Case Digest (G.R. No. 183399)
Facts:
Ortiz v. DHL Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rogel Ortiz was employed by DHL Philippines Corporation in September 1989 and worked in various capacities until promoted to Manifest Clerk at the Ramos Business Center, where he worked principally from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (with specified breaks) and sometimes covered business from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. when his supervisor left. As Manifest Clerk he prepared cargo manifest documents prior to shipment.
On March 2, 1999 Ortiz arrived late and was reprimanded. On March 19, 1999 Ortiz was reported absent from his post during office hours; security later indicated he went home to watch a PBA game. A March 25, 1999 memorandum directed him to explain his absence; his immediate, profane reaction to his supervisor was reported by co-employees. Subsequent investigation and joint affidavits by co-employees and security guards revealed a recurring practice—over about two years—of leaving the workplace early (often on Tuesdays and Thursdays), having others punch his timecard, playing or watching basketball during office hours, and once threatening security guards who testified against him.
Ortiz received a formal investigation notice for May 4, 1999; he apologized and admitted the charges during the investigation and later asked for a lesser penalty. Management denied mitigation in a May 15, 1999 memorandum and a Notice of Dismissal dated May 29, 1999 was served (received June 4, 1999). Ortiz filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Ortiz’s complaint in a decision dated February 3, 2000. On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC Case No. V-000499-2000, issued a Decision dated May 7, 2003 affirming the Labor Arbiter but modifying the disposition by awarding Ortiz separation pay (one month per year of service), reasoning that respondent failed to show any instance of cargo dispatch delays caused by Ortiz and mitigating his offenses in view of long service. The NLRC denied Ortiz’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 12, 2004.
Ortiz then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00180. The CA, in a Decision dated October 27, 2006, affirmed the NLRC’s finding that Ortiz’s dismissal was for just cause but deleted the award of separation pay and concluded DHL failed to observe procedural due process; it therefore awarded Ortiz P30,000.00 as nominal damages. The CA denied Ortiz’s motion for partial reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 13, 2007.
Ortiz elevated the case to the Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Ortiz’s dismissal for just and valid cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code?
- Were the procedural due process requirements (notice and hearing) observed in Ortiz’s dismissal?
- Was the NLRC’s award of separation pay appropriate or should it be de...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)