Case Summary (G.R. No. 201584)
Factual Background and Procedural History
Mariano was a bus driver since August 5, 2005, receiving P3,400 per round trip plus commission, operating between Gonzaga, Cagayan and Metro Manila. On May 31, 2015, he was instructed to alight from his assigned bus and was barred from continuing his trip; the following day, he was told not to report for work pending further instructions. Mariano and another complainant filed for illegal dismissal and unpaid monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Mariano due to respondents’ failure to file a position paper, ordering payment of separation pay, back wages, 13th month pay, unpaid wages, and attorney’s fees totaling P267,486.67.
Respondents’ Appeal and NLRC Ruling
Respondents contended that they submitted their position papers for both Mariano and the co-complainant together via registered mail but that the LA only received one. The NLRC admitted the late position paper and found that Mariano had been validly dismissed for serious misconduct involving reckless driving. However, the NLRC limited monetary awards to proportionate 13th month pay because of insufficient proof of Mariano’s attendance for work during the contested period.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Final Petition
The CA dismissed Mariano’s appeal, affirming the NLRC’s findings that respondents sufficiently explained their lateness in filing position papers, had valid grounds for dismissal, and complied with due process in notifying Mariano. Mariano’s motions for reconsideration and subsequent appeals were denied, prompting the present petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues on Procedural Due Process and Submission of Position Paper
The Supreme Court held that labor tribunals may accept evidence submitted on appeal despite procedural shortcomings if justified. However, the respondents failed to comply with proper proof of mailing as required under Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of Court since they did not present the required affidavit of the person mailing the position papers alongside the registry receipt. Consequently, there was no conclusive evidence that Mariano was successfully served with a copy of the position paper, thus violating his right to file a reply. The Court emphasized that registry receipts alone do not constitute proof of service.
Merits: Substantive Due Process in Dismissal
The Court affirmed the presence of just cause for dismissal due to Mariano’s repeated misconduct and reckless driving, supported by substantial evidence spanning years back to 2002, including traffic accidents and penalties for violations of company rules. The severity, job-relatedness, and wrongful intent behind these infractions satisfied the requisites for serious misconduct.
Deficiency in Procedural Due Process Compliance
Despite valid grounds for dismissal, the Court ruled respondents failed to comply with mandatory procedural due process requirements, particularly the issuance of a first written notice specifying detailed grounds for termination and affording an opportunity to explain within a reasonable period, followed by a hearing or conference prior to dismissal. The procedure established in King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac was not observed.
Remedies and Monetary Awards
Although the dismissal was for just cause, the failure to observe due process rendered the termination procedurally defective but not illegal. Therefore, the dismissal stands but respondents are liable
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201584)
Procedural History and Nature of the Petition
- The case arises from a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the October 26, 2017 Decision and the July 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- These CA decisions affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) January 28, 2016 Decision and March 30, 2016 Resolution which upheld the validity of the dismissal of Wilfredo T. Mariano.
- The controversy originated from an illegal dismissal complaint filed by Mariano and Francisco C. Arellano against G.V. Florida Transport and Virgilio Florida, Jr. Mariano alone pursued this petition before the Supreme Court.
- Mariano alleged illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages for two round trips, unpaid 13th month pay, refund of cash bond, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Factual Background and Allegations
- Mariano served as a bus driver for Florida Transport since August 5, 2005, earning ₱3,400.00 per round trip plus commission.
- He was assigned to routes between Gonzaga, Cagayan and Metro Manila.
- On May 31, 2015, Mariano was prevented from continuing his assigned trip after an instruction to alight from the bus at the main station in Sampaloc, Manila.
- The next day, Mariano was advised not to report for work; the company promised to notify him by email for a new assignment, which never came.
- Labor Arbiter (LA) Ma. Lourdes R. Baricaua initially ruled that respondents’ failure to file a position paper led to deeming Mariano’s allegations admitted, ordering payment of money claims totaling ₱267,486.67, including separation pay, back wages, proportionate 13th month pay, unpaid wages, and attorney’s fees.
Appeals and Respondents’ Position
- Respondents argued they had mailed their position papers for Mariano and Arellano in one sealed envelope under Registry Receipt No. 3253, denying any failure in submission.
- The NLRC admitted the position paper belatedly but ruled that Mariano's dismissal was valid due to several reckless driving infractions constituting serious misconduct.
- However, the NLRC limited awards to the proportionate 13th month pay due to lack of proof of dates Mariano reported for work.
- Mariano’s appeal to the CA was dismissed for lack of merit with the CA ruling that respondents explained the delayed submission and complied with procedural requirements, including the two-notice requirement under the Labor Code.
- Mariano’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.
Key Issues Raised by Mariano in the Supreme Court
- Failure of respondents to justify the late submission of the position paper concerning Mariano.
- Non-service of the position paper to Mariano, denying him the opportunity to file a reply.
- Lack of the first notice to explain the grounds for dismissal as required by law.
- Absence of any hearing or conference affording him the chance to present evidence.
- Non-receipt of a notice of termination.
- Alleged insufficiency of evidence substantiating the cumulative infractions for reckless driving warranting dismissal.
Respondents’ Rejoinder
- Respondents maintained that the NLRC and CA correctly admitted their position paper on appeal.
- They asserted compliance with procedural and substantive due process requirements for dismissal.
Legal Principles on Submission and Service of Position Papers
- Under Rule 45 jurisprudence, technical rules on evidence may be relaxed in labor cases, but delay in su