G.R. No. 234725 - Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc. vs. Relucio

Roy Radasa Relucio filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc. and other respondents.
Relucio claimed he was employed by Bicol Isarog as a bus driver beginning on April 11, 2011, and later regularized on March 26, 2012.
He alleged that he suffered illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and other monetary claims including underpayment, non-payment of benefits, and additional damages.

Bicol Isarog maintained that despite his probationary hiring and later regularization, Relucio repeatedly and willfully violated the company’s Code of Discipline.
Specific offenses included his failure to submit the Trip Collection Report (TCR) on several dates in June 2012.
The company issued internal memoranda to compel an explanation:

Memorandum Circular No. BITSI-PM-2012-102-A and subsequent Circular No. BITSI-2012-102-B found him liable for the offense and imposed a suspension from June 22 to July 22, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, it was reported that Relucio disobeyed orders by attempting a trip from Masbate to Manila with only five passengers, contrary to the express directive of the Office-in-Charge (OIC) who had instructed him to transfer the passengers to another bus.
Upon arriving in Manila on March 29, 2013, Relucio reportedly left the company premises without reporting to the designated operations manager.
Text messages were sent directing him to report to the Operations Manager and later to the Human Resource (HR) Department, but he failed to comply on both occasions.

The first memorandum (BITSI-PM-2013-145) required Relucio to present himself or submit a written explanation; however, when the HR Manager attempted personal delivery, Relucio was not located at his registered address.
A second memorandum (BITSI-PM-2013-158) was issued requiring him to report and explain his absence.
Finally, a notice of termination (memorandum BITSI-PM-2013-159) was executed due to his failure to report for work for five consecutive days.

The notice of termination was not personally served as required; it was only handed to him during a conference before the DOLE-NCR Field Office.
Relucio contended that he did not defy instructions because of conflicting factual circumstances; on arriving in Manila, he sought out the office but was informed he had been dismissed.

The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated February 6, 2015, dismissed Relucio’s complaint, finding just cause in the offices’ actions due to insubordination and failure to report for work.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this dismissal.
Relucio then elevated the matter through a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled on March 30, 2017, that his dismissal was illegal due to failure of procedural due process, specifically that the memoranda were never effectively served.
The CA ordered his reinstatement and the payment of backwages along with other monetary benefits.
Bicol Isarog moved for reconsideration of the CA decision through a Resolution dated October 11, 2017, which was denied.

Whether the dismissal of Roy R. Relucio was justified on the grounds of insubordination and failure to report for work, given that there was a substantial basis in the alleged violation of company policies.

Whether Relucio’s conduct in pursuing a trip contrary to the explicit directive of the OIC amounted to a grave offense meriting dismissal.
Whether his failure to report upon arrival in Manila constituted a sufficient basis for termination.

Whether the employer, Bicol Isarog, complied with the necessary procedural due process requirements in effecting the dismissal.

Whether the issuance and service of two written memoranda and the subsequent notice of termination fulfilled the twin-notice rule as mandated by the law and company policy.
Whether Relucio was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
Whether the failure to effectively serve the notices undermined the employer’s burden of proving that the dismissal was conducted in accordance with due process.

The extent to which the burden of proof rested on the employer to justify the dismissal and whether such burden was satisfactorily discharged.