RAMON MANUEL JAVINES, petitioner vs. XILBRIS a.k.a. AUTHOR SOLUTIONS, INC.

,
JOSEPH STEINBACH, and STELLA MARSOUANO, respondents
G.R. No. 214301, June 7, 2017
Tijam, J.

Facts:
Javines was hired by respondent Xilbris as Operations Manager. Approximately ten months after,
he was terminated for falsifying/ tampering three meal receipts. It was discovered when Javines
submitted the receipts for reimbursement to the finance department. Consequently, an incident
report was filed by the Finance Officer, and Javines was served a Notice to Explain for violation
of the Employee’s Code of Conduct. The said notice contained the three allegedly tampered meal
receipts:
a. Franckfort Inc, (KFC) from Php 540.00 to Php 5,540.00
b. Mcdonald’s from Php 107.00 to Php 2,207.00
c. Mcdonald’s from Php 164.00 to Php 3,164.00
In his explanation, Javines denied having tampered with the receipts. He explained that as
operations manager, he is responsible for securing reimbursements for expenses incurred by the
supervisors under him. further it is the supervisors under him who tampered with it because they
were the ones who submit the receipts to him, and he only prepares the reimbursement request
afterwards. Then, once the reimbursement is made, he distributes the cash to the supervisor
concerned.
An administrative hearing was held, where Javines was allowed to explain. But he failed to explain
why and how the incident transpired, and requested for further re-investigation as he could not
anymore recall which supervisor handed him the said tampered receipts.
Notices to explain were also sent to the supervisors under Javines, but all of them denied
participation to the said act.
On July 27, 2012, Xilbris terminated Javines’ employment.
As such, Javines filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. This was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter
who found that Javines was dismissed for a just cause and was done with due process.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision finding that he was not
afforded due process. In particular, Javines was not allowed to rebut the evidence offered by the
supervisors as no other hearing was conducted afterwards. The NLRC then awarded Php 10,000.00
nominal damages to Javines.
Javines failed to move for reconsideration of the NLRC ruling, and only Xilbris elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals. The CA found that Javines indeed was not given an opportunity to rebut
the additional pieces of evidence found by Xilbris. However, the Court of Appeals reduced the
award of nominal damages to Php 1,000.00 because the discrepancy in the meal receipts amounted
to Php 10,010.00.
Javines moved for reconsideration of the ruling of the Court of Appeals but was denied. Hence the
appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
WON Javines can still file an appeal of the CA ruling considering that it was Xilbris who elevated
the case to the said court.
WON Javines was indeed dismissed for a just cause.
Held:
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC uniformly held that Javines’ employment was terminated for a
just cause. It is undisputed that from the finding, Javines failed to move for reconsideration, nor
challenged the said ruling before the CA. Consequently, the NLRC decision finding Javines to
have been dismissed for just cause became final. The resolution of that issue has been placed
outside the power of review of the CA. Settled are the rules that a decision becomes final as against
a party who does not appeal the same, and an appellee who has not himself appeal cannot obtain
from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court
below.
The CA cannot be faulted for no longer discussing the issue of whether there exists a just cause
for his dismissal because in the petition filed by Xilbris to the CA, it only questioned the award of
nominal damages for failure to comply with procedural due process. The issue as to whether the
requirements of procedural due process to constitute a valid dismissal were complied with has
been resolved with finality.
Wherefore the petition is denied.