Title
De Leon vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 232194
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2019
Employee dismissed for violating company's no-gift policy by accepting whiskey worth over PHP 500, despite claiming gift was from an outsider. Supreme Court upheld dismissal, citing willful misconduct and clear policy violation.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232194)

Factual Background

De Leon worked for PTC beginning January 31, 2005 and was seconded in December 2010 to First Maritime Shared Services, Inc. as Scheduler. During his employment he received multiple awards including the Hall of Fame Award in 2011. PTC’s Code of Discipline, revised in 2012, prohibited offering or accepting any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 and above, and provided that acceptance of any gift from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative would merit dismissal on first offense. On October 9, 2013, de Leon and co-employee Aaron T. Brillante were caught on CCTV receiving a brown bag from an employee Fred Rikko B. Adefuin; the bag contained two bottles of Jack Daniel’s whiskey sent by Mustafa Acar and valued at $36. De Leon admitted instructing Adefuin to hand the gift to Brillante in the far end of the office because of a CCTV camera and later admitted receipt of the bottles, asserting that the gift came from an outsider rather than from a crewmember.

Administrative Investigation and Termination

PTC confronted de Leon the day after the incident. On October 25, 2013, PTC served de Leon and Brillante with memoranda to explain and with notices of thirty-day suspension. De Leon attended an administrative hearing on November 6, 2013 and submitted explanations. On November 12, 2013, Acar sent an email clarifying that the gift was a token of friendship and not a favor from a crewmember. Notwithstanding these explanations, PTC issued a written resolution terminating de Leon’s employment on November 22, 2013, citing violation of the Code of Discipline.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Proceedings

De Leon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on January 30, 2014. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on July 30, 2014. De Leon appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On October 21, 2014, the NLRC Third Division partially granted de Leon’s appeal, finding dismissal too harsh given absence of wrongful intent and de Leon’s exemplary service. PTC moved for reconsideration. On November 28, 2014, the NLRC reversed its October 21, 2014 Decision and resolved that de Leon was aware of the company policy, willfully violated the same, and that as Scheduler his breach justified loss of trust and confidence; accordingly the NLRC held the dismissal valid.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

De Leon filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition in a Decision dated July 19, 2016 primarily on the ground that the petition was filed out of time, reasoning that de Leon received the NLRC Resolution on December 3, 2014, had sixty days to file or until February 1, 2015, and that when the petition was filed on February 2, 2015 the NLRC Resolution had already attained finality. The CA nonetheless reviewed the merits and found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s Resolution. The CA denied de Leon’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated May 23, 2017.

Issue Presented

The principal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari, which required resolution of both the timeliness of the Rule 65 petition and the substantive question whether de Leon’s dismissal was valid.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Timeliness

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the petition was filed out of time. The Court noted that de Leon received the NLRC Resolution on December 3, 2014 and thus had sixty days under Section 4 of Rule 65 to file, or until February 1, 2015. Because February 1, 2015 fell on a Sunday, the reglementary period extended to the next business day, February 2, 2015, on which date de Leon filed his Petition for Certiorari. The Court relied on its prior ruling in Dela Rosa v. Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. to hold that filing on the next working day is timely when the deadline falls on a Sunday.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Merits

Although the Court found the petition timely, it affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the merits and denied the appeal. The Court construed PTC’s Code of Discipline, Section O.5, to punish two distinct acts: (1) offering or accepting directly or indirectly any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 and above, regardless of source, and (2) acceptance of any gift from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative, regardless of value; both acts carried dismissal even on first offense. The Court found that de Leon’s acceptance of the two bottles of whiskey valued at $36 fell squarely under the first prohibited act and thus violated the rule.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court rejected de Leon’s contention that the rule was vague, unreasonable, or inapplicable bec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.