SECOND DIVISION immediately comply with the instruction.

After two repeated

directives, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737526 in the
[G.R. No. 171189. March 9, 2011.] amount of P150,000.00. Later, Sumulong again directed Pacia to
prepare Check Voucher No. 16478 in the amount of P175,000.00 to
settle the balance of LREI's outstanding indebtedness with BPI-FB.
LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., LORENZO Y. Pacia once again was slow in obeying the order. Due to the
SUMULONG III , petitioners, vs. VIRGINIA E. PACIA, insistence of Sumulong, however, Pacia eventually prepared Check
respondent. No. 0000737527 in the amount of P175,000.00.
To explain her refusal to immediately follow the directive,
Pacia reasoned out that the funds in LREI's account were not su
DECISION
cient to cover the amounts to be indicated in the checks.
The next day, October 29, 1998, Sumulong issued a
MENDOZA, J : p
memorandum 3 ordering Pacia to explain in writing why she
refused to follow a clear and lawful directive.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of On the same day, Pacia replied in writing and explained that
the Rules of Court led by petitioners Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. her initial refusal to prepare the checks was due to the
(LREI) and Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III unavailability of funds to cover the amounts and that she only
(Sumulong) seeking to reverse and set aside the November 25, wanted to protect LREI from liability under the Bouncing Checks
2005 Decision 1 of the Law. 4
Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 59975, which a
On November 6, 1998, Pacia received a notice of
Decision 2 of the
termination 5 stating, among others, that she was being dismissed
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC NCR because of her wilful disobedience and their loss of trust and
CA No. 019221-99 (RAB-IV10-10492-98-RI). TEDAHI
confidence in her.
The Facts Pacia then led a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice due to
In 1982, respondent Virginia E. Pacia (Pacia) was hired by Harassment, Constructive Dismissal, Moral and Exemplary
LREI. At the time of her dismissal, she was the assistant manager Damages 6 against LREI and Sumulong. Subsequently, Pacia led an
and o cer-in-charge of LREI's Accounting Department under the Amended Complaint 7 to include the charges of illegal dismissal
Finance Administrative Division. and non-payment of salaries.
On October 28, 1998, LREI's acting general manager, On March 11, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a
petitioner Sumulong, through Ms. Julie Ontal, directed Pacia to decision 8 nding that the dismissal of Pacia was for a just and valid
prepare Check Voucher No. 16477 worth P150,000.00 as partial cause but ordering payment of what was due her. The dispositive
payment for LREI's outstanding obligation to the Bank of the portion of the decision reads:
Philippine Islands-Family Bank (BPI-FB). Pacia did not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is xxx xxx xxx
hereby rendered, as follows:
The above evidence clearly reveal[s] that there
1. Ordering respondent corporation to pay were no su cient funds to cover the check which the
complainant her: acting Manager directed complainant to prepare.
However, complainant nevertheless prepared Check Nos.
a. unpaid salary P12,550.00
737527 and 737526 on 28 October 1998 and also
b. proportionate 13th month pay corrected Check Vouchers Nos. 16477 and 16478 on 28
20,916.66 October 1998.
—————
Total P33,466.66 We take note and give due merit to complainant's
========= explanation in her reluctance to issue checks against insu
cient funds which was to protect the company and its
2. Dismissing the complaint for signatories from liabilities resulting from issuance of
constructive/illegal dismissal, unfair labor bounced checks. Complainant's initial refusal was good
practice, and claim for payment of intentioned. Respondents also insist that complainant
damages and attorney's fees for lack of refused to follow a lawful directive of her superior o cer
merit.DTIaHE
to make some corrections on the vouchers. However, we
cannot see how an order to prepare a check at the time
SO ORDERED. when there was no su cient fund to cover the same can be
classified as a lawful directive of the acting Manager.
On appeal, the NLRC in its March 31, 2000 Decision 9
reversed the LA's Decision and found LREI and Sumulong guilty xxx xxx xxx
of illegal dismissal. Pertinent portions of the NLRC decision
including the decretal portion read: Considering that complainant was illegally
dismissed, the law provides that her reinstatement with
A careful perusal of the records reveal[s] that payment of full backwages would be in order.
complainant's actuation herein cannot in any manner be
construed as an act of insubordination. Neither can we However, mindful of the animosity and strained relations
classify it as an example of wilful disobedience by the between parties emanating from this litigation we declare
employee of the lawful order of her employer in that in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay may be given
connection with her work. to complainant, at the rate of one (1) month pay for every
year of service.
Records show that Check No. 0000737527 in the
amount of P175,000.000 bounced as shown by the WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 11 March
Return Checks Advice issued by the BPI Family Bank on 1999 is MODIFIED. Respondent Lores Realty Ent., Inc.
3 November 1998. is held liable for illegally dismissing complainant and is

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 directed to pay her, in addition to her unpaid salary and The CA held that LREI and Sumulong failed to establish
proportionate 13th month pay for the year 1998, the with substantial evidence that the dismissal of Pacia was for a just
following: aSECAD cause. It found that Pacia's initial reluctance to obey the orders of
1. Backwages her superiors was for a good reason — to shield the company from
(6 November 1998 to 15 March 2000) liability in the event that the checks would be dishonored for insu
Basic Pay P25,100.00 x 16.3 mos. = ciency of funds.
P409,130.00
13th Month Pay P409,130.00/12 = Hence, the petition.
–––––––––––
P443,224.17 THE ISSUES
2. Separation Pay (one month for every 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT
year of service) (18 years) PETITION FOR REVIEW RAISES
P25,100 x 18 = P451,800.00 QUESTIONS OF LAW.
–––––––––––
P895,024.17 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN
==========
AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE NLRC
The other findings are AFFIRMED.
THAT THE ESTABLISHED
SO ORDERED. 10
FACTS JUSTIFY RESPONDENT'S
Dissatis ed, LREI and Sumulong elevated the case to the CA TERMINATION FROM
by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of EMPLOYMENT. STaHICSTaHIC

Court asserting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE AWARD OF
in reversing the LA's nding that Pacia was guilty of wilful
BACKWAGES MUST BE COMPUTED
disobedience of a lawful order of her employer in connection with
FROM THE TIME OF DISMISSAL UNTIL
her work.
FINALITY OF
On November 25, 2005, the CA found no merit in the THE DECISION ESTABLISHING HER
petition and dismissed it. 11 Thus: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. 12
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. In essence, the main issue to be resolved is whether Pacia's
Public respondent's Decision dated 31 March 2000 and dismissal was justified under the circumstances.
the Resolution dated 15 May 2000 in NLRC-RAB IV-
1010492-98-RI, CA NO. 019221-99, are AFFIRMED. The Court finds no merit in the petition.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the issues raised in
SO ORDERED. this petition are questions of fact which are not proper subjects of
an appeal by certiorari. Well-settled is the rule that under Rule 45
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before (a) Serious misconduct or willful
this Court. 13 A disharmony between the factual ndings of the LA disobedience by the employee of the
and the NLRC, however, opens the door to a review by this Court. lawful orders of his employer or
Factual ndings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will representative in connection with his
be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when work;
the ndings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA, this Court, in
the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the
the case and re-examine the questioned findings. 14 employee of his duties;

LREI and Sumulong argue that Pacia's refusal to obey the (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee
directives of Sumulong was a "manifest intent not to perform the of the trust reposed in him by his
function she was engaged to discharge." 15 They are of the position employer or duly authorized
that Pacia's claim of "good intentions" in refusing to prepare the representative;
ICHcTD

checks was a mere afterthought. They stress that the instruction to

prepare a check despite the absence of su cient funds to cover the (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
same was, nevertheless, a lawful order. employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of
On the other hand, Pacia counters that her initial reluctance his family or his duly authorized
to prepare the checks, which she knew were not su ciently funded, representative; and
cannot "be characterized as 'wrongful or perverse attitude.'" 16 In
her view, the directive to prepare the checks at the time it was not (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
su ciently funded was not a lawful order contemplated in Article [Emphasis supplied]
282 of the Labor Code. It was an unlawful directive because it
asked for the preparation of a check despite the fact that the account The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence
had no su cient funds to cover the same. She further explained that of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have
she did not comply with the directive in order to protect Sumulong been willful, that is characterized by a wrongful and perverse
and LREI from any liability in the event that the checks would be attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable,
dishonored upon presentment for payment for insufficiency of lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties
funds. which he had been engaged to discharge. 17
Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for Let it be noted at this point that the Court nds nothing
which an employer may terminate the services of an employee, to unlawful in the directive of Sumulong to prepare checks in payment
wit: of LREI's obligations. The availability or unavailability of su cient
funds to cover the check is immaterial in the physical preparation
ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. — An of the checks.
employer may terminate an employment for any of the
Pacia's initial reluctance to prepare the checks, however,
following causes:
which was seemingly an act of disrespect and de ance, was for

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and 1.Rollo, pp. 32-42. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-
Sumulong from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law 18 was Zenarosa concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes
foremost in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) and Associate
be considered an obstinate de ance of company authority. The Justice Rosmari D. Carandang.
Court takes into consideration that Pacia, despite her initial
reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she 2.Id. at 52-59. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier
was tasked to do it. with Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo and Commissioner Tito
E. Genilo, concurring.
The Court also nds it di cult to subscribe to LREI and
Sumulong's contention that the reason for Pacia's initial reluctance 3.Id. at 74.
to prepare the checks was a mere afterthought considering that
"check no. 0000737527 under one of the check vouchers she 4.Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
reluctantly prepared, bounced when it was deposited." 19 Pacia's 5.Rollo, p. 75.
apprehension was justi ed when the check was dishonored. This
clearly a rms her assertion that she was just being cautious and 6.Id. at 49.
circumspect for the company's sake. Thus, her actuation should not
be construed as improper conduct. 7.Id. at 50.
In nding for Pacia, the Court is guided by the time-honored 8.Id. at 60-65.
principle that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in 9.Id. at 52-59.
favor of the latter. The rule in controversies between a laborer and 10.Citations omitted.
his master distinctly states that doubts reasonably arising from the
evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing, should 11.Rollo, pp. 32-42.
be resolved in the former's favor. 20 cTIESD

12.Id. at 159.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
13.Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No.
SO ORDERED. 188637, December 15, 2010.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., * Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur. 14.Diamond Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 452,
458 (2003).
15.Rollo, p. 170.
Footnotes
16.Id. at 145.
*Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 933 dated January
24, 2011.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 17.Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Marbella, G.R. No. 149074, August 10,
2006, 498 SCRA 389, 395, citing Bascon v. Court of Appeals,
466 Phil. 719, 730 (2004), citing Dimabayao v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 363 Phil. 279, 284
(1999).
18.Supra note 4.
19.Rollo, pp. 41 and 56.
20.E.G. & I Corporation v. Sato, G.R. No. 182070, February
16, 2011.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com