Case Digest (G.R. No. 162583)
Facts:
In the case of Alberto Navarro vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., Manuel Garcia, and Rustum Alejandrino, the petitioner, Alberto Navarro, was employed as a forklift operator by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. for over a decade, specifically from November 1, 1987, to February 27, 1998. Respondent Coca-Cola had a set of disciplinary rules under which Rule 002-85 allowed for dismissal after an employee accumulated ten absences without permission (AWOP/AWOL) within one calendar year. On August 11, 1997, Navarro's absence was due to severe flooding caused by heavy rains in his barangay, preventing him from reporting to work. He was later summoned to explain his absence through a Memorandum dated October 1, 1997, which he addressed by submitting a written explanation along with a certification from the Barangay Captain confirming the flooding. Ultimately, notwithstanding his explanation and subsequent request for a leave of absence, Navarro was dismissed on February 27, 19
Case Digest (G.R. No. 162583)
Facts:
In this case, petitioner Alberto Navarro was employed by respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. for over a decade, serving as a forklift operator from November 1, 1987 until his dismissal on February 27, 1998. The company maintained an Employees Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations which penalized an employee’s tenth absence without permission (AWOL/AWOP) within one calendar year with dismissal. On August 11, 1997, heavy rains flooded the petitioner’s barangay, causing his residence to be inundated and preventing him from reporting to work. In response to a company memorandum dated October 1, 1997, petitioner submitted his written explanation along with a certification from his Barangay Captain attesting to the flooding. He also filed a Supplemental Written Explanation, clarifying that he had immediately applied for a leave of absence on the day following the incident. Despite these explanations, he was terminated based on the company’s disciplinary rules which counted his absence as one of the ten instances warranting dismissal. Petitioner subsequently initiated an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter, whose decision was later reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), ordering his reinstatement with full backwages, allowances, and benefits. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC resolution, restoring, with modification, the Labor Arbiter’s decision that awarded petitioner only separation pay for his service period, thereby denying his claims for full reinstatement and backwages.Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC resolution and reinstating, with modification, the decision of the Labor Arbiter, particularly as the NLRC ruling was argued to be more consistent with the evidence and settled jurisprudence favoring the employee.
- Whether the petitioner’s application for leave of absence should have been approved given that his absence was due to a fortuitous event (flooding) beyond his control, thus justifying the absence and making the dismissal excessively harsh as compared to similar cases in labor jurisprudence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)