Facts:

The case involves Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. (Petitioner) against Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. (MPI) and Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc. (MSSI) (Respondents). The events leading to the case began when Jose, Jr. was employed as an oiler on board the M/T Limar under an employment contract dated July 4, 2002, which stipulated various terms including a duration of eight months and a basic monthly salary of $450.00. As part of the employment conditions, Jose, Jr. signed a declaration on June 10, 2002, acknowledging the company's strict drug and alcohol policy, which included random drug testing and the potential for immediate dismissal for violations.

On October 8, 2002, while at the port of Curacao, a random drug test was conducted, and Jose, Jr. tested positive for marijuana. Despite this, he continued to work until his repatriation on December 29, 2002. Upon returning to the Philippines, he requested a drug test from MPI, which was ignored. He then independently obtained te...

Facts:

1. Employment Contract and Drug Policy

   • Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. (Jose, Jr.) was employed as an oiler by Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc. (MSSI) through its Philippine agent, Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. (MPI).
   • The employment contract, dated 4 July 2002, stipulated an 8-month term, a basic monthly salary of US$450, and a tanker allowance of US$39.
   • Jose, Jr. signed a declaration acknowledging the company's strict "no alcohol, no drug" policy, which included random drug testing and immediate dismissal for violations.

2. Random Drug Test and Positive Result

   • On 8 October 2002, a random drug test was conducted on all crew members of M/T Limar at the port of Curacao.
   • Jose, Jr. tested positive for marijuana. He was informed of the result and asked if he was taking any medication, to which he replied that he was only taking Centrum vitamins.
   • Despite the positive result, Jose, Jr. continued working until 29 November 2002, receiving a 96% performance rating during this period.

3. Repatriation and Subsequent Drug Tests

   • On 29 December 2002, Jose, Jr. was repatriated to the Philippines.
   • Upon his return, he requested MPI to conduct another drug test, but MPI ignored his request.
   • Jose, Jr. independently procured drug tests from three medical facilities in the Philippines, all of which yielded negative results for marijuana.

4. Labor Complaint and Initial Rulings

   • Jose, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), seeking payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.
   • The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dismissal was valid due to the positive drug test result.
   • The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that the drug test result was questionable and that Jose, Jr. was not afforded due process.
   • The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that the drug test result was admissible as evidence and that Jose, Jr.'s dismissal was justified.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Admissibility of Unsigned Drug Test Results

   • Unsigned documents, such as the drug test result, may still be admissible as evidence if they are part of entries made in the ordinary course of business.
   • The drug test result was issued under the name of Dr. Heath, the ship's physician, and was conducted as part of routine measures to enforce the company's drug policy.
   • The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the drug test result, as it was conducted in accordance with standard procedures.

2. Serious Misconduct as Just Cause for Dismissal

   • Drug use in the workplace constitutes serious misconduct, which is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code.
   • The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a drug-free environment, especially in high-risk workplaces like oil tankers.

3. Due Process in Termination Cases

   • While the employer failed to provide written notices of dismissal, the Court ruled that the lack of due process does not render the dismissal invalid when there is just cause.
   • The employee is entitled to nominal damages for the procedural lapse, but the dismissal itself remains valid.

4. Final Ruling

   • The Court denied Jose, Jr.'s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, with the modification that OSG Ship Management Manila, Inc. (the substituted respondent) must pay Jose, Jr. P30,000 in nominal damages for the lack of due process.