Case Summary (G.R. No. 216599)
Key Dates
Hire: 2007 (September 3 or August 7, 2007 — as variously alleged in pleadings).
Absence began: February 3, 2012 (text notice of sickness sent to supervisor).
Company nurse visit/attempted service: March 8, 2012.
Notice to explain (company date): March 5, 2012 (served to cousin; company maintains receipt March 8).
Respondent’s explanation by e‑mail: March 14, 2012 (admitting lapse and apologizing).
Termination letter: March 28, 2012.
Labor Arbiter decision: February 11, 2013 (dismissed complaint).
NLRC decision: May 30, 2013 (reversed; ordered backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees).
Court of Appeals decision: August 18, 2014 (affirmed NLRC).
Supreme Court decision: September 16, 2020 (partly granted petition; deleted award of backwages).
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Constitutional baseline: 1987 Constitution protections on security of tenure and the special constitutional concern for labor.
Statutory/administrative standards: Labor Code provisions governing termination and remedies (reinstatement, backwages, separation pay) and established jurisprudential standards on (a) burden of proof on employer to establish just or authorized cause for dismissal, (b) procedural due process (twin notice/hearing requirement), (c) proportionality of penalty to infraction, and (d) circumstances when reinstatement may be impracticable and separation pay substituted.
Facts as Found in the Record
Respondent sent a text to his supervisor on February 3, 2012: he could not report to work because of chest x‑ray results showing pulmonary TB and pneumonia and was advised rest and isolation. The supervisor requested medical certificate and test results via text on February 6; respondent did not provide them. After a month without contact, the company sent its nurse to respondent’s residence and attempted to serve a notice to explain; service was made to the cousin. The respondent contacted his supervisor on March 14, 2012 and e‑mailed an explanation apologizing and seeking reconsideration. The company issued a termination letter dated March 28, 2012, citing unauthorized absence, failure to notify manager or HR of reasons, failure to respond to calls/messages, and alleged indications from the nurse that respondent had left home for abroad.
Company Policy on Attendance and Absences (as applied)
Verizon’s written policy classified absences as Authorized (e.g., emergency, sickness) and Unauthorized (failure to notify). Authorized sick leave required a four‑hour prior notice (if absence unpredictable, notify four hours before shift) and submission of proof of illness upon return; unauthorized absence included failure to notify or failure to submit medical certificate on return. Progressive sanctions were prescribed up to dismissal: five or more consecutive days without approved leave could be treated as abandonment/AWOL and subject to dismissal.
Procedural History and Tribunal Findings
Labor Arbiter (LA): Dismissed respondent’s complaint, finding he had been validly terminated for prolonged unauthorized absence (38 consecutive days), emphasizing respondent’s failure to inform company of duration of absence or submit required medical proof; held the company rule on abandonment applicable and that respondent’s prolonged absence disrupted operations.
NLRC: Reversed LA. Found that respondent did notify his immediate supervisor on February 3 by text and that Verizon’s rules did not mandate submission of proof while the employee was on sick leave; only notification and submission upon return were required. NLRC held dismissal unlawful and ordered backwages, separation pay (one month per year of service, with fractions ≥6 months treated as one year), and attorney’s fees (10% of backwages and separation pay).
Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed NLRC. CA concluded the text message was sufficient notice, the long absence was justified by the serious, contagious nature of pulmonary TB/pneumonia, and Verizon failed to afford opportunity to be heard.
Parties’ Contentions on Review
Verizon’s contentions: dismissal was valid for violation of company rules on absenteeism and abandonment; CA misinterpreted company policy and failed to apply rules on excessive absenteeism and abandonment; company granted opportunity to be heard and acted within management prerogative.
Respondent’s contentions: dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause and procedural due process; absence was for serious illness and he had notified supervisor; he was not given proper opportunity to be heard and suffered arbitrary termination.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether respondent was validly dismissed for excessive absenteeism/abandonment under Verizon’s policies.
- Whether Verizon observed procedural due process before terminating respondent.
- Appropriate remedy — reinstatement and full backwages, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and/or deletion of backwages.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Facts and Law
- Standard of review: Although Rule 45 limits review to questions of law, the Court may review facts in labor cases where factual findings by tribunals and CA are contradictory; here the LA, NLRC, and CA reached conflicting factual conclusions, permitting review.
- Burden of proof: Employer must establish just or authorized cause for dismissal; failure results in finding of illegal dismissal. The Court applied settled jurisprudence protecting security of tenure and insisting on evidentiary showing and proportionality in imposing dismissal.
- Interpretation of policy and sufficiency of notice: The Court agreed with NLRC/CA that the February 3 text message to respondent’s supervisor was sufficient to apprise Verizon of respondent’s condition and that the company’s policy did not require proof of illness while on sick leave but rather required notification and subsequent submission of medical proof upon return. Accordingly, respondent’s absence was not shown to be unauthorized merely because he did not immediately produce medical documentation or indicate a return date.
- Proportionality of penalty: Even if respondent violated some procedural aspects of company policy, dismissal was a severe penalty that had to be proportionate to the offense. The Court reiterated jurisprudence that rigid application of company rules will be reviewed where the sanction is manifestly disproportionate. Given the illness, notification by text, length of service, and nature of the disease, the Court found dismissal excessive as a sanction for the conduct complained of.
- Procedural due process: The Court held Verizon failed to afford respondent a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The notice to explain was served to a cousin and the company treated respondent’s March 14 explanation as untimely despite evidence he only received the notice on that date; the company therefore disregarded his explanation in evaluating the case. The Court applied the twin‑notice and hearing requirements (first notice specifying charges and allowing a reasonable period — at least five calendar days — to prepare, and a hearing/conference followed by a written notice of termination if dismissal follows) and found Verizon’s procedures deficient in affording a reasonable opportunity to defend.
Remedy and Disposition
- Illegality of dismissal: The Court concluded respondent was illegally dismissed.
- Reinstatement vs. separation pay: The NLRC and CA had found respondent opted for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; the Supreme Court upheld the grant of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216599)
Case Caption and Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division; G.R. No. 216599.
- Decision promulgated September 16, 2020.
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 challenging: (1) Court of Appeals Decision dated August 18, 2014; and (2) Court of Appeals Resolution dated January 29, 2015, both upholding the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding of illegal dismissal and denying Verizon's motion for reconsideration.
- Opinion authored by Justice Lopez; concurrence by Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.
Parties
- Petitioner: Verizon Communications Philippines, Inc. (referred to as "Verizon" or "petitioner").
- Respondent/Complainant: Laurence C. Margin (referred to as "Laurence" or "respondent").
Nature of the Case and Reliefs Sought
- Labor case for illegal dismissal and damages filed by Laurence on March 28, 2012.
- Reliefs claimed by Laurence included reinstatement (or separation pay in lieu) and monetary claims (backwages and other money claims).
- Verizon sought to uphold the dismissal for violation of company attendance/absence rules and to deny monetary reliefs.
Material Facts (as alleged by Laurence)
- Laurence was employed by Verizon as a network engineer, hired on September 3, 2007 (Position Paper indicates September 3, 2007; Verizon's pleadings noted alternate hire date of August 7, 2007 and different position title).
- In January 2012, Laurence experienced deteriorating health: constant nausea, difficulty breathing, colds and cough with spots of blood.
- Medical consultation and chest x-ray results showed "PTB vs. Pneumonia" and recommended 60 days isolation and bed rest.
- Laurence informed his manager, Joseph Benjamin Quintal, of his medical condition and did not report to work from February 3, 2012 to recuperate; he went to Guimaras Island to quarantine.
- On March 14, 2012, a notice to explain was forwarded to Laurence's residence in Cavite; Laurence telephoned Joseph and allegedly learned his employment had been terminated on March 12, 2012.
- On the same day Laurence filed his complaint (March 28, 2012), Verizon sent him a letter of termination.
- Laurence maintained he did not abandon work because he had notified his manager of his illness and need for treatment and quarantine.
Material Facts (as alleged by Verizon)
- On February 3, 2012, Laurence sent a text message to his supervisor Joseph stating he could not report to work and referencing x-ray results showing Pulmonary TB and pneumonia; he did not indicate duration of leave.
- Joseph attempted to call Laurence to request a medical certificate and ask when he would return; Laurence did not take calls.
- Joseph sent a text on February 6, 2012 asking for medical certificate and test results; Laurence did not reply.
- After more than a month without contact, on March 8, 2012, Verizon's company nurse visited Laurence's residence to check on him and to serve a notice requiring explanation for unauthorized absence and why he should not be considered to have abandoned his work; the notice was received by Laurence's cousin, Melrose Anne Basillas.
- Laurence only called Joseph on March 14, 2012 and on that day he emailed an explanation admitting fault, apologizing for unauthorized absence and seeking reconsideration.
- In view of Laurence's admission, Verizon terminated his employment on March 28, 2012.
- Verizon relied on its attendance and absenteeism policies and argued Laurence's 38-day absence (February 3 to March 8, 2012) without sufficient notice or submission of medical documents justified dismissal.
Company Rules and Policy Excerpts Quoted in the Record
- Attendance and Punctuality: employees expected to report on time and regularly; excessive absenteeism and tardiness grounds for corrective action, including termination.
- Attendance and Absences: employees expected to inform Manager at least 5 days before scheduled absence; if unforeseen, notify Manager at least four (4) hours before shift and indicate intended return time.
- Authorized Absences: emergencies and sick leaves; employee must provide reasonable description of nature of emergency or sickness; four (4) hours notification required; proof of illness to be provided subsequently.
- For an absence to be authorized, employee should inform immediate Manager/Supervisor at least four hours before scheduled work; failure may result in unauthorized absence.
- Unauthorized Absences: failure to report to work as expected; one or more unauthorized absences will result in corrective actions up to dismissal; five (5) or more consecutive days without approved leave considered abandonment/AWOL/voluntary resignation.
- Examples of Unauthorized Absence: failure to notify manager/supervisor and/or Attendance Administrator 4 hours before scheduled duty; failure to submit medical certificate on return date where absence due to illness.
- Corrective Action Progressive Matrix for Unauthorized Absences within a year: 1st offense verbal warning; 2nd written warning; 3rd one-day suspension; 4th three-day suspension; 5th offense or five consecutive unauthorized days: dismissal.
Labor Arbiter Decision (February 11, 2013)
- Labor Arbiter dismissed Laurence's complaint, ruling the dismissal valid.
- Rationale:
- Defendant employer bears the burden to prove just cause for dismissal.
- The company had a rule treating unauthorized absences of five (5) consecutive days as abandonment and grounds for dismissal.
- Although Laurence notified his manager on February 3, 2012 about his illness and intention not to report that day, he failed to notify the company of the extended absence or to submit medical certification upon return.
- As Network Engineer, Laurence's prolonged unauthorized absence for thirty-eight (38) consecutive days hampered company operations; his absence therefore justified application of the rule on absenteeism.
- The company's attendance rules were made known during orientation and via company website; Laurence's contention that he awaited instructions from his manager did not exonerate his failure to file leave or inform the company of extended absence.
NLRC Decision (May 30, 2013)
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and ruled in favor of Laurence.
- Ordered Verizon to pay:
- Backwages from March 28, 2012 (date of termination) until decision attains finality, based on last pay before dismissal;
- Separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service, computed from September 3, 2007 to finality of decision (fraction of at least six months counted as one year);
- Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of total award of backwages and separation pay (amount stated as P97,893.01).
- Rationale:
- Verizon failed to show that Laurence's absence was unauthorized.
- Company rules do not requ