G.R. No. 220916 - People vs. Camenforte

Romeo Lagatic was employed by Cityland Development Corporation in May 1986, initially as a probationary sales agent and later as a marketing specialist.
His primary duties included soliciting sales for the company by accepting call-ins, handling referrals, and making client calls—including “cold calls” (i.e., telephonic prospecting using directories).
Cityland maintained that cold calling was an effective and cost-efficient method for generating clients and, as such, required all marketing specialists to perform a specific number of cold calls based on their sales performance.
The submission of daily progress reports detailing cold calls was mandated, not only as a measure of productivity but also as a means of monitoring compliance with company policy.

On October 22, 1991, Cityland issued a written reprimand to petitioner for failing to submit cold call reports covering September 10 and October 1 and 10, 1991.
In addition to the aforementioned dates, petitioner failed to submit cold call reports for several other instances in 1992, specifically on September 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 28, as well as on October 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14.
Petitioner was required to explain his failure with a stern warning that continued non-compliance could lead to termination. In his letter-reply dated October 18, 1992, he attributed the lapses to an “honest omission” resulting from his focus on other job aspects.

Despite the initial reprimand and subsequent warning, petitioner again failed to comply with the cold call reporting requirement on February 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12, 1993.
On February 16, 1993, instead of complying with his reporting duty, petitioner wrote and circulated a defiant note that read, “TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?” This note was also displayed openly on his desk, signaling a blatant disregard for company policy.
On February 23, 1993, Cityland issued a memorandum demanding an explanation for both his repeated non-compliance and the contentious note.
In his letter-reply dated February 24, 1993, petitioner denied any knowledge of the problematic statement, contending that his failure to submit the reports did not amount to gross insubordination.
Consequently, on February 26, 1993, Cityland served petitioner a notice of dismissal, charging him with gross insubordination as a result of his continuous and willful disobedience to a clearly established company rule.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and sought claims for separation pay, overdue premiums, overtime pay, and other monetary benefits, including damages and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed his claims for lack of merit, and this decision was later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), prompting the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in failing to find that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Whether the dismissal was unjust or tainted by any procedural defect, particularly regarding the due process requirements of notice and hearing.

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to salary differentials, back wages, separation pay, overtime pay, rest day pay, unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Whether the method of computing commissions, which petitioner argued diminished his benefits, was in violation of the non-diminution of benefits clause or other applicable labor standards.