Case Digest (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Facts:
The case revolves around Reynaldo Lausa (petitioner in G.R. No. 79731) and the Negros Navigation Company, Inc. along with its Personnel Officer (petitioners in G.R. No. 80407). The events occurred on Christmas Day, December 25, 1984, while Lausa was employed as a messman. He worked on the vessel M/S "Sta. Maria," docked at Muelle Loney wharf in Iloilo City. On that day, Lausa reported for duty visibly inebriated, his uniform untucked and front unbuttoned. His conduct escalated into belligerence as he challenged ship officers and crew to fight, alarming passengers on board. Chief Mate Antonio Tendencia attempted to pacify him; however, Lausa continued to shout provocatively before leaving the vessel. Later, while the vessel was en route to Manila, the Chief Mate received reports of Lausa sleeping off his intoxication in his quarters, leading to a decision to restrict his movement lest he create further disturbances.
Following this incident, Negros Navigation ordered La
Case Digest (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Facts:
- Background and Employment
- Reynaldo Lausa was employed by Negros Navigation Company, Inc. as a messman since January 1979.
- His assignment was on board the vessel M/S “Sta. Maria”, which operated as a public carrier transporting passengers and cargo.
- The Christmas Day Incident (December 25, 1984)
- Assignment and Condition of Appearance
- On December 25, 1984, Lausa was assigned to work on the vessel, which was berthed at the Muelle Loney wharf in Iloilo City.
- Lausa arrived in a visibly disheveled state, with his uniform improperly worn (tucked out with the front unbuttoned) and his chest and stomach exposed, indicating intoxication.
- Belligerent Behavior On Board
- Around 5:30 p.m., in the presence of vessel officers—including Chief Mate Antonio Tendencia, Jr.—crew members, and passengers, Lausa exhibited belligerence by challenging everyone to a fight without any provocation.
- Despite efforts by Chief Mate Tendencia to pacify him, Lausa proceeded to insult and challenge the Chief Mate publicly.
- Subsequent Developments
- After disembarking the vessel and descending the gangplank, Lausa continued shouting challenges to everyone, despite the vessel having departed on schedule at 7:00 p.m.
- Later on board, while Lausa was found sleeping off the effects of alcohol in his quarters, the Chief Mate remained concerned and instructed his subordinates to monitor Lausa and report any further trouble.
- Chief Mate Tendencia then prepared a report on the incident, detailing Lausa’s inebriated and unruly conduct.
- Internal Investigation and Termination
- Negros Navigation required Lausa to submit a written explanation regarding the incident.
- Lausa denied the allegations, providing a different version in his letter dated January 16, 1985, wherein he claimed that:
- His behavior was a reaction following an unexpected provocation by Chief Mate Tendencia, Jr., who allegedly shouted an insult at him during a quarrel with his wife.
- A formal investigation and hearing were conducted by the company.
- Negros Navigation, convinced by the report of Chief Mate Tendencia and the additional affidavits, terminated Lausa’s services for serious misconduct effective January 18, 1985.
- Evidence such as the report dated December 26, 1984, and affidavits executed by the Chief Mate and several crew members were central to the company’s decision.
- The investigation also noted that this incident was not Lausa’s first; a previous incident on September 27, 1980, involving drunken behavior and physical altercations had been recorded by the company.
- Labor Case and Administrative Proceedings
- Lausa filed a complaint on March 1, 1985, alleging illegal dismissal and seeking reinstatement with backwages or separation pay.
- The matter was subject to conciliation proceedings, which did not result in an amicable settlement.
- The Executive Labor Arbiter issued a decision on June 13, 1986:
- The decision held that the dismissal was illegal because the misconduct, if any, was not sufficiently serious as to justify termination.
- It awarded Lausa separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service plus an additional 10% as attorney’s fees, dismissing other causes of action.
- Both Negros Navigation (and its Personnel Officer) and Lausa appealed the decision before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC):
- Negros Navigation contended that the decision erroneously accepted Lausa’s uncorroborated version over the company’s evidence.
- Lausa argued that awarding separation pay was inconsistent with the finding of non-serious misconduct and that he was entitled to reinstatement with backwages as well as moral and exemplary damages.
- On June 16, 1987, the NLRC issued a Resolution dismissing both appeals, thereby sustaining the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter.
- Evidence Dispute and Delay in Reporting
- Key evidence included the report and affidavits of Chief Mate Tendencia, which were initially rejected by the NLRC on grounds of alleged inconsistencies.
- A detailed examination by the Court revealed that there were no substantial contradictions among the report dated December 26, 1984, and the affidavits dated January 21, 1985, and April 30, 1985, despite the latter being in a question-and-answer format.
- The delay in transmitting the report from the vessel’s home port (Iloilo City) was explained by the vessel’s sailing schedule and did not affect the credibility of the report.
Issues:
- Whether the NLRC and the Executive Labor Arbiter abused their discretion by:
- Accepting Lausa’s version and disregarding corroborative evidence submitted by Negros Navigation, such as the report and affidavits of Chief Mate Tendencia and other crew members.
- Determining that Lausa’s misconduct was not serious, thus warranting illegal dismissal and entitlement to separation pay, instead of reinstatement with backwages.
- Whether the exclusion of material evidence (corroborative affidavits and reports) without rational basis constituted a grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and the Executive Labor Arbiter.
- Whether the behavior of Lausa, considered in the context of the safety standards expected of a public carrier, constituted serious misconduct justifying his dismissal.
- Whether awarding separation pay (and denying moral and exemplary damages) was appropriate under the circumstances, given the court’s later finding on the gravity of Lausa’s misconduct.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)