Case Summary (G.R. No. 223125)
Factual Antecedents
Respondent was employed as a customer care specialist with the Petitioner starting July 6, 2010. On March 8, 2011, a Show Cause Memo was issued to Respondent due to her absences on specific dates, indicating her designation as No Call No Show (NCNS). The memo cited the company code of conduct, stating that absences for three or more consecutive days without notice constituted absence without official leave (AWOL). Respondent subsequently submitted a written explanation addressing her absence, stating it was due to a medical condition related to her pregnancy. Despite her explanation and evidence from her obstetrician advising her to take rest, Respondent was charged with violating company policies regarding attendance and subsequently faced termination effective April 8, 2011.
Legal Proceedings
Respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA), contesting her dismissal on the grounds that her absences were justified due to a serious medical condition affecting her pregnancy and that she had communicated with her immediate superior regarding her absence. Petitioner countered that Respondent's repeated absences without leave were tantamount to gross neglect of duty. The LA initially dismissed Respondent's complaint for lack of merit, asserting that the dismissal was lawful due to violations of the company's code of conduct.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), upon appeal, reversed the LA's decision and recognized Respondent's dismissal as illegal, ordering reinstatement without backwages. Following a reconsideration motion from Petitioner, the NLRC confirmed the dismissal was valid but ordered reinstatement without backwages for reasons of equity.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) which varied in its approach when it heard a separate petition from Respondent. CA did not consolidate these petitions despite indicating familiar parties and issues, leading to two conflicting decisions: one affirming that there was indeed a valid dismissal, and the other declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement and backwages for Respondent.
Primary Issue
The core issue presented for resolution was whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's decision.
Ruling of the Court
The Supreme Court found that the CA had committed a procedural error by not consolidating the two petitions despite their identical nature and issues, which could lead to conflicting decisions. The failure to consolidate result
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 223125)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by IBM Daksh Business Process Services Philippines, Inc. (now known as Concentrix Daksh Business Process Services Philippines Corporation) against Rosallie S. Ribas.
- The petition challenges the Decision dated December 18, 2015, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132908, along with the CA Resolution dated February 22, 2016, which denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
- Employment History: Rosallie S. Ribas was employed as a customer care specialist by the petitioner on July 6, 2010.
- Absence Issues: On March 8, 2011, Ribas received a Show Cause Memo regarding her absences on March 1, 2, 5, and 6, 2011, which were classified as "No Call No Show" (NCNS).
- Explanation for Absences: Ribas submitted a written explanation citing health issues related to her pregnancy, stating that she had informed her immediate superior via text about her inability to report to work.
- Formal Charge and Dismissal: Following a hearing on March 16, 2011, she was terminated effective April 8, 2011, for violation of the company’s Code of Conduct concerning attendance.
Proceedings Before Labor Arbiter and NLRC
- Ribas filed a complaint before t