TOPIC: Employer’s Right to Discipline

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs Teng

G.R. No. 187122

FACTS:

Respondent Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who played for Negros Slashers. On
Game Number 4 of the MBA Championship Round for the year 2000 season, Teng had a
below-par playing performance. Because of this, the coaching staff decided to pull him out of
the game. Teng then sat on the bench, untied his shoelaces and donned his practice jersey. On
the following game, Game Number 5 of the Championship Round, Teng called-in sick and did
not play.

On November 21, 2000, Vicente Tan, Finance Head of Negros Slashers, wrote[9] Teng requiring
him to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his
precipitated absence during the crucial Game 5. The hearing, however, did not push through
because Teng was absent on the said scheduled investigation. Hearing was rescheduled
for December 11, 2000. On said date, the investigation proceeded, attended by Tengs
representatives, Atty. Arsenio Yulo and Atty. Jose Aspiras.[10] A subsequent meeting was also
conducted attended by the management, coaching staff and players of the Negros Slashers
team, wherein the team members and coaching staff unanimously expressed their sentiments
against Teng and their opposition against the possibility of Teng joining back the team.[11]

On March 16, 2001, the management of Negros Slashers came up with a decision, and through
its General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Alvarez, wrote[12] Teng informing him of his termination
from the team.

Teng filed a complaint before the Office of the Commissioner and subsequently filed an illegal
dismissal case with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI of the NLRC.[13]On July 16, 2002, the
Labor Arbiter issued a decision finding Teng’s dismissal illegal. The case was then appealed to
the NLRC. Upon appeal to the CA, it reinstated the findings of the Labor Arbiter that Teng was
illegally dismissed because the grounds relied upon by petitioners were not enough to merit the
supreme penalty of dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Teng was illegally dismissed.

DECISION:
Teng was illegally dismissed. There is no showing of any bad faith or ill motive on his part that
would qualify his actions as serious, severe and grave as to warrant termination from service.

As an employee of the Negros Slashers, Teng was expected to report for work
regularly. Missing a team game is indeed a punishable offense. Untying of shoelaces when the
game is not yet finished is also irresponsible and unprofessional. However, the Court agrees
with the Labor Arbiter that such isolated foolishness of an employee does not justify the extreme
penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioners could have opted to impose a fine or suspension
on Teng for his unacceptable conduct. Other forms of disciplinary action could also have been
taken after the incident to impart on the team that such misconduct will not be tolerated.

In Sagales v. Rustans Commercial Corporation,[29] this Court ruled:

Truly, while the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of
dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject to the regulation by the State
in the exercise of its police power.

In this regard, it is a hornbook doctrine that infractions committed by an

employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the
circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and must be imposed in connection
with the disciplinary authority of the employer. (Emphasis in the original.)

In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by the petitioners was the ultimate penalty of
dismissal. There was no warning or admonition for respondent’s violation of team rules, only
outright termination of his services for an act which could have been punished appropriately with
a severe reprimand or suspension.
NEGROS SLASHERS, INC., G.R. No. 187122
RODOLFO C. ALVAREZ AND Present:
VICENTE TAN,
Petitioners, CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

ALVIN L. TENG, Promulgated:

Respondent.
February 22, 2012
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the

Decision[1] dated September 17, 2008and Resolution[2] dated February 11 2009 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00817. The appellate court had
reversed and set aside the September 10, 2004 Decision[3] and March 21, 2005
Resolution[4] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated
with modification the Decision[5] of the Labor Arbiter finding respondent to have
been illegally dismissed.

The facts are undisputed.

Respondent Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who started his

career as such in the Philippine Basketball Association and then later on played in
the Metropolitan Basketball Association (MBA).

On February 4, 1999, Teng signed a 3-year contract[6] (which included a side

contract and agreement for additional benefits and bonuses) with the Laguna
Lakers. Before the expiration of his contract with the Laguna Lakers on
December 31, 2001, the Lakers traded and/or transferred Teng to petitioner Negros
Slashers, with the latter assuming the obligations of Laguna Lakers under Tengs
unexpired contract, including the monthly salary of P250,000, P50,000 of which
remained to be the obligation of the Laguna Lakers. On March 28, 2000, the
management of the Laguna Lakers formally informed Teng of his transfer to the
Negros Slashers.[7] Teng executed with the Negros Slashers the Players Contract of
Employment.[8]

On Game Number 4 of the MBA Championship Round for the year 2000
season, Teng had a below-par playing performance. Because of this, the coaching
staff decided to pull him out of the game.Teng then sat on the bench, untied his
shoelaces and donned his practice jersey. On the following game, Game Number 5
of the Championship Round, Teng called-in sick and did not play.

On November 21, 2000, Vicente Tan, Finance Head of Negros Slashers,

[9]
wrote Teng requiring him to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him for his precipitated absence during the crucial Game 5 of the
National Championship Round. He was further informed that a formal
investigation would be conducted on November 28, 2000. The hearing, however,
did not push through because Teng was absent on the said scheduled
investigation. Hearing was rescheduled for December 11, 2000. On said date, the
investigation proceeded, attended by Tengs representatives, Atty. Arsenio Yulo
and Atty. Jose Aspiras.[10] A subsequent meeting was also conducted attended by
the management, coaching staff and players of the Negros Slashers team, wherein
the team members and coaching staff unanimously expressed their sentiments
against Teng and their opposition against the possibility of Teng joining back the
team.[11]

On March 16, 2001, the management of Negros Slashers came up with a

decision, and through its General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Alvarez,
wrote[12] Teng informing him of his termination from the team.

On July 28, 2001, Teng filed a complaint before the Office of the
Commissioner of the MBA pursuant to the provision of the Uniform Players
Contract which the parties had executed. Subsequently, on November 6, 2001,
Teng also filed an illegal dismissal case with the Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VI of the NLRC.[13]
 On July 16, 2002, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision finding Tengs
dismissal illegal and ordering petitioner Negros Slashers, Inc. to pay
Teng P2,530,000 representing his unpaid salaries, separation pay and attorneys
fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the penalty of dismissal was not justified since
the grounds relied upon by petitioners did not constitute serious misconduct or
willful disobedience or insubordination that would call for the extreme penalty of
dismissal from service. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiters decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the dismissal of complainant illegal and respondents Negros
Slashers, Inc. are hereby ordered to PAY complainant the total sum
of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND
(P2,530,000.00) PESOS representing complainants unpaid salaries,
separation pay and attorneys fee, the award to be deposited with this
Office within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.

All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[14]

The case was then appealed to the NLRC. On September 10, 2004, the
NLRC issued a Decision setting aside the July 16, 2002 Decision of the Labor
Arbiter and entering a new one dismissing the complaint for being premature since
the arbitration proceedings before the Commissioner of the MBA were still
pending when Teng filed his complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispositive
portion of the NLRC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
Executive Labor Arbiter a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
A new one is entered, dismissing the instant case for being premature.

SO ORDERED.[15]

Teng filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied for being filed
beyond the ten-day reglementary period provided for in Section 15,[16] Rule VII of
the NLRC Rules of Procedure.
 Aggrieved, Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the
NLRC Decision dated September 10, 2004 and the Resolution dated March 21,
2005 denying his motion for reconsideration.

On September 17, 2008 the CA rendered the assailed Decision setting aside
the September 10, 2004 Decision and March 21, 2005 Resolution of the NLRC and
reinstating with modification the Labor Arbiters Decision.

The CA reinstated the findings of the Labor Arbiter that Teng was illegally
dismissed because the grounds relied upon by petitioners were not enough to merit
the supreme penalty of dismissal. The CA held that there was no serious
misconduct or willful disobedience or insubordination on Tengs part. On the issue
of jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case
notwithstanding the pendency of arbitration proceedings in the Office of the
Commissioner of the MBA.

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the above ruling, but their motion was
denied by the CA in a Resolution[17] dated February 11, 2009.

Petitioners now come to this Court assailing the Decision dated September
17, 2008 and Resolution dated February 11, 2009 of the CA.

Firstly, petitioners argue that respondent Teng and his counsel committed a
blatant violation of the rule against forum shopping. Petitioners aver that on July
28, 2001, Teng filed a complaint before the MBA pursuant to the voluntary
arbitration provision of the Uniform Players Contract he executed with Negros
Slashers, Inc. During the pendency of said complaint, Teng filed another complaint
for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. It is petitioners position that Teng lied
by certifying under oath that there is no similar case pending between him and
Negros Slashers, Inc., when in fact, months before he had filed a complaint with
the MBA alleging the same factual antecedents and raising the same issues.

Secondly, petitioners argue that the CA erred in ruling that Tengs offenses
were just minor lapses and irresponsible action not warranting the harsh penalty of
dismissal. Petitioners allege that the CA paid scant attention to two very important
pieces of evidence which would clearly show the gravity and seriousness of the
offenses committed by Teng. Petitioners claim that these two documents, i.e., the
minutes of the meeting[18] of players, management, and coordinating staff, and a
petition[19] by the players to the management not to allow Teng to come back to the
team, would show that Teng should not have been treated as an ordinary working
man who merely absented himself by feigning sickness when called upon to
work. Petitioners argue that the nature of the work and team atmosphere should
have been considered and given credence. By neglecting these two documents, the
CA failed to appreciate the gravity of the misconduct committed by Teng and the
effects it had on the basketball organization.

Petitioners also argue that respondents petition for certiorari with the CA
should have been dismissed outright because it was filed beyond the reglementary
period. Petitioners point out that Teng received the NLRC Decision on October 15,
2004 and therefore had ten days[20] or until October 25, 2004 within which to file a
motion for reconsideration. But he filed his motion for reconsideration only
on October 26, 2004 and said motion was denied[21] on March 21, 2005 for being
filed late. Thereafter he filed his petition for certiorari[22] with the CA on June 20,
2005. Petitioners contend that the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the period
allowed by the Rules of Court because the 60-day period to file the petition for
certiorari should have started to run from the receipt of the NLRC decision
on October 15, 2004. And it should have expired on December 14, 2004 because it
was as if no motion for reconsideration was filed in the NLRC. Further, petitioners
argue that the CA could not take cognizance of the case because it is a settled rule
that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed before the NLRC to allow it an opportunity to correct
its errors. In this case, since the motion for reconsideration was filed late, it should
have been treated as if no motion for reconsideration was filed.

Teng, on the other hand, maintains that there is no violation of the rule
against forum shopping. He submits that he indeed filed his complaint before the
MBA as early as July 28, 2001. Unfortunately, for more than three months, the
supposed voluntary arbitration failed to yield any result until the MBA itself was
dissolved. It was only on November 2001, after exhausting the arbitration process,
did he file his complaint before the Labor Arbiter. In other words, it was only after
the MBA failed to come up with a resolution on the matter did he opt to seek legal
redress elsewhere.
 On the merits, Teng relies on the reasoning of the Labor Arbiter in finding
that his alleged lapses and misconduct were too minor to justify the extreme
penalty of dismissal from service. In large part, he quotes the Labor Arbiters
decision, and emphasizes the Labor Arbiters statements that (1) loosening of the
shoe laces and the donning of the practice jersey are not indicative of serious
misconduct that would justify dismissal from employment; (2) it cannot be
concluded that he merely feigned sickness when he informed the Coach of his
inability to play during Game No. 5; and (3) there is no showing of any bad faith or
ill motive on his part that would qualify his actions as serious, severe and grave as
to warrant termination from service.

Teng also argues that the CA aptly clarified and explained the legal reason
why the petition for certiorari was given due course despite some procedural lapses
regarding the motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. Teng stresses that
jurisprudence allows the relaxation of procedural rules even of the most mandatory
character in the interest of substantial justice. In this particular case, justice and
equity calls for the relaxation of the reglementary period for filing a motion for
reconsideration as well as the rule prohibiting the filing of a petition for certiorari
without first filing a motion for reconsideration.

Simply put, the basic issues for our resolution are as follows: (1) whether the
CA erred in giving due course to respondent Tengs petition for certiorari despite its
late filing; (2) whether Teng violated the rule on forum shopping when he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC
while a similar complaint was pending in the Office of the Commissioner of the
MBA; and (3) whether the CA erred in ruling that Tengs dismissal from the
Negros Slashers Team was unjustified and too harsh considering his misconduct.

The petition is bereft of merit.

On the first issue raised by petitioners, we rule that the CA did not commit a
reversible error in giving due course to Tengs petition for certiorari although said
petition was filed late. Ordinarily, rules of procedure are strictly enforced by courts
in order to impart stability in the legal system. However, in not a few instances, we
relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the
time honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all the parties
the chance to argue their causes and defenses. In that way, the ends of justice
would be better served. For indeed, the general objective of procedure is to
facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing
always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of
justice.[23] In OngLim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation, [24] we
ruled:
Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most
mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to
speedily put an end to litigation and the parties right to due process. In
numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules
when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.
xxx

Indeed the prevailing trend is to accord party litigants the amplest

opportunity for the proper and just determination of their causes, free from the
constraints of needless technicalities.

Here, besides the fact that a denial of the recourse to the CA would serve
more to perpetuate an injustice and violation of Tengs rights under our labor laws,
we find that as correctly held by the CA, no intent to delay the administration of
justice could be attributed to Teng. The CA therefore did not commit reversible
error in excusing Tengs one-day delay in filing his motion for reconsideration and
in giving due course to his petition for certiorari.

As regards the second issue, we likewise find no merit in petitioners claim

that respondents act of filing a complaint with the Labor Arbiter while the same
case was pending with the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA constituted
forum shopping.

For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a) there be identity of

parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
there be identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any
judgment rendered in one action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other action.[25]

Petitioners are correct as to the first two requisites of forum shopping. First,
there is identity of parties involved: Negros Slashers Inc. and respondent
Teng. Second, there is identity of rights asserted i.e., the right of management to
terminate employment and the right of an employee against illegal
termination. However, the third requisite of forum shopping is missing in this
case. Any judgment or ruling of the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA
will not amount to res judicata. As defined in Agustin v. Delos Santos,[26]
Res Judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted
upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. According to
the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions
or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of
concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first
suit. To state simply, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the
former suit. (Emphasis supplied.)

To clarify, res judicata is defined in jurisprudence as to have four basic

elements: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the
decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the
merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[27]

Here, although contractually authorized to settle disputes, the Office of the

Commissioner of the MBA is not a court of competent jurisdiction as contemplated
by law with respect to the application of the doctrine of res judicata. At best, the
Office of the Commissioner of the MBA is a private mediator or go-between as
agreed upon by team management and a player in the MBA Players Contract of
Employment.[28] Any judgment that the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA
may render will not result in a bar for seeking redress in other legal venues. Hence,
respondents action of filing the same complaint in the Regional Arbitration Branch
of the NLRC does not constitute forum shopping.

On the third issue, we find that the penalty of dismissal handed out against
Teng was indeed too harsh.

We understand petitioners in asserting that a basketball organization is a

team-based enterprise and that a harmonious working relationship among team
players is essential to the success of the organization. We also take into account the
petition of the other team members voicing out their desire to continue with the
team without Teng. We note likewise the sentiments of the players and coaching
staff during the meeting of February 4, 2001 stating how they felt when Teng
abandoned them during a crucial Game Number 5 in the MBA championship
round.

Petitioners rely heavily on the alleged effects of Tengs actions on the rest of
the team. However, such reaction from team members is expected after losing a
game, especially a championship game. It is also not unlikely that the team members
looked for someone to blame after they lost the championship games and that Teng
happened to be the closest target of the teams frustration and disappointment. But all
these sentiments and emotions from Negros Slashers players and staff must not blur
the eyes of the Court from objectively assessing Tengs infraction in order to
determine whether the same constitutes just ground for dismissal. The incident in
question should be clear: Teng had a below-par performance during Game Number
4 for which he was pulled out from the game, and then he untied his shoelaces and
donned his practice jersey. In Game Number 5, he did not play.

As an employee of the Negros Slashers, Teng was expected to report for

work regularly. Missing a team game is indeed a punishable offense. Untying of
shoelaces when the game is not yet finished is also irresponsible and
unprofessional. However, we agree with the Labor Arbiter that such isolated
foolishness of an employee does not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from
service. Petitioners could have opted to impose a fine or suspension on Teng for
his unacceptable conduct. Other forms of disciplinary action could also have been
taken after the incident to impart on the team that such misconduct will not be
tolerated.
 In Sagales v. Rustans Commercial Corporation,[29] this Court ruled:
Truly, while the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including
that of dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject to the
regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.

In this regard, it is a hornbook doctrine that infractions committed by

an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded
by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the
act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee and must be
imposed in connection with the disciplinary authority of the
employer. (Emphasis in the original.)

In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by the petitioners was the ultimate
penalty of dismissal. There was no warning or admonition for respondents
violation of team rules, only outright termination of his services for an act which
could have been punished appropriately with a severe reprimand or suspension.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of

merit and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 17, 2008 and
Resolution dated February 11, 2009, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00817 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
 RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P.

Associate Justice BERSAMINAssociate
Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Negros Slashers, Inc., et al. v. Alvin L. Teng [G.R.
No. 187122]
February 22, 2012
Facts:
Respondent Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who started his career as such in the
Philippine Basketball Association and then later on played in the Metropolitan Basketball Association
(MBA).

Some time in one of his games, particularly Game Number 4 of the MBA Championship Round for the
year 2000 season, Teng had a below-par playing performance. Because of this, the coaching staff
decided to pull him out of the game. Teng then sat on the bench, untied his shoelaces and donned his
practice jersey. On the following game, Game Number 5 of the Championship Round, Teng called-in sick
and did not play.

On March 16, 2001, because of what happened, the management of Negros Slashers came up with a
decision, and through its General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Alvarez, wrote Teng informing him of his
termination from the team.

Issue:
Whether or not Teng’s dismissal from the Negros Slashers Team was unjustified and too harsh
considering his misconduct.

Ruling:
YES.

As ruled in Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial Corporation, while the employer has the inherent right to
discipline, including that of dismissing its employees, this prerogative is subject to the regulation by the
State in the exercise of its police power.
In this regard, it is a hornbook doctrine that infractions committed by an employee should merit only the
corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act,
conduct or omission imputed to the employee and must be imposed in connection with the disciplinary
authority of the employer.

In the case at bar, the penalty handed out by the petitioners was the ultimate penalty of dismissal. There
was no warning or admonition for respondent’s violation of team rules, only outright termination of his
services for an act which could have been punished appropriately with a severe reprimand or suspension.

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. TengG.R. No. 187122.

February 22, 2012.NATUR !

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
FA"TS!
Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who started his career as
such inthe Philippine Basketball
Association and then later on played in the etropolitanBasketball Association
! BA"#Teng signed a $%year contract with &aguna &akers# Before the e'piration of
hiscontract the &akers traded and(or transferred Teng to petitioner Negros )lashers#*uring the BA
Cha+pionship ,ound for the year -... season/ Teng e'hibitedthe following behaviors0
•
On ga+e nu+ber 1/ Teng had a below%par playing perfor+ance#Because of
this/ the coaching staff decided to pull hi+ out of thega+e# 2e then sat on the
bench/ untied his shoelaces and donnedhis practice 3ersey#
•
On 4a+e Nu+ber 5 % Teng called%in sick and did not play#Teng wasre6uired to e'plain writing why
no disciplinary action should be takenagainst hi+ for his precipitated absence during the crucial 4a+e
5#2e was also infor+ed that for+al investigation would be conducted which
hefailed to attend# The investigation proceeded at a later date#The +anage+ent of Negros
)lashers ca+e up with a decision/ and through
its4eneral anager/ petitioner ,odolfo Alvare7/ wrote
8-
T e n g i n f o r + i n g h i + o f h i s ter+ination fro+ the
tea+T e n g f i l e d a c o + p l a i n t b e f o r e t h e O f f i c e o f t h e C o + + i s s i o n e r o f t h
e BApursuant to the provision of the 9nifor+ Players Contract whic
h t h e p a r t i e s h a d e'ecuted#