Case Summary (G.R. No. 50092)
Incident Overview
Roquero and Pabayo were caught using Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) on company premises during a raid conducted by PAL security and Narcotics Command (NARCOM) personnel. They contended that their drug use was instigated by an individual named Jojie Alipato, introduced to them by Joseph Ocul, the manager of the Airport Maintenance Division at PAL. This assertion highlighted the complexity of their situation, as they claimed Alipato's actions were coordinated to entice them into drug use.
Administrative Charges and Dismissal
On March 30, 1994, Roquero and Pabayo were formally charged with violating the PAL Code of Discipline and were suspended. They argued their drug use was not voluntary but induced by Alipato, who they claimed had no employment record with PAL. In July 1994, they were dismissed by PAL, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
The Labor Arbiter upheld their dismissal, attributing fault to both PAL for instigating the situation and to the complainants for succumbing to the temptation. Despite this, the Labor Arbiter awarded them separation pay and attorney's fees, recognizing potential misconduct on both sides.
Appeal and NLRC Ruling
While their case was under appeal at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Roquero and Pabayo were acquitted in a criminal case due to instigation. The NLRC found PAL guilty of instigation, ordered reinstatement for both complainants without back wages, and allowed for a writ of execution for reinstatement. Pabayo later agreed to a compromise with PAL, which led to the dismissal of his claims.
Court of Appeals Review
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision regarding Roquero, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's original ruling that upheld his dismissal. However, it denied him separation pay and attorney's fees, stating that a valid dismissal precludes entitlement to such benefits.
Legal Issues Presented
Roquero raised several legal questions in his petition for review:
- Whether employees instigated by their employer should bear sole responsibility for actions that arise from such instigation.
- If a petition for review affects the executory nature of a decision, particularly concerning reinstatement, without a restraining order.
- Whether an employer's refusal to reinstate an employee despite a court-issued writ results in liability for the employee's wages from the time of said issuance until a higher court's decision.
Findings on Misconduct and Dismissal
The Court affirmed Roquero's dismissal due to serious misconduct involving prohibited drug use. It reiterated that serious misconduct must pertain to an employee's duty and render them unfit for their position. Given Roquero’s role in the safety-sensitive aviation sector, the Court emphasized that drug use presented an unacceptable risk, regardless of the circumstances surrounding his actions.
Procedural Due Process
The Court found that PAL adequately complied with the procedural due process requirements before R
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 50092)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review concerning the dismissal of Alejandro Roquero from his employment with Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL).
- Roquero and his co-worker, Rene Pabayo, were found in possession and using Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) during a raid by PAL security and NARCOM personnel.
- Roquero claimed they were instigated to use drugs by an individual named Jojie Alipato, alleging that Alipato was a PAL trainee who encouraged drug use among employees.
Factual Background
- Roquero and Pabayo, both ground equipment mechanics at PAL, were apprehended while engaging in drug use within company premises.
- Alipato, introduced to them by Joseph Ocul, the Airport Maintenance Division Manager, allegedly persuaded them to partake in drug use.
- Following their arrest, Roquero and Pabayo underwent physical examinations that confirmed drug use and subsequently provided written confessions without legal counsel.
Administrative Proceedings
- On March 30, 1994, PAL issued a notice of administrative charges against Roquero and Pabayo for violating the PAL Code of Discipline.
- They were placed under preventive suspension and disputed the charges, claiming instigation by Alipato, who was not arrested and had no employment record with PAL.
- A memorandum dated July 14, 1994, resulted in their dismissal from PAL, prompting them to file a case for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, determining that both parties shared fault; PAL for enticing the employees into drug use and the employees for succumbing to temptation.
- Roquero and Pabayo were awarded separation pay and attorney's fees despit