G.R. No. 168120 - Mansion Printing Center vs. Bitara, Jr.

Petitioners: Mansion Printing Center and its president, Clement Cheng, a single proprietorship engaged in printing various quality labels, brochures, posters, stickers, packaging, etc.
Respondent: Diosdado Bitara, Jr., initially employed as a helper and later promoted to be the company’s sole driver responsible for time-sensitive deliveries and collection of account receivables.

The employment relationship began in August 1998 with the respondent’s appointment, with duties progressively increasing in responsibility.
The business emphasized the timely delivery of products, leading the management to closely monitor the respondent’s attendance.
Early warnings were given when habitual tardiness and absenteeism became apparent.

On 23 June 1999, petitioners issued a memorandum directing the respondent to explain his habitual tardiness to avoid administrative sanctions.
On 29 November 1999, the respondent submitted a written explanation in which he acknowledged his tardiness, apologized, and undertook to report on time in the future.
Despite his undertaking, incidences of tardiness and unexplained absences continued into early 2000.

During the first quarter of 2000, the respondent’s weekly time record showed 19 tardy instances out of 47 workdays and 19 absences out of 66 working days.
His unauthorized absences from 11 to 16 March 2000 were highlighted as particularly disruptive to company operations.
On 17 March 2000, General Manager Davis Cheng issued a “Notice to Explain” which the respondent received but refused to acknowledge and did not respond to.
Subsequently, on 21 March 2000, a “Notice of Termination” was served, informing the respondent that he was terminated effective 1 April 2000 for gross negligence and habitual absenteeism.
Although the management later attempted a conciliatory offer of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary, the respondent demanded a higher equivalent, which was declined.

On 27 April 2000, the respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, seeking reinstatement and various monetary benefits.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings, upholding the validity of the dismissal.
The respondent, dissatisfied with the NLRC decision and its denial of additional benefits (holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and damages), appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering remedies including reinstatement (or separation pay) along with backwages and service incentive leave pay for every year of service.
On 10 May 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, leading to the instant petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the NLRC had acted without and/or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Whether such alleged errors fall within the proper scope of a special civil action for certiorari, which is limited to jurisdictional errors rather than errors of judgment.

Whether the termination of the respondent’s employment was justified on the basis of habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences, particularly during the critical period of 11–16 March 2000.
Whether dismissing the respondent solely on the recent absences (in light of his earlier infractions) was proper and substantiated by the record.

Whether the respondent was afforded both substantive and procedural due process, including the observance of the two-notice rule (Notice to Explain and Notice of Termination).
Whether the manner of serving the memoranda (including the respondent’s alleged refusal to acknowledge receipt) meets the required legal standards.

Whether the respondent is entitled to the monetary equivalent of the five-day service incentive leave pay for every year of service from August 1988 to 1 April 2000 despite his accumulated absences.
Whether the evidence, including company records and affidavits, sufficiently supports the respondent’s claim to these benefits.