Case Digest (G.R. No. 107574)
Facts:
Federico Nuez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107574, December 28, 1994, the Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Federico Nuez was employed by private respondent Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) as a driver from 1 May 1970 until his dismissal in December 1988. On 25 November 1988 Engr. Jeremias Sevilla, officer-in-charge at the Baras, Antipolo station, instructed Nuez to drive employees to the Makati head office to collect profit shares; Nuez refused, citing a personal appointment and later told his supervisor, Pedro Sibal, that he preferred not to drive because he had errands. Reports by Sevilla and Sibal prompted Station Manager Ramon Bisuna to require Nuez to explain his conduct within 72 hours; Nuez submitted a written explanation on 1 December 1988 denying disobedience and asserting the trip was not an emergency.AVP for Transport and Maintenance Fredelino Aujero referred the matter to VP for Administration Ramon V. Nieto, noting PHILCOMSAT’s Code of Disciplinary Action classifying refusal to obey a lawful order as insubordination warranting dismissal. VP Nieto issued a memorandum terminating Nuez’s employment effective 26 December 1988. Nuez sought reconsideration, explaining post-office-hour events, but on 6 March 1989 he filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion, on 29 January 1990, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but awarded a monetary consideration equivalent to one-half month’s salary per year of service. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal on 15 June 1992 but reduced financial assistance to three months’ basic pay. Nuez filed an extraordinary recourse for certiorari (seeking reinstatement with full back wages, damages, attorney’s fees, and to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal decision of PHILCOMSAT?
- Was procedural due process (statutory and collective bargaining protections) observed in the termination of petitioner?
- Did petitioner’s refusal to obey the order constitute willful disobedience sufficient to justify dismissal?
- Was dismissal a disproportionate penalty and was the award o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)