G.R. No. 227175 - Villanueva vs. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc.

Petitioner Neren Villanueva was hired in 2002 by respondent Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc. (GRRI) as a part-time employee at La Luz Beach Resort and Spa (La Luz Resort).
She became a regular employee on February 1, 2003.
Over time, petitioner was promoted to head of the Housekeeping Department in 2005 and head of the Front Desk Department in 2008.

In 2013, petitioner was charged with abuse of authority for rejecting walk-in guests without management approval, and threat to a person in authority for threatening respondent Serge Bernabe, the assistant resort manager, with physical harm.
After investigation, GRRI found petitioner guilty:

Penalty of two days suspension without pay for abuse of authority;
Termination for threat against person in authority, later reduced to a five-day suspension without pay subject to strict performance monitoring and a condition that further violations would lead to immediate dismissal.

Early 2014, petitioner was transferred from the Front Desk to the Team Building Department upon Bernabe’s advice.
In March 2014, GRRI implemented reorganization and issued a Notice of Employees’ Lateral Transfer to petitioner and four others. Petitioner was transferred from Reception to Storage Department without loss of rank or benefits.
Petitioner refused to sign the Notice to Transfer and stayed at the reception area for two days before complying on March 4, 2014; she sent an email on March 9, 2014 querying the management about her transfer.

On March 10, 2014, GRRI issued a Memorandum directing petitioner to explain why she should not be penalized for insubordination for refusing to sign the Notice to Transfer.
Petitioner replied on March 11, 2014, explaining her refusal pending management’s response to her email.
Petitioner was placed under a Notice of Preventive Suspension (March 14 to 21, 2014).
Petitioner failed to report back to work from March 22 to 26, 2014.
On March 26, 2014, GRRI’s HR issued a Memorandum for petitioner to explain her unauthorized absences. Upon reporting, she was handed a Termination Notice dated March 21, 2014, citing:

Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled on March 24, 2015 that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
LA held petitioner’s refusal to sign was not serious misconduct or willful disobedience since she eventually complied and no prejudice was caused.
Award granted: full backwages, separation pay, unpaid service incentive leave pay; all other claims dismissed.

NLRC affirmed LA’s finding of illegal dismissal but deleted separation pay.
Held that past infractions already penalized cannot be used to justify dismissal now.
Failure to sign was not serious misconduct; no basis found for dismissal on neglect of duties.
Imposed a three-month suspension without pay for delay in reporting to new assignment and attitude shown, deemed served during case pendency.
Denied separation pay due to lack of strained relations and reinstatement in payroll.
Reconsideration denied in October 2015.

CA reversed the NLRC ruling on June 23, 2016, upholding the legality of petitioner’s dismissal.
Held that the CA found petitioner’s refusal to sign the Notice to Transfer amounted to insubordination or willful disobedience.
Applied the principle of totality of infractions to justify dismissal since petitioner was warned that next violation would merit immediate dismissal.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 16, 2016.

Past infractions cannot be used as basis for dismissal; the CA erred applying totality of infractions.
No basis for willful disobedience or habitual neglect.
Due process was not afforded.
Entitled to Service Incentive Leave Pay (SILP).

Respondents argue the totality of petitioner’s infractions justify dismissal but do not contest the SILP claim.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC ruling and upholding the validity of petitioner’s dismissal.
Whether petitioner’s refusal to sign the Notice to Transfer constitutes insubordination or willful disobedience.
Whether petitioner’s absences without leave constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty.
Whether there was compliance with procedural due process in petitioner’s dismissal.
Whether petitioner is entitled to Service Incentive Leave Pay despite her dismissal.