's power of review." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the just-cause finding became final due to Javines' failure to appeal, foreclosing any further review.
• "an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below." — This articulates the doctrinal limitation on an appellee's ability to seek affirmative relief, which barred Javines from obtaining a just-cause ruling from the CA.
• "findings of fact of labor tribunals when affirmed by the CA bind this Court." — This states the standard of review principle that constrains the Supreme Court in Rule 45 petitions from labor cases, reinforcing the denial of the petition.

• WT Construction, Inc. vs. Province of Cebu, G.R. Nos. 208984 & 209245, September 16, 2015 — Cited for the rule that a decision becomes final against a party who does not appeal.
• Manese vs. Jollibee Foods Corporation, G.R. No. 170454, October 11, 2012 — Cited for the principle that an appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond what the lower court granted.
• Tolentino-Prieto vs. Elvas, G.R. Nos. 192369 & 193685, November 9, 2016 — Cited for the enumerated instances in which an appellate court may consider errors not assigned, none of which applied in this case.
• NDC Tagum Foundation, Inc. vs. Sumakote, G.R. No. 190644, June 13, 2016 — Cited for the rule that questions of fact are not allowed in a petition filed under Rule 45.
• Felicilda vs. Uy, G.R. No. 22124, September 14, 2016 — Cited for the rule that the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law and does not extend to re-evaluating the sufficiency of evidence.

• Article 297 (formerly Article 282), Labor Code — Governs just causes for termination of employment. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found that Javines' falsification of meal receipts constituted just cause for dismissal under this provision.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.