G.R. No. 192113 - Unirock Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192113)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Employment and Transfer Order

Eduardo Pajarito was hired on March 9, 1999, by Unirock Corporation as a heavy equipment operator earning a basic daily salary of ₱258.00.
On March 14, 2005, Roberto Ignacio, the company’s vice-president for Human Resources Development, issued a transfer order directing Pajarito to Davao, effective March 17, 2005.
In connection with the transfer, Unirock offered additional benefits:

A monthly relocation allowance of ₱1,000.00;
A daily meal allowance of ₱50.00;
Commitment to shoulder his transportation fare and food expenses en route to the new location.

Although the transfer order was personally served, Pajarito initially refused to accept it. When the notice was sent via registered mail due to his change of address, he did not receive it.

Employee’s Response and Subsequent Actions

Unirock, seeking clarification, issued a memorandum requesting an explanation for his refusal.
On March 18, 2005, Pajarito filed a request for mediation and conciliation with the NLRC’s Conciliation and Mediation Center.
On March 19, 2005, he submitted a written explanation detailing:

His willingness to comply subject to an extension of time, citing family obligations (his children’s schooling and the care required by his young children);
His concerns that an abrupt transfer from Metro Manila to Davao would undermine his parental responsibilities and lack necessary time for proper relocation arrangements; and
The notion that the transfer order, if executed as scheduled, would constitute an undue hardship tantamount to harassment.

Termination and Filing of the Dismissal Case

On March 31, 2005, Unirock issued a Memorandum of Termination effective that same day. The termination was based on:

Alleged willful disobedience to the transfer order; and
Accusations of abandonment of work, stemming from his unauthorized absences between March 17 and 30, 2005.

Pajarito responded by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal on April 21, 2005 (NLRC Case No. 00-04-03513-2005), arguing:

His dismissal was without just cause and lacked due process;
His request to postpone the transfer was misinterpreted as insubordination;
The intended transfer was allegedly motivated by his suspected activities related to union organizing; and
He was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages, damages, attorney’s fees, and wage differentials for the last three years.

NLRC Proceedings and Decisions

In the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated November 29, 2005, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit on the grounds that:

Pajarito was terminated for willful insubordination and for unauthorized absences (AWOL) from March 17-31, 2005; and
His claim of underpayment was unsupported due to failure to submit the claim in a timely and proper manner.

On March 28, 2009, upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered:

Reinstatement of Pajarito to his former position;
Payment of full backwages from the date of his illegal dismissal; and
An indemnity amounting to ₱30,000.00.

On October 8, 2008, the NLRC issued an amended Decision declaring Pajarito retrenched from service, entitling him to:

Retrenchment pay at half a month’s salary for every year of service; and
Financial assistance of ₱25,000.00.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings

Pajarito elevated the case to the CA for further review.
On October 16, 2009, the CA rendered a decision that:

Annulled and set aside the NLRC Decision of October 8, 2008 declaring retrenchment;
Reinstated (with modification) the NLRC Decision dated March 28, 2009; and
Awarded Pajarito separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, computed at one month’s pay for every year of service from the date of hiring, in addition to full backwages from the date of his dismissal.

On March 29, 2010, the CA issued a Resolution denying Unirock’s motion for reconsideration.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

Unirock filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA’s decision.
The petitioner argued that:

The CA improperly delved into the issue of retrenchment, which had not been raised as a defense; and
The CA erred in holding that Pajarito’s refusal did not amount to both insubordination and abandonment of work.

Issues:

Whether Pajarito’s request for an extension of time to comply with the transfer order constitutes willful disobedience amounting to insubordination.

Was the three-day notice period for the transfer reasonable given the logistical challenges involved in relocating from Metro Manila to Davao?
Can an employee’s valid personal and family concerns justify a request for additional time without being deemed insubordination?

Whether the NLRC’s amended Decision declaring retrenchment meets the statutory requisites for valid retrenchment.

Did Unirock substantiate the claim of an urgent need for transfer by providing concrete evidence or documentation regarding the company’s operational deadlines?
Were the procedural prerequisites for retrenchment (such as providing written notice to employees and to the DOLE) observed?

Whether the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint by Pajarito is compatible with a claim of abandonment of work.

Does the prompt filing of the complaint indicate that Pajarito maintained an intention to contest his termination, thereby negating abandonment?

Whether Unirock’s grounds for dismissal—alleged insubordination and abandonment—were justified and proportionate to the circumstances.

Is the dismissal based on the short notice of transfer and subsequent absence justified by the principles of due process and fairness?
Did Unirock’s actions constitute a disproportionate or unjust enforcement of its management prerogative?

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192113) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192113) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192113)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192113)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model