Case Summary (G.R. No. 261670)
Background and Employment Details
Romeo Lagatic was employed by Cityland Development Corporation in May 1986, initially as a probationary sales agent and later as a marketing specialist. His responsibilities included soliciting sales and making cold calls, which were emphasized as effective sales tactics by the company. Cityland mandated all marketing specialists to submit daily progress reports of their cold calls, with the volume of calls being proportional to sales generated. This policy was codified into the employment contract.
Instances of Non-Compliance
On several occasions, Lagatic failed to submit the required cold call reports. A formal reprimand was issued on October 22, 1991, for his non-compliance, and he was later suspended for three days due to repeated infractions. Despite the warnings and penalties, Lagatic continued to disregard the reporting requirements, culminating in a derogatory note he displayed at work, which provoked further disciplinary action.
Dismissal and Legal Proceedings
Lagatic was dismissed on February 26, 1993, due to gross insubordination resulting from his failure to submit cold call reports and the public display of contempt for company policy. He challenged this dismissal by filing a complaint for illegal termination and other claims, which was dismissed for lack of merit by the labor arbiter. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal, leading to Lagatic's petition for certiorari.
Issues Raised
Lagatic contended that the NLRC erred in affirming the findings of the labor arbiter regarding his dismissal and in denying his claims for separation pay, unpaid overtime, and other benefits. He argued that his non-submission of cold call reports did not constitute a willful disobedience warranting dismissal.
Just Cause for Dismissal
The ruling emphasized that for a dismissal to be valid, it must meet two criteria: the employee must be given due process and the dismissal must be for a just cause. Lagatic's repeated non-compliance with the reporting requirements, coupled with critical infractions such as the derogatory note, constituted willful disobedience of reasonable company rules. The decision noted that employers have the authority to impose rules and regulations, and failure to adhere to these justifies disciplinary action up to dismissal.
Procedural Due Process
The court addressed allegations of procedural deficiencies in Lagatic’s dismissal, asserting that he had received adequate notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to respond. He was given two written notices and had submitted a response, albeit without introducing any substantial counter-evidence. The court concluded that Lagatic was not deprived of due process as he had the opportunity to defend himself adequately.
Claims for Additional Benefits
Lagatic also pursued claims for unpaid commissions, overtime pay, rest day pay, and damages. He argued that the commission calculation method employed by Cityland was unlawful as it resulted in deductions from his earnings following wage increases. The court clarified that the determination of commissions is typically a matter of agreement and the employer is not legally bound to guarantee commission amounts on fixed terms
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 261670)
Case Background
- Petitioner: Romeo Lagatic
- Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission, Cityland Development Corporation, Stephen Roxas, Jesus Go, Grace Liuson, and Andrew Liuson.
- Case Number: G.R. No. 121004
- Decision Date: January 28, 1998
- Nature of the Case: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking reversal of NLRC resolution affirming the labor arbiter's decision on dismissal and denial of entitlements.
Employment History
- Lagatic was employed by Cityland in May 1986 as a probationary sales agent and later as a marketing specialist.
- His primary responsibilities included soliciting sales through methods such as accepting referrals, making client calls, and conducting cold calls.
- Cold calls were mandated by Cityland as a method to find clients, with performance measured by daily progress reports.
Incidents Leading to Dismissal
- Initial Reprimand: On October 22, 1991, Lagatic received a written reprimand for not submitting cold call reports.
- Continued Non-Compliance: Despite a suspension on November 9, 1992, for repeated failures to submit reports, he continued to neglect this duty.
- Defiant Behavior: On February 16, 1993, he wrote a note stating, "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?" which he displayed publicly.
- Final Notice and Dismissal: Following a memorandum requiring an explanation for his actions, Lagatic was dismissed on February 26, 1993, for gross insubordination.