G.R. No. 183399 - Ortiz vs. DHL Philippines Corp.

In September 1989, the petitioner was hired by DHL Philippines Corporation as a Courier/Driver at the Mactan Business Center in Cebu.
In 1991, he was promoted to Customs Representative, a position he held until 1995 before being transferred to the Ramos Business Center (RBC).
Subsequently, he was assigned as a Manifest Clerk where his primary duty was the preparation of manifest documents for cargo dispatch.
His work schedule was from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a one-hour meal break and a 15-minute coffee break; on ordinary days, he and his fellow clerks would continue handling office business until 8:00 p.m. because their supervisor left by 6:00 p.m.

On March 2, 1999, the petitioner was discovered missing by Branch Supervisor Marivic Jubay during regular office hours; he returned late at approximately 8:55 p.m. and offered that he had gone for tire repairs.
The following day, he failed to report for duty.
On March 19, 1999, at around 6:00 p.m., Branch Manager Ramon Tamondong found the petitioner absent; further inquiries revealed he had gone home to watch a Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) game.
Jubay’s investigation uncovered that, despite a record showing an 8:46 p.m. punch-out time, the petitioner was habitually leaving before the prescribed end of his workday—particularly when his supervisor had already left or when a PBA game was scheduled—and he would have a co-worker or the security guard record his time.

On March 25, 1999, the petitioner received a memorandum instructing him to explain his disappearance from duty, to which he responded with an explanation that downplayed the severity of his infraction by claiming he merely took his 15-minute break.
Office colleagues, however, testified that the petitioner had been leaving early on a regular basis, and security guards confirmed this practice had spanned almost two years.
Upon learning of the security guards’ testimonies, the petitioner threatened them regarding their employment status and license.
A formal notice of an investigation was issued to him for May 4, 1999, during which he apologized for his behavior and admitted to his infractions, though he pleaded with the management for suspension instead of dismissal by writing an appeal on May 5, 1999.

DHL management, in a memorandum dated May 15, 1999, rejected his plea for a lesser penalty, characterizing his repeated infractions as grave dishonesty and serious misconduct warranting dismissal.
On June 4, 1999, the petitioner was formally notified of his dismissal, following a notice dated May 29, 1999.
The petitioner filed a case for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against DHL and its officers; however, on February 3, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On May 7, 2003, the NLRC, on appeal, modified the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by acknowledging the petitioner’s long service and awarding him separation pay computed at one month for every year of service.
The petitioner then escalated the matter by filing a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that although his dismissal was justified, his due process rights were violated.
On October 27, 2006, the CA affirmed, with modification, the NLRC decision by finding that while the dismissal was substantiated, the petitioner was not afforded procedural due process—hence ordering DHL (renamed Widewide World Express, Inc.) to pay him nominal damages of ₱30,000.
A subsequent Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied on December 13, 2007.

Whether the petitioner’s dismissal was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct and grave dishonesty arising from his habitual early departures, unauthorized absences, and inappropriate behavior towards superiors and security personnel.

Whether the petitioner was provided proper and sufficiently detailed written notices that clearly specified the charges against him.
Whether he was given a reasonable opportunity and adequate time to respond and prepare his defense in accordance with the statutory requirement of a fair hearing.

Whether the notices issued by DHL met the requirements for specificity, detailed narration of the alleged facts, and compliance with the dual requirements of notice and hearing under the applicable labor laws and jurisprudence.

Whether the imposition of nominal damages of ₱30,000.00 was appropriate to compensate for the failure to observe the procedural due process standards, despite the substantive justification of the dismissal.