G.R. No. 96202 - Canque vs. Court of Appeals

Private respondent Jeremias C. Cortez, Jr. was employed by Manila Electric Company (Meralco) on a probationary basis on September 15, 1975 and later regularized as a lineman-driver.
He was assigned to the North Distribution Division and eventually worked as a 1st class lineman-driver responsible for maintaining Meralco’s distribution facilities by attending to customer complaints regarding power failures, interruptions, and other related issues.

The service record of private respondent was marked by numerous disciplinary actions, including:

May 25, 1977 – Suspension for five (5) working days without pay for drinking alcoholic beverages during work.
March 28, 1984 – Suspension for three (3) working days without pay for failing or refusing to report to a company medical clinic while on sick leave.
June 13, 1984 – Suspension for ten (10) working days without pay for unauthorized extension of sick leave.
June 5, 1987 – Suspension for three (3) working days without pay for again failing or refusing to report for medical evaluation while on sick leave (noting absence from September 18, 1986 to November 10, 1986).
December 16, 1988 – Preventive suspension for not submitting the required Medical Certificate within 48 hours during sick leave.
February 22, 1989 – After an investigation, suspension for five (5) working days without pay for unauthorized absences, with additional absences charged to vacation leave.
May 30, 1989 – Suspension for ten (10) working days without pay for unauthorized absences from May 17-19, 1989, accompanied by a warning that a similar offense could warrant dismissal.

These repeated infractions, primarily involving unexplained absences and a violation of the company’s sick leave policy, underscored a pattern of gross neglect of duty.

An administrative investigation was conducted regarding private respondent’s unauthorized absences between August 2, 1989 and September 19, 1989.
The investigation concluded that his lengthy and unauthorized absences constituted gross neglect of duty and a violation of Section 4, paragraph (e) of the Company Code on Employee Discipline.
On January 19, 1990, Meralco formally terminated his employment through a letter stating that his cumulative violations rendered his dismissal necessary, with the forfeiture of all rights and privileges.

Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on March 7, 1990.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on August 13, 1991, dismissing the case for lack of merit, relying on his habitual absenteeism and repeated infractions as valid grounds for dismissal.
Contrarily, on September 30, 1993, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision by ordering Meralco to reinstate the employee with backwages.
Meralco subsequently filed for a Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC, which was denied, leading to the petition for certiorari.

A key aspect of the case was the respondent’s claim that he “went into hiding as he was engaged in trouble with a neighbor,” presented as an explanation for his extended absence.
Petitioner contended that this claimed alibi was self-serving, uncorroborated by documentary evidence, and did not mitigate the gravity of the repeated and unauthorized absences.

Whether private respondent’s dismissal from Meralco constituted an illegal termination or was a justified exercise of management prerogative.
Whether the cumulative record of repeated infractions, including unauthorized absences and violations of the company’s sick leave policy, justified the dismissal.
The validity and admissibility of the respondent’s defense—specifically, his claim of “going into hiding”—and its impact on determining the legality of the termination.
The correct application of due process in administrative termination proceedings, particularly whether the opportunity to be heard was sufficient in this context.