Title
Acebedo Optical vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 150171
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2007
Employee dismissed for tardiness and absenteeism; SC ruled dismissal illegal due to lack of evidence, due process violation, and past infractions already penalized.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 150171)

Facts:

  1. Employment and Initial Warnings

    • Melencia Asegurado was hired by Acebedo Optical as a packaging clerk on 16 August 1991, initially on a probationary basis. She was regularized on 1 March 1992.
    • On 7 September 1991, she received a written warning for being 1 hour and 34 minutes late in August 1991.
    • On 15 October 1992, she received another warning for habitual tardiness, though no specific tardiness record was provided.
  2. Suspensions for Tardiness

    • On 22 April 1994, she was suspended for three days for being tardy 26 times from January to March 1994, exceeding the company’s limit of four tardies per month.
    • On 28 February 1995, she was suspended for seven days for 21 counts of tardiness from an unspecified period in 1994.
    • On 29 August 1995, she was suspended for 13 days for 17 counts of tardiness from April to June 1995.
  3. Leave of Absence and Termination

    • On 22 May 1995, Asegurado applied for an indefinite leave of absence, which was denied on 26 May 1995. She was warned that failure to return to work by 1 June 1995 would result in termination.
    • On 12 November 1996, she did not report to work due to the demolition of her rented home. On 2 December 1996, she was absent again due to her child’s hospitalization.
    • On 8 December 1996, she was issued a Notice of Termination for excessive tardiness and absenteeism, citing 43 tardies from July to September 1996 and 17 from October to November 1996.
  4. Legal Proceedings

    • Asegurado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on 22 January 1997.
    • The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement, full backwages, and other benefits. The NLRC and Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Burden of Proof on Employer

    • The employer bears the burden of proving that dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence, such as the company’s tardiness policy or Daily Time Records (DTRs), to substantiate their claims.
  2. Past Infractions Cannot Justify Dismissal

    • Asegurado’s tardiness and absenteeism were past infractions for which she had already been penalized. These could not be collectively used as grounds for dismissal.
  3. Gross and Habitual Neglect Not Proven

    • Gross negligence requires a want of even slight care or diligence. The evidence did not show that Asegurado’s tardiness and absenteeism amounted to gross negligence.
  4. Due Process Violation

    • Asegurado was not given the opportunity to defend herself before her termination. The two-notice rule under the Labor Code was not followed.
  5. Policy Favoring Labor

    • Doubts in labor cases are resolved in favor of the employee. The employer must affirmatively show adequate evidence to justify dismissal, which petitioners failed to do.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts, emphasizing the employer’s failure to prove just cause for dismissal and the violation of due process. The dismissal was deemed illegal, and Asegurado was entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.