Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP and Casmero Mahilum vs. Visayan Electric Company, Inc.

The 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is strictly applied, and a one-day delay, absent exceptional circumstances, warrants dismissal. Additionally, when general and specific provisions of a CBA are inconsistent, the specific provision governs, and an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence may be validly dismissed for willful breach of trust under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code when he intentionally causes the publication of disparaging statements against his employer.

VECO is a corporation engaged in the supply and distribution of electricity in Cebu City and its neighboring areas. The Union is the exclusive bargaining agent of VECO's rank-and-file employees, and Mahilum served as the Union's president from October 2007 until his termination on October 28, 2010. The parties were governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement containing both a general grievance provision (Section 4, Article XVII) and a specific provision on disciplinary actions (Section 13, Article XIV), as well as VECO's Company Code of Discipline.

VECO is a corporation engaged in the supply and distribution of electricity in Cebu City and its neighboring areas. The Union is the exclusive bargaining agent of VECO's rank-and-file employees, and Mahilum served as the Union's president from October 2007 until his termination on October 28, 2010. Before his election as union officer, Mahilum was transferred from VECO's Public Relations Section to its Administrative Services Section without any specific work, and later to the Line Services Department as its Customer Service Representative.

At the time of Mahilum's election as union president, VECO management allegedly terminated active union members without going through the grievance machinery procedure prescribed under the CBA, refused to implement the profit-sharing scheme, took back motorbikes issued to active union members, and revised the electricity privilege granted to employees. On May 1, 2009, union members marched on the streets of Cebu City to protest these alleged violations. Mahilum and other union officers were interviewed by the media and handed out a document containing their grievances, the gist of which appeared in local newspapers.

On May 8, 2009, Mahilum was issued a Notice to Explain why he should not be terminated for loss of trust and confidence and violation of the Company Code of Discipline for causing the publication of what VECO deemed a libelous article. Other union officers received similar notices. On May 20, 2009, the union officers were notified of the administrative investigation. The Union's counsel initially objected, insisting the investigation should proceed through the grievance machinery procedure under the CBA, but upon agreement to proceed with the investigation of the Union Vice President through his own counsel, Mahilum and the other officers agreed to proceed.

Prior to the investigation, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB on May 18, 2009, which facilitated conferences yielding a Memorandum of Agreement signed on August 7, 2009. The parties also agreed on the conversion of the electricity privilege to basic pay, and the administrative investigation was deferred until after CBA renegotiation. However, even before the conclusion of the CBA renegotiation on June 28, 2010, several complaints for libel were filed against Mahilum and the other union officers by VECO's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. The administrative hearing resumed, but Mahilum protested, calling it "moro-moro" or "kangaroo" and insisting on the grievance machinery procedure. VECO carried on with its investigation and issued a notice terminating Mahilum on October 28, 2010.

On the same date, the Union filed another Notice of Strike with the NCMB on grounds of unfair labor practice, specifically union busting. The Secretary of Labor intervened and certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The strike was enjoined, Mahilum was ordered reinstated in the payroll, and the parties were directed to refrain from acts that would exacerbate the situation.

The NLRC dismissed the unfair labor practice charge and declared Mahilum's dismissal legal. It found that VECO acted within the bounds of law in conducting administrative investigations instead of the grievance machinery, and that Mahilum, together with other union officers, caused the publication of a document deemed to have dishonored former corporate officer Luis Alfonso Y. Aboitiz and besmirched VECO's name and reputation.

• Reglementary Period: Petitioners argued that the one-day delay in filing the certiorari petition was occasioned by an honest mistake in the computation of dates and should have been overlooked by the CA in favor of substantial justice, their former counsel having thought in good faith that August has thirty days, making sixty days from August 18, 2011 fall on October 18, 2011.
• Grievance Machinery: Petitioners maintained that VECO's refusal to follow the grievance machinery procedure under Section 4, Article XVII of the CBA in the suspension and termination of union officers and members constituted unfair labor practice.
• Illegal Dismissal: Petitioners argued that Mahilum's act was part of his moral, legal, or social duty to make known his legitimate perception against VECO, and was simply an expression of a valid grievance, not a willful breach of trust. Mahilum also insisted that there was nothing in his position which called for management's trust and confidence.

• Reglementary Period: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition for being filed one day beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Grievance Machinery: Whether VECO's refusal to follow the grievance machinery procedure under the CBA constituted unfair labor practice.
• Illegal Dismissal: Whether Mahilum's dismissal was for a just cause and with due process.

• Reglementary Period: No. The 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is strictly applied, and a one-day delay, absent exceptional circumstances, warrants dismissal of the petition.
• Grievance Machinery: No. The specific CBA provision on disciplinary actions (Section 13, Article XIV) governs over the general grievance provision (Section 4, Article XVII), and VECO acted within the bounds of law in conducting administrative investigations.
• Illegal Dismissal: No. Mahilum was validly dismissed under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code for willful breach of trust, with the two-notice rule observed.

• Reglementary Period: The 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari ended on October 17, 2011, but the petition was filed one day after, on October 18, 2011. The provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays and necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The fact that the delay was only one day is not a legal justification for non-compliance. When the law fixes sixty days, it cannot be taken to mean sixty-one days. While the Court has the power to suspend its own rules, liberality must be anchored on exceptional circumstances, and none was shown herein.

• Grievance Machinery: The CBA is the law between the parties, and when general and specific provisions are inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount. Section 4, Article XVII of the CBA, which states that "any matter affecting Company-Union or Company-Worker relations shall be considered a grievance," is general. Section 13, Article XIV, which provides that "disciplinary actions imposed on employee or laborer shall be governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Company," is specific as it precisely refers to what governs employee disciplinary actions. Thus, VECO correctly proceeded with its administrative investigation. This is consistent with the employer's wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline and impose penalties, provided the policies are fair and reasonable and the penalties commensurate to the offense.

• Illegal Dismissal: The two requisites for a valid dismissal were met: (1) just or authorized cause, and (2) due process. VECO anchored the termination on Article 282(c) of the Labor Code and Articles 5.1 and 4.4 of the Company Code of Discipline. The press release that Mahilum caused to be published was libelous for dishonoring and blackening the memory of former corporate officer Luis Alfonso Y. Aboitiz and besmirching VECO's name. Loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach, done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. Mahilum's attempt to rationalize his act as part of his moral, legal, or social duty does not detract from the fact that he intentionally caused the disparaging publication. As Customer Service Representative, Mahilum occupied a position of responsibility, being a front liner with direct interaction with customers, handling accounts and payments, and processing service applications — the very lifeblood of VECO's existence. VECO had lost its trust and confidence in him. Due process was complied with: on May 8, 2009, Mahilum was apprised of the particular acts for which his termination was sought, and after due investigation, he was given a Notice of Decision on October 28, 2010.

• Strict application of reglementary periods — The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that cannot be trifled with. When the law fixes a period, it cannot be taken to mean a longer period; a one-day delay, absent exceptional circumstances, warrants dismissal. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the CA's dismissal of the certiorari petition filed one day beyond the 60-day period.
• General vs. specific provisions in a CBA — When general and specific provisions of a CBA are inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount to and govern the general provision. The Court applied this rule in holding that Section 13, Article XIV of the CBA (specific provision on disciplinary actions) governed over Section 4, Article XVII (general grievance provision).
• Management prerogative — An employer has a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, upon erring employees. The only criterion is that the policies, rules, and regulations must always be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties commensurate to the offense.
• Loss of trust and confidence as just cause for dismissal — Loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee, done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, and must be based on substantial evidence. The act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee is unfit to continue working for the employer. The employee must hold a position of responsibility, trust, and confidence.
• Two-notice rule — For a valid dismissal, the employee must be afforded due process, which requires two written notices: one apprising the employee of the particular acts for which termination is sought, and a Notice of Decision after due investigation. The Court found both notices were given to Mahilum.

• "When the law fixes thirty days [or sixty days as in the present case], we cannot take it to mean also thirty-one days. If that deadline could be stretched to thirty-one days in one case, what would prevent its being further stretched to thirty-two days in another case, and so on, step by step, until the original line is forgotten or buried in the growing confusion resulting from the alterations? That is intolerable. We cannot fix a period with the solemnity of a statute and disregard it like a joke. If law is founded on reason, whim and fancy should play no part in its application." — This states the strict application of reglementary periods and is the controlling rationale for affirming the CA's dismissal of the late-filed certiorari petition.
• "Loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions[,] otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer." — This defines the standard for loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal, which the Court applied in upholding Mahilum's termination.
• "This is management prerogative, where the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose takes form. The only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies, rules[,] and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable[,] and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, are commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction." — This defines the scope and limits of management prerogative, which the Court invoked in upholding VECO's administrative investigation of its employees.
• "Social justice does not mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. Justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine." — This is the Court's final word on the balance between labor protection and management rights, frequently cited in labor jurisprudence.

• Labao vs. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 723 — Controlling precedent on the strict application of reglementary periods and the jurisdictional nature of the timeliness of filing a petition for certiorari.
• Trans International vs. CA, 358 Phil. 369 (1998) — Cited for the principle that when the law fixes a period, it cannot be taken to mean a longer period; the deadline cannot be stretched step by step.
• TSPIC Corporation vs. TSPIC Employees Union (FFW), 568 Phil. 774 (2008) — Controlling on the rule that when general and specific provisions of a CBA are inconsistent, the specific provision governs.
• The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Gacayan, 653 Phil. 45 (2010) — Cited for the doctrine of management prerogative and its limits.
• Villanueva, Jr. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 176893, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 243 — Cited for the standard of loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal.
• Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Macaraeg, 443 Phil. 866 (2003) — Cited for the two requisites of a valid dismissal and the principle that longer service entails greater responsibility for compliance with company norms.

• Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that a petition for certiorari be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The Court applied this provision in affirming the CA's dismissal of the late-filed petition.
• Article 282(c), Labor Code — Allows an employer to terminate an employee for fraud or willful breach of trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. The Court applied this provision in upholding Mahilum's dismissal.
• Section 4, Article XVII, CBA — The general grievance provision stating that any difference of opinion, controversy, dispute, problem, or complaint arising from Company-Union or Company-Worker relations shall be considered a grievance. The Court held this to be general and subordinate to the specific provision on disciplinary actions.
• Section 13, Article XIV, CBA — The specific provision stating that disciplinary actions imposed on employees shall be governed by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Company. The Court held this to be the controlling provision on employee discipline.
• Articles 5.1 and 4.4, VECO Company Code of Discipline — Require employees to uphold company trust and confidence and to respect the honor or person of immediate superiors, department heads, or company officers. The Court found Mahilum violated these provisions through the disparaging press release.

Peralta, Bersamin, Perez, and Leonen concurred in the decision.