Case Summary (G.R. No. 192113)
Factual Background
Eduardo Pajarito began his employment with Unirock Corporation on March 9, 1999. On March 14, 2005, he was issued a transfer order by Roberto Ignacio, the vice-president for Human Resources Development, indicating he needed to relocate to a work site in Davao starting March 17, 2005. The transfer included additional benefits, which Pajarito declined to receive due to personal circumstances. Following this, he filed a request for mediation with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and expressed his concerns regarding the transfer. Subsequently, on March 31, 2005, Unirock issued a memorandum terminating Pajarito's employment, citing willful disobedience and abandonment of work.
Initial Rulings and Appeals
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Pajarito’s complaint for illegal dismissal, holding that the termination was valid based on his alleged insubordination. Pajarito appealed this decision to the NLRC, which initially reversed the Arbiter's decision, ordering his reinstatement but was later amended to declare him as retrenched from service. This situation prompted Pajarito to elevate his case to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the earlier NLRC decision with modifications, awarding him separation pay rather than reinstatement.
Court of Appeals Decision
In its decision dated October 16, 2009, the Court of Appeals annulled the NLRC's second decision and reinstated its original decision from March 28, 2007, asserting that Pajarito's act of seeking additional time to comply with the transfer order did not indicate malicious intent or willful disobedience. The appellate court also found that the procedural due process was not followed in his dismissal.
Unirock's Arguments
Unirock Corporation contended that the Court of Appeals erred in its finding of illegal dismissal, asserting that retrenchment had been a valid ground for termination and that Pajarito’s refusal to report for work constituted abandonment. They also disputed the appropriateness of the separation pay awarded following the appellate court's decision.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court evaluated the legality of Pajarito's dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, which allows termination for serious misconduct or willful disobedience. The Court concluded that Pajarito’s request for time to prepare his family for the transfer did not amount to willful disobedience. Furthermore, the Court held that Pajarito's actions should not be interpreted as abandonm
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192113)
Overview of the Case
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals regarding the illegal dismissal of Eduardo Pajarito by Unirock Corporation.
- The pivotal question is whether Pajarito's dismissal was justified based on allegations of willful disobedience and abandonment of work.
Factual Antecedents
- Eduardo Pajarito was employed by Unirock Corporation as a heavy equipment operator starting on March 9, 1999, with a daily salary of P258.00.
- On March 14, 2005, Unirock's vice-president for Human Resources issued a transfer order, mandating Pajarito to relocate to Davao by March 17, 2005, offering additional benefits for this transfer.
- Pajarito refused to receive the transfer notice, leading to Unirock sending it via registered mail, which he did not receive due to a change of address.
- Pajarito subsequently filed a request for mediation with the NLRC and explained his situation in writing, requesting more time to relocate to allow his children to finish their schooling.
Termination of Employment
- On March 31, 2005, Unirock issued a Memorandum of Termination citing Pajarito's refusal to comply with the transfer order and his unauthorized absences from work.
- Pajarito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on April 21, 2005, arguing that his termination lacked just cause and due process.
Proceedings and Decisions
- The Labor Arbiter dismissed Pajarito's complain