Title
Lausa vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 79731
Decision Date
Jul 9, 1990
A messman, visibly drunk and belligerent aboard a vessel, was dismissed for serious misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling his behavior endangered public safety and justified termination without separation pay or damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238212)

Incident Overview

On Christmas Day, 1984, Lausa, who had been employed since January 1979, reported to the vessel while under the influence of alcohol. His behavior was belligerent, and he challenged officers and crew members to a fight, which prompted Chief Mate Antonio Tendencia Jr. to intervene.

Termination Process

Following the incident, Negros Navigation requested a written explanation from Lausa regarding his conduct. He denied the allegations, asserting that his behavior was provoked. A formal investigation found sufficient evidence of serious misconduct, leading to Lausa's termination effective January 18, 1985.

Legal Proceedings

On March 1, 1985, Lausa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in Lausa’s favor on June 13, 1986, stating the dismissal was without just cause and awarded him separation pay rather than reinstatement, citing a breakdown in the employer-employee relationship.

Appeals and NLRC Decision

Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Executive Labor Arbiter’s ruling. Negros Navigation argued that the Arbiter erred in accepting Lausa's account, while Lausa contended that he should have been reinstated instead of being awarded separation pay.

Examination of Evidence

The Supreme Court found that the NLRC, along with the Executive Labor Arbiter, had disregarded significant evidence presented by Negros Navigation, including contradicting affidavits from the Chief Mate and crew members that corroborated the misconduct of Lausa. The Court concluded that there were no substantial inconsistencies in the evidence that warranted its rejection.

Misconduct Determination

The Court addressed whether Lausa's actions constituted serious misconduct justifying dismissal. It determined that his intoxicated and aggressive behavior posed a significant threat to passenger safety on a public carrier, thus warranting the dismissal.

Just Cause for Termination

The Court emphasized that under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an e

...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.