Case Summary (G.R. No. 247428)
Factual Background
The respondent corporation, A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc., operated a fish-breeding and distribution business in Barangay Sampaloc, Apalit, Pampanga and was owned by Augusto Tycangco. The petitioner was employed by A & L as an all-around harvester with a daily wage of P318.00. The petitioner alleged that on January 5, 2017 he verbally sought his supervisor Manuel Cruzada’s permission for an eleven-day leave from January 6 to 16, 2017 to attend a family emergency in Naga, and that Cruzada approved and undertook to relay the request to management. The petitioner left work and returned on January 25, 2017, when he received a letter requiring an explanation for alleged absences without official leave and was placed on preventive suspension; he did not submit an explanation and was thereafter served a memorandum dated January 30, 2017 terminating his employment for violation of the company Code of Discipline.
Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter
The petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid monetary claims before the National Labor Relations Commission-Regional Arbitration, Branch No. III. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated August 24, 2017 finding the petitioner illegally dismissed and awarding full backwages initially computed at Php72,635.96, separation pay of Php33,072.00, and service incentive leave pay of Php4,770.00, while dismissing other claims for lack of merit.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Respondents appealed to the NLRC. In its Decision dated December 29, 2017, the NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter insofar as the finding of illegal dismissal and the awards of backwages and separation pay, declaring the petitioner validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule and regulation duly made known to him and for failure to avail the prescribed vacation leave procedure, but it affirmed the award of service incentive leave pay.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The petitioner sought certiorari before the Court of Appeals. In the assailed Decision dated November 12, 2018, the CA sustained the NLRC’s findings that the petitioner was AWOL for eleven days, that failure to follow the company’s leave application procedures constituted willful disobedience, and that respondents observed the twin-notice requirement and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to be heard; the CA concluded that the petitioner was deemed to have admitted the infraction and that the prescribed penalty was properly imposed. The CA denied the petition and sustained the NLRC Decision.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
The petitioner presented two principal issues: whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed and therefore not entitled to the monetary claims awarded by the Labor Arbiter; and whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC’s setting aside of the Labor Arbiter’s monetary awards.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner maintained that his absences were authorized because his immediate supervisor had granted verbal permission and promised to inform management; he also contended that respondents failed to authenticate and prove that the company rules on leave applications had been communicated to him and argued that dismissal was a disproportionate penalty. Respondents replied that the petition raised factual issues already resolved by the labor tribunals, that the NLRC and the CA correctly found that petitioner violated reasonable company rules and was accorded due process, and that the termination was valid.
Standard of Review and Exception
The Supreme Court noted the general rule that it is not a trier of facts and that review under Rule 45 is confined to errors of law, with factual questions left to the labor tribunals. The Court observed, however, that an exception obtains when the findings of the Labor Arbiter conflict with those of the NLRC and the CA, which justified reexamination of the factual record in this case.
Substantive Due Process and Burden of Proof
The Court reiterated that substantive due process requires a just or authorized cause under the Labor Code for dismissal and that the burden to prove a valid cause rests on the employer. The Court found that respondents discharged that burden. It described the company’s A & L rules requiring that personnel file a Vacation Leave Form in two copies at least five days before leave and that the form be approved by the supervisor, and it reproduced the Code of Discipline’s attendance penalties showing dismissal for five or more days AWOL.
Application of Willful Disobedience Doctrine
The Court applied the two requisites for willful disobedience: that the employee’s conduct be willful, and that the order violated be reasonable, lawful, and made known to the employee and pertain to the employee’s duties. The Court found both requisites satisfied because the petitioner failed to file the prescribed leave form, ignored the management’s notice to explain and a scheduled hearing, and thereby manifested a wrongful and perverse disregard of the company rules. The Court held the leave application requirement reasonable in light of the nature of A & L’s business and relevant to the petitioner’s harvesting duties.
Proof of Communication and Estoppel
The Court addressed the petitioner’s claim that the rules were not communicated and were not authenticated. It observed that respondents asserted the rules were discussed and made known at employment and that the petitioner did not controvert this fact in the trial court but raised it belatedly on reconsideration and on appeal. The Court applied the doctrine that issues first raised on appeal are barred by estoppel and concluded that the petitioner’s afterthought could not be entertained.
Procedural Due Process and Notice
On procedural due process, the Court applied the twin-notice standard and the clarifications in Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera, stating that the first notice must contain detailed charges and allow a reasonable period — at least five days — to prepare an explanation and that a hearing or conference should be scheduled. The Court found that Tycangco’s January 24, 2017 letter served as the first notice with detail of the charges and a five-day opportunity to explain, and that the January 30, 2017 memorandum constituted the second notice terminating employment after consideration of the facts. The Court therefore held that the procedural due process requirements were observed.
Penalty Assessment and Prior Infractions
The Court addressed proportionality of the penalty and found dismissal to be proper bec
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247428)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- JERRY E. ALMOGERA, JR. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contesting a Court of Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 155442.
- A & L FISHPOND AND HATCHERY, INC. is a corporation engaged in breeding, production, and distribution of aquatic products and AUGUSTO TYCANGCO is its owner and proprietor.
- The case arose from petitioner’s dismissal by respondents and his complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims before the Labor Arbiter.
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision favoring petitioner, which the NLRC reversed in part, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision, prompting this Rule 45 petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner was hired in October 2013 as an all-around harvester at a daily wage of P318.00.
- Petitioner alleged that on January 5, 2017 he verbally sought and received his supervisor Cruzada’s approval to be absent from January 6 to 16, 2017 to attend a family emergency in Naga.
- Petitioner left for Naga and, on January 25, 2017 upon reporting for work, received a letter requiring explanation for absences and was placed under preventive suspension from January 25 to 29, 2017.
- Petitioner did not submit any explanation and was served a formal advice of termination effective January 30, 2017 for violation of the company Code of Discipline.
- Respondents relied on written company rules requiring a Vacation Leave (VL) Form filed at least five days before leave and a Code of Discipline prescribing dismissal for five or more days AWOL.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and claims for underpayment of wages, overtime, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter.
- The Labor Arbiter issued a Decision on August 24, 2017 finding illegal dismissal and awarding full backwages, separation pay of PHP 33,072.00, and service incentive leave pay of PHP 4,770.00.
- The NLRC rendered a Decision on December 29, 2017 reversing the Labor Arbiter except as to service incentive leave pay and declaring petitioner validly dismissed.
- The Court of Appeals in a November 12, 2018 decision affirmed the NLRC, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a May 21, 2019 resolution.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a Rule 45 petition.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and therefore not entitled to his monetary claims.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the monetary awards granted by the Labor Arbiter.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner contended that his absences were authorized by his supervisor’s verbal approval, that he never