Title
Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 172589
Decision Date
Aug 8, 2010
Employee dismissed for alleged drug use; Supreme Court ruled termination illegal due to unaccredited drug test, awarding separation pay and backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172589)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and the Department Order No. 53-03 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Facts of the Case

Nacague was employed by Sulpicio Lines on June 15, 1995, and served as the "hepe de viaje" on board its vessel. In January 2003, the company received an anonymous tip about drug use aboard the ship. A formal investigation commenced following a report from a crew member about drug paraphernalia and threats made against him by Nacague and his supervisor. On February 18, 2003, a random drug test conducted through S.M. Lazo Medical Clinic indicated that Nacague tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

After undergoing a separate voluntary drug test at Chong Hua Hospital, which returned a negative result, Sulpicio Lines terminated Nacague's employment on March 7, 2003, citing grave misconduct and loss of trust. Nacague subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor authorities.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On November 12, 2003, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nacague, declaring his dismissal illegal. The Labor Arbiter found the drug test from S.M. Lazo Clinic questionable because it was not accredited by the Dangerous Drugs Board, whereas the test from Chong Hua Hospital was deemed credible. The Labor Arbiter ordered Sulpicio Lines to pay Nacague separation pay and back wages but did not order reinstatement due to strained relationships.

NLRC and Court of Appeals Decisions

Dissatisfied with the Labor Arbiter's ruling, Sulpicio Lines appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, on March 21, 2005, reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, asserting that Nacague's employment termination was valid due to his positive drug test constituting serious misconduct and loss of trust. The NLRC upheld the presumption of S.M. Lazo Clinic's accreditation and determined that it was Nacague's burden to prove otherwise.

Nacague’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 31, 2005, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In its January 23, 2006 decision, the Court upheld the NLRC's ruling, confirming that Sulpicio Lines met both the procedural and substantive requirements of the law regarding Nacague's dismissal.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in Nacague's petition and highlighted that Sulpicio Lines failed to establish the credibility of the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test, pointing out that it did not provide proof of accreditation as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that the law prescribed the requirement for both a screening test and a confirmatory test; in this case, only a screening test was condu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.