Title
Mariano vs. G.V. Florida Transport
Case
G.R. No. 240882
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2020
Bus driver dismissed for reckless driving; SC ruled dismissal valid but awarded damages for due process violation, unpaid wages, and 13th month pay.
bus driver
valid dismissal
procedural due process
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240882)

Factual Background: Mariano’s Employment and Alleged Incidents

Mariano alleged that he had worked as a bus driver for Florida Transport since August 5, 2005, earning P3,400.00 per round trip plus commission, and operating the route between Gonzaga, Cagayan and Metro Manila, and vice versa. He claimed that on May 31, 2015, while preparing to depart from the main station at Sampaloc, Manila, a representative from the head office instructed him to alight from his assigned bus and he was not allowed to continue the trip to Gonzaga, Cagayan. The following day, he reported for work but was advised not to come in the meantime, with the company allegedly saying it would send an email regarding his bus assignment. Mariano further alleged that the company’s actions amounted to an illegal dismissal, and he sought payment of money claims, including unpaid wages for two round trips and 13th month pay, as well as related reliefs.

Respondents disputed the dismissal by asserting that they had valid grounds to terminate Mariano’s services based on misconduct involving numerous reckless driving incidents and violations of company rules. They also contended that Mariano was afforded the procedural requirements for termination.

Labor Arbiter’s Initial Ruling and Money Awards

On December 11, 2015, Labor Arbiter Ma. Lourdes R. Baricaua ruled that Mariano’s allegations were deemed admitted because respondents allegedly failed to file their position paper relative to him. The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and ordered respondents to pay Mariano money claims totaling P267,486.67, including separation pay, backwages, proportionate 13th month pay, unpaid wages for two round trips, an additional 13th month pay for recent years, and attorney’s fees computed at ten percent of the total awards.

NLRC Proceedings: Admission of Respondents’ Position Paper and Modified Awards

On appeal, respondents asserted that they had filed their position paper with respect to Mariano and that they prepared separate position papers for Mariano and Arellano, placed both in a single sealed envelope, and mailed them to the LA under a registry receipt. They claimed that it became impossible for the LA to receive only the position paper pertaining to Arellano. On January 28, 2016, the NLRC admitted respondents’ position paper and ruled that respondents adequately explained the reason for belated submission of evidence and that the documentary pieces attached were material to establish respondents’ cause.

The NLRC nonetheless found that while Mariano was involved in several reckless driving incidents constituting misconduct that could justify dismissal, respondents failed to prove the dates when Mariano actually reported for work. For that evidentiary gap, the NLRC limited the award to proportionate 13th month pay. Accordingly, it reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal and held that Mariano had been validly dismissed, while granting proportionate 13th month pay in the amount of P3,150.00.

Court of Appeals Review and Denial of Reconsideration

Mariano filed an appeal to the CA after failing to secure reconsideration before the NLRC. On October 26, 2017, the CA dismissed his petition for lack of merit. It held that respondents amply explained the circumstances surrounding the belated submission of the position paper and evidence on appeal to the NLRC and that there was a valid ground to dismiss Mariano. It further concluded that respondents complied with the two-notice requirement under the Labor Code, as framed by applicable due process standards. Mariano’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 12, 2018, prompting the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

Mariano argued that respondents did not sufficiently justify the belated submission of their position paper as to him and that he was not furnished with a copy of the position paper. He also contended that respondents did not comply with due process, asserting that he was not given the first notice to explain, that there was no hearing or conference allowing him to present evidence, and that he did not receive notice of termination. He further maintained that respondents failed to substantiate his alleged cumulative infractions of company rules on reckless driving as a basis for dismissal.

Respondents countered that the NLRC, affirmed by the CA, correctly admitted their position paper. They also maintained that procedural and substantive due process were satisfied. Mariano reiterated his arguments that there was no just cause for dismissal and that he was deprived of due process.

Evidentiary Issues on Belated Submission and Proof of Service

The Supreme Court recognized that labor tribunals are not categored as being strictly precluded from receiving evidence submitted on appeal because technical rules of procedure are not binding in cases before them. However, the Court emphasized a caveat. The delay must be adequately explained, the evidence must be undeniably material, and it must sufficiently prove the allegations intended to be established.

Applying that framework, the Court disagreed with the NLRC and CA on the sufficiency of respondents’ justification for the belated submission of their position paper as to Mariano. The Court addressed the governing proof rules under the Rules of Court (1997), Rule 12, Section 12 regarding pleadings filed by registered mail when filing is at issue. Respondents presented Registry Receipt No. 3252, but they failed to submit the required affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading. The Court observed that such an affidavit could have explained that two position papers were mailed together by placing them in one sealed envelope and depositing that envelope by registered mail with the post office. It held that the burden lay with respondents—who claimed mailing and receipt of the position paper—to produce the affidavit of the person who performed the mailing so as to satisfy the Rule 12 requirement.

The Court also held that respondents failed to comply with the requirements on proof of service under Rule 13, Section 13. Respondents attached only the registry receipt and did not present the affidavit of the person effecting the mailing. The Court noted that Mariano had consistently raised the non-service of the position paper in his Motion for Reconsideration before the NLRC and in his appeal to the CA. Yet, the NLRC and CA did not resolve that issue. The Court reiterated that when service is made by registered mail, proof of service requires both the affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt, appended to the paper being served; absent either one, there is no proof of service.

Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that a registry receipt alone is not conclusive proof of receipt. Without proof that respondents mailed the position paper together with the registry receipt and without the immediate filing of the registry return card or its equivalent, respondents’ procedural proof was deficient. The Court nevertheless acknowledged that, given the labor setting and the ends of substantial justice, technical procedural defects may be relaxed. It proceeded to decide the substantive merits despite the procedural flaws in the admission and proof of service.

Substantive Due Process: Just Cause Based on Serious Misconduct

The Court reiterated the dual nature of dismissal: substantive due process refers to legality of the dismissal itself, while procedural due process refers to the legality of the manner by which termination is effected. The employer bore the burden of proving that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that termination was valid. In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of evidence is substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus, unsubstantiated suspicions or conclusions do not justify dismissal.

On substantive justification, respondents terminated Mariano on the ground of serious misconduct. The Court restated the elements for serious misconduct as a just cause for dismissal: the misconduct must be serious; it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing unfitness to continue working; and it must have been done with wrongful intent.

The Court found sufficient evidence to establish numerous infractions of company rules and regulations by Mariano since he began working with Florida Transport. The infractions were traced as far back as 2002 up to Mariano’s rehiring in 2008, when he admitted hitting a concrete mixer truck in Baliuag, Bulacan. In 2009, the side mirror of Mariano’s assigned bus was destroyed while he attempted to overtake another bus. In 2013, Mariano had an altercation with an inspector of Florida Transport and was meted a suspension. The last infraction was a vehicular accident in March 2015 that caused injuries to passengers.

The Court held that the repeated and numerous infractions involving driving a passenger bus were not minor. It further observed that judicial notice may be taken of the gross negligence and disregard for the physical safety and property of others commonly exhibited by passenger bus drivers. Given Mariano’s job and the number of incidents, the Court concluded that the infractions were too numerous to be ignored or treated lightly and could already be subsumed as serious misconduct. Accordingly, the Court held that Mariano was validly dismissed on that ground.

Procedural Due Process: Failure to Comply with the First Written Notice

Although the dismissal was sustained on substantive grounds, the Court held that respondents failed to comply with procedural due process. It applied the due process requirements for termination stated in King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, which require: (1) a first written notice stating specific causes or grounds for termination and g

...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.

About Privacy Terms