G.R. No. 180302 - Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio

Title: Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio

Case: G.R. No. 180302

Decision Date: Feb 5, 2010

Areno, a cable technician, was suspended and later terminated for insubordination after spreading rumors and defying a suspension order. Courts upheld the employer's actions, citing due process and willful disobedience.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. 180302)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Employment and Background

On January 17, 1995, petitioner Jimmy Areno, Jr. was employed by respondent Skycable PCC-Baguio as a cable technician.

The employment relationship continued for several years, during which company rules and a Code of Discipline governed employee conduct.

Allegations and Initial Complaint

On January 17, 2002, an accounting clerk of respondent, Hyacinth Soriano, filed a letter-complaint alleging that petitioner had spread false rumors about her on two separate occasions (once in mid‑2001 and again on December 22, 2001).

On January 27, 2002, during an encounter at the office, petitioner allegedly insulted Soriano by stating “Ikaw lang ang nakakaalam ng totoo” in a provocative and malicious manner, further aggravating the issue.

In view of the allegations, respondent maintained that petitioner’s conduct constituted a serious offense under the Company Code of Discipline.

Disciplinary Investigation and Proceedings at the Company Level

On the same day as the incident, respondent issued a Memorandum requiring petitioner to submit a written explanation within 76 hours.

Petitioner submitted his explanation on January 23, 2002, denying the allegations and explaining the conversation wherein he claimed no malicious intent.

An administrative investigation was conducted on January 31, 2002, and on February 6, 2002, an investigating committee found petitioner guilty of making malicious statements against his co‑employee.

As a result, petitioner was ordered to serve a three‑day suspension without pay, effective February 13–15, 2002.

The Memorandum detailing the finding was served on February 7, 2002, although petitioner refused to sign it.

Subsequent Developments and Dismissal

Despite the suspension order, petitioner reported for work on February 13, 2002.

In response, respondent issued a “1st Notice of Termination” requiring him to explain why he should not be dismissed for insubordination.

Petitioner inquired on February 18, 2002 regarding whether he had been dismissed or only suspended and later requested further investigation on March 2, 2002 to confront his accuser with the assistance of counsel.

On March 15, 2002, a hearing was held on the charge of insubordination, and petitioner submitted additional explanations asserting that the allegations were baseless and that he had not defied any order.

On April 1, 2002, after the investigation, petitioner was dismissed from employment on the ground of willful disobedience.

Administrative and Appellate Proceedings

Petitioner filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC on April 5, 2002, alleging that the suspension and dismissal were effected without basis and that due process was denied.

On July 31, 2003, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint, characterizing his conduct as persistent, willful, and indicative of wrongful intent.

Petitioner then appealed to the NLRC, which in its July 22, 2005 decision initially found the suspension and dismissal illegal on due process grounds and the issue of hearsay.

However, on February 28, 2006, the NLRC reconsidered its position, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and upholding petitioner’s suspension and dismissal.

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the NLRC ruling.

On May 28, 2007, the CA affirmed the NLRC decision, ruling that the suspension was not based solely on hearsay, that petitioner was afforded due process, and that his failure to comply with the suspension order constituted willful disobedience.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration; notwithstanding some procedural irregularities (including the admission of a late filed comment by respondent), the CA denied the motion on October 16, 2007.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision that held witness Soriano’s testimony was not hearsay—despite selective citation from a portion of her unsworn testimony—and in overlooking that the complete testimonies were essentially double‑ or triple‑hearsay, and that petitioner was denied the opportunity to confront his accuser during the January 31, 2002 investigation.

Whether the CA erred in finding that the three‑day suspension order was valid given that it was allegedly “anchored on a scrap of paper” because it was not signed and issued by a company official authorized to effectuate suspension or dismissal.

Whether the CA erred in its finding that petitioner was aware of his suspension—based on his reporting for duty despite the suspension order—and in ruling that his subsequent conduct constituted willful disobedience, particularly given his contention that he had not been properly notified.

Whether the CA committed reversible error in admitting the respondent’s comment, filed 19 days late, and whether such admission, as well as its failure to state the legal basis when denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, violated the mandatory requirements under Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END