Facts:

The case involves a petition filed by Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. (the petitioner) against A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. and Augusto Tycangco (the respondents) regarding his dismissal from employment. Petitioner was employed by A & L since October 2013, with a daily wage of Php 318.00, working as an all-around harvester based in Barangay Sampaloc, Apalit, Pampanga. On January 5, 2017, petitioner requested a leave from work to address a family emergency, specifically from January 6 to January 16, 2017. He claimed that this leave was verbally approved by his immediate supervisor, Manuel Cruzada, who promised to relay the approval to higher management. Petitioner left for Naga, but upon his return on January 25, 2017, he received a letter from A & L requiring him to explain his absences without official leave. Subsequently, he was placed under preventive suspension from January 25 to 29, 2017. When he did not respond with an explanation, a formal termination notice was i

...

Facts:

Employment and Background

• Petitioner, Jerry E. Almogera, Jr., was hired in October 2013 by respondent A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. as an all-around harvester earning a daily wage of P318.00.
• A & L is engaged in breeding, production, and distribution of aquatic products and is located in Barangay Sampaloc, Apalit, Pampanga.
• Respondent Augusto Tycangco is identified as the owner and proprietor of A & L.

Leave Request and Absences

• On January 5, 2017, petitioner reportedly sought permission from his immediate supervisor, Manuel Cruzada, for an 11-day leave (January 6–16, 2017) due to a family emergency in Naga.
• Petitioner asserted that Cruzada verbally approved the leave request and promised to relay the approval to higher management.
• Subsequently, petitioner departed for Naga without filing the required written leave application as mandated by company policy.

Notice and Suspension

• Upon reporting back for work on January 25, 2017, petitioner received a letter from A & L demanding an explanation for his unauthorized absences, citing a violation of the company’s Code of Discipline.
• On the same day, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension from January 25 to 29, 2017, and the letter required him to respond within five days.
• Petitioner chose not to submit any explanation for his prolonged absence.

Termination and Initial Proceedings

• On January 30, 2017, petitioner was formally notified of his dismissal for violation of the company’s Code of Discipline, particularly for being absent without official leave (AWOL).
• Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging illegal dismissal and non-payment of various monetary benefits (wages, overtime, holiday pay, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, separation pay), as well as claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
• Respondents contended that petitioner’s dismissal was valid as they had observed substantive and procedural due process, emphasizing that petitioner failed to provide any required explanation.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions

• The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a decision on August 24, 2017, ruling in favor of the petitioner by finding his dismissal illegal due to procedural lapses (failure to prove that the Code of Discipline or its contents were furnished to petitioner) and ordering monetary awards for backwages, separation pay, and service incentive leave pay.
• Respondents appealed the LA’s decision, prompting the NLRC, in its December 29, 2017 ruling, to reverse and set aside most of the LA’s findings—except for the award of service incentive leave pay—by holding that petitioner was validly dismissed for AWOL after failing to comply with the company’s leave procedures.
• The NLRC ruled that petitioner’s inaction (failure to file the necessary Vacation Leave Form and to explain his absences) justified his termination as a case of willful disobedience.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings and Petition for Certiorari

• In its November 12, 2018 decision, the CA upheld the NLRC ruling, reaffirming that petitioner was validly dismissed for cause based on the AWOL incident and failure to follow the company’s established procedures for leave.
• The CA found that petitioner’s failure to comply with the written leave application requirement amounted to willful disobedience and that the disciplinary procedure – consisting of giving him prior notice and an opportunity to explain – had been duly observed.
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied on May 21, 2019, leading him to elevate the matter through a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Petitioner’s and Respondents’ Contentions on Appeal

• Petitioner argued that his dismissal was illegal, contending that:

- He had obtained verbal approval for his leave from his supervisor. - The A & L rules, particularly on the leave application, were not properly evidenced or communicated as binding company policy. - Even if a violation occurred, termination was an excessively harsh penalty. - He was entitled to his full monetary claims. - The petition raised no new questions of law but merely rehashed issues already resolved by the LA, NLRC, and CA. - Their actions followed the due notice and hearing requirements and that petitioner’s failure to respond amounted to an implicit admission of guilt. - The dismissal was justified based on company rules approved and communicated to all employees.

Issue:

• Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner was validly dismissed for cause, thereby negating his entitlement to monetary claims such as backwages and separation pay.

• Whether the CA committed reversible error in sustaining the dismissal on a procedural and substantive basis, particularly given petitioner’s arguments concerning the alleged lack of proper notice and communication of the company’s leave policies.

• Whether the petitioner’s claims that his absences were authorized by his supervisor and that the penalty of dismissal was excessively harsh can justify overturning the dismissal as illegal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)