G.R. No. 48859 - Valdez vs. Jugo

On May 1, 1997, respondent Nicasio C. Galit was employed by petitioner R.B. Michael Press as an offset machine operator, with a daily wage of PhP 230.00 and a work schedule from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mondays to Saturdays.
During his employment, respondent was tardy 190 times, accumulating 6,117 minutes, and was absent without leave for nine and a half days in total.

On February 22, 1999, respondent was ordered to render overtime work to meet a production deadline but refused.
On February 23, 1999, petitioner Escobia notified respondent not to work and summoned him for a hearing that afternoon.
An Office Memorandum was served warning respondent of possible dismissal for (a) habitual and excessive tardiness; (b) acts of discourtesy and disrespect to superiors; (c) refusal to work overtime; and (d) insubordination.
On February 24, 1999, the respondent was terminated effective immediately. He was given a termination letter and paid two days’ salary. The letter cited a thorough investigation, the hearing attended by company officials, respondent’s admission of offenses, and justified dismissal.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The labor arbiter found dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority and payment of full backwages, dismissing other claims for lack of evidence.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which dismissed their appeal for lack of merit.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 14, 2001, the CA affirmed the NLRC decision with modification: it ruled the cause for dismissal was the refusal to render overtime, found the procedural due process questionable, and ordered backwages computed from dismissal date at PhP 230 daily.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 7, 2002.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review under Rule 45.

Whether just cause existed to terminate the employment of respondent.
Whether due process was observed in the dismissal process.
Whether respondent is entitled to backwages and other benefits despite refusal of reinstatement.