LOS SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN EN LA ESTRUCTURA DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse CA decision FACTS- Emilio Uy owned Victory Ricemill. He employed Rosario astruck driver. Petitioner was tasked to, among others, haul palayfrom various points and bring them to respondent’s ricemill. Inaddition, petitioner acted as personal driver to the family of Mr.Uy during their trips to Manila.

- Uy dismissed Rosario. According to respondent, petitioner wasguilty of insubordination when he refused to serve as driver ofMr. Uy’s son when the latter needed a driver. Also, petitionerwas instructed to deliver 600 bags of cement to Felix Hardware.Instead, petitioner delivered the same to one Eduardo Interior,who had not since then paid for P60k. Because of petitioner’stendency to disobey the orders to him, Uy was constrained toengage the services of another driver. Petitioner resented thenew driver and became uncooperative, disrespectful andquarrelsome. Petitioner, armed with a dagger, fought with theother driver and inflicted an injury on

the latter. Petitionerlikewise inflicted injuries on the head of a co-employee, whenhe intervened in the fight and tried to pacify petitioner.

- A complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims was filed by petitioner - Labor arbiter found that there were valid causes for the termination of petitioner’s employment.

- The NLRC found that petitioner was denied due process duringthe proceedings with the regional labor arbiter as petitioner wasnot given the opportunity to present his additional rebuttalevidence. On the other hand, respondent was allowed to submitin evidence various exhibits to discredit the rebuttal testimonyof petitioner. Case was remanded.

- Petitioner submitted the affidavit ofRoque, who averred thatthe 600 bags of cement delivered to Eduardo Interior had beenpaid as evidenced by in the sum of P58,950.00 payable torespondent.

- Regional labor arbiter promulgated his decision stating that he found no reason to deviate from his previous decision.

- NLRC affirmed the ruling of the regional labor arbiter

- CA found that respondent had justifiable cause to dismisspetitioner. CA also observed that although there was no strictcompliance with the two-notice rule, it could be gleaned fromthe records that petitioner was given ample opportunity toexplain his side. Moreover, even granting that respondent fellshort of the two-notice requirement, such irregularity, accordingto the CA, does not militate against the legality of the dismissal.

ISSUES 1. WON petitioner’s termination was for a just and lawful cause 2. WON petitioner’s dismissal from his employment was in

accordance with the due process requirement of the law 3. WON petitioner is entitled to backwages

HELD 1. YES - Petitioner’s actuations clearly constituted willful disobedienceand serious misconduct justifying his dismissal under Article282(a) of the Labor Code which provides:

Art. 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by theemployee of the lawful orders of his employer orrepresentative in connection with his work;

- Willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders, as a justcause for the dismissal of an employee, envisages theconcurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’sassailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, thewillfulness being characterized by a "wrongful and perverseattitude;" and (2) the order violated must have beenreasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and mustpertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

2. NO- To effect the dismissal of an employee the law requires notonly that there be just and valid cause as provided under Article282. It likewise enjoins the employer to afford the employee theopportunity to be heard and to defend himself. The employer ismandated to furnish the employee with two written notices: (a)a written notice containing a statement of the cause for thetermination to afford the employee ample opportunity to beheard and defend himself with the assistance of hisrepresentative, if he so desires; (b) if the employer decides toterminate the services of the employee, the employer mustnotify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, statingclearly the reason therefore

- While respondent furnished petitioner the written noticeinforming him of his dismissal, respondent failed to furnishpetitioner the written notice apprising him of the charge orcharges against him. Consequently, petitioner was deprived ofthe opportunity to respond thereto - When the dismissal is effected for a just and valid cause, the

failure to observe procedural requirements does not invalidatenor nullify the dismissal of an employee. The consequence ofthe failure either of the employer or the employee to live up tothis precept is to make him liable in damages, not to render hisact void. The measure of damages is the amount of wages theemployee should have received were it not for the terminationof his employment without prior notice. If warranted, nominaland moral damages may also be awarded.

3. YES- Under the Labor Code, only the absence of a just cause for thetermination of employment can make the dismissal of anemployee illegal.

Art. 279. Security of Tenure. – In cases of regularemployment, the

employer shall not terminate the services ofan employee except for a just cause or when authorized bythis Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from workshall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniorityrights and other privileges and to his full backwages,inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or theirmonetary equivalent

computed from the time hiscompensation was withheld from him up to the time of hisactual reinstatement.

- Thus, only if the termination of employment is not for any ofthe causes provided by law is it illegal and, therefore, theemployee should be reinstated and paid backwages.

- On the other hand, if it is shown that the employee wasdismissed for any of the just causes mentioned in said Art. 282,then, in accordance with that article, he should not bereinstated. However, he must be paid backwages from the timehis employment was terminated until it is determined that thetermination of employment is for a just cause because thefailure to hear him before he is dismissed renders thetermination of his employment without legal effect. .

NATIONAL BOOKSTORE INC V CA (YMASA,GABRIEL) 378 SCRA 194 BELLOSILLO; February 27, 2002

FACTS- Petitioner National Bookstore employed private respondentsYmasa and Gabriel as Cash Custodian and Head Cashier. Theywere routinely tasked with counting the previous day’s salesand placing them in separate plastic bags to be deposited inINTERBANK and PCIB. The bags were held for safekeeping in theBranch vault but upon retrieval to deposit the money withroving tellers, the money was counted again but the amount forPCIB was short of P42,758.

- Private respondents were asked by Management to explain inwriting why they should not be dismissed for the loss ofcompany funds and were placed under preventive suspension.Private respondents in turn denied responsibility, emphasizingthey had no access to the vault and that they were thoroughlysearched by the guard before leaving. They also asserted theirloyalty and sincerity in their work as they had been employedthere over 13 years.

- Petitioner found their explanation unsatisfactory and terminated them for gross neglect of duty and loss of

confidence. Private respondents filed a complaint for illegaldismissal. The Labor Arbiter found in their favor, stating that thedismissal was not founded on valid and justifiable grounds.Petitioners appeal with the NLRC was denied, as was theirpetition for certiorari with the CA for lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON private respondents were illegally dismissed

HELD: YES - The onus of proving that the dismissal of the employee was fora valid and authorized cause rests on the employer. Failure todischarge the same would mean the dismissal was not justifiedand therefore illegal.

- The requisites for a valid dismissal are (a) the employee mustbe afforded due process (b) the dismissal must be for a validcause. Petitioner complied with the first requisite by furnishingthe employees with written notices stating cause fortermination, and having decided to do so, the reasons therefor.- Petitioner accused private respondents of gross neglect ofduty and loss of confidence. Gross negligence is defined as thefailure to

exercise slight care or diligence. A perusal of therecords show they weren’t even remotely negligent of theirduties. They were able to illustrate with candor and sinceritythe procedure they took prior to the loss—

petitioner’sallegations on the other hand, were not supported by

anysubstantive evidence. Assuming arguendo they were negligent,a single act cannot be categorized as habitual and thus cannotbe a just cause for dismissal.

- Loss of confidence on the other hand must be based on thewillful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.Petitioner failed to establish with certainty the facts upon whichsuch a breach of confidence could be based. Privaterespondents were thus illegally dismissed. Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

WORLDWIDE PAPERMILLS, INC. and/or HONORIO POBLADOR, III, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDWIN P. SABUYA, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

FACTS: Private respondent was employed by petitioner as a packer on July 8, 1982 until his services were terminated on September 28, 1991. It appears that private respondent incurred excessive unexcused absences from 1986 to 1989, as summarized in a memorandum dated January 22, 1990 prepared and signed by the personnel/administrative officer of petitioner thus:

In 1986, he incurred a total of 46 days without pay including AWOL but excluding 30 days VL & SL given to him. The following year, 1987, he accumulated about 17. 5 days leave without pay including AWOL after exhausting the 30 days VL/SL with pay. Followed by 1988, in which after exhausting the 30 days leave with pay, he again accumulated 60 days leave without pay, 12 days of which AWOL. Finally, 1989 he acquired a total of 26 days leave without pay including 3 days AWOL after exhausting the 30 days leave with pay. (Please refer to attached breakdown of

absences.) Disciplined for unofficial leaves, in 1986, he was admonished, (1) month. In 1987, he was admonished, warned sternly, and suspended for one (1) week. While in 1988 for AWOL he was admonished, warned sternly and suspended for one (1) month. On Nov. 11, he was warned

sternly for excessive leave without pay. Finally in 1989, he got an admonition and consequently warned sternly for AWOL. (Please refer to attached breakdown of DAM.)

Sabuya was counselled several times to improve his attendance. He promised not to absent himself, yet, no compliance. Due to having incurred 12 days AWOL in 1988, he was supposed to be terminated based on our rule, but due to his asking reconsideration and intervention of R. Brusola, Union President he was only suspended for one (1) month. A promissory note to this effect was executed by Sabuya and witnessed by R. Brusola, stressing among others to improve his attendance in 1989; once he exceeds the VL & SL granted by the company, he accepts to be

terminated; and the next time he is declared AWOL he accepts the DA of termination.(Please see attached notes for reference.)

Private respondent, however again incurred absences without official leave. A week after he had served his latest suspension, private

respondent applied for sick leave covering the period August 12-18, 1991.

Ms. Belinda Luna, the Company nurse, paid private respondent a home visit. However, he was not there. Neither was anybody at home, though the radio was on. Ms. Luna learned from private respondent's son that his father was moonlighting as a pedicab driver at Bayanan, Muntinlupa, market.

After petitioner was informed of the incident, private respondent's application for sick leave was disapproved. Then, on Aug. 29, 1991, petitioner issued a memorandum to private respondent requiring him to explain within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt why no disciplinary action should be imposed upon him for his excessive absences without official leave. Petitioner terminated the employment of private respondent.

Thus, the latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying for

reinstatement and payment of backwages. LA: illegal dismissal. NLRC: the is just cause for the dismissal.

ISSUE: WON dismissal is illegal.

RULING: In the case at bench, it is undisputed that respondent Edwin P.

Sabuya had within a span of almost six (6) years been repeatedly

admonished, warned and suspended for incurring excessive unauthorized absences. Worse, he was not at home but was out driving a pedicab to earn extra income when the company nurse visited his residence after he

filed an application for sick leave. Such conduct of respondent Edwin P.

Sabuya undoubtedly constitutes gross and habitual neglect of duties.c Sabuya was given notice that the next time he again exceeds his allowed vacation and sick leaves or goes on absence without official leave, he would be terminated from employment. Private respondent did not heed the warning. His dismissal from employment is, therefore, justified.

On the issue of separation pay, we ruled also in Philippine Geothermal, Inc. 12 that separation pay of one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service is equitable, even if the employee's termination of employment is justified.

Finally, on the issue of violation of private respondent's right to procedural due process, it is clear that the right was violated when no hearing was conducted prior to dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent NLRC is MODIFIED to read as follows: The dismissal of private respondent Edwin P. Sabuya is, under the circumstances of this case, declared valid and justified.

Petitioners are hereby ordered, for humanitarian reasons, to pay respondent Edwin P. Sabuya separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service and to indemnify him the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for failure of petitioners to fully comply with the requirements of procedural due process.

JUAN P. VILLENO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, SULPICIO LINES, INC., and/or SIXTO ORIG and CARLOS GO, Respondents. G.R. No. 108153 December 26, 1995

FACTS: Petitioner Juan P. Villeno was employed on 29 December 1961 as electrician in one of the vessels of private respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

Twenty-seven (27) years later he was separated from the service.

M/V Sulpicio Container XI after leaving the port of Cebu for Manila was forced to return due to the death of the purser on board. Upon reaching port, the crew members were instructed not to leave the vessel as it would pursue its voyage immediately after turning over the body to the proper

authorities. The ship's cook however was granted permission upon his request to leave the vessel to buy additional foodstuff for their provisions.

The petitioner on the other hand, without seeking permission, left the vessel purportedly to settle a marital problem. Before leaving he disconnected the ship's steering line cable so that the vessel could not leave port without him. His explanation was that he wanted to prevent pranksters from toying around with the steering wheel as what had happened in the past.

According to petitioner, when he returned to the port thirty (30) minutes later, the ship was only a few inches away from the wharf but was prevented by a representative of respondent corporation from boarding the vessel. It turned out that the vessel had hired another electrician to reconnect the steering line cable. The consequence of petitioner's actuation was that the departure of the vessel was further delayed.

Petitioner was investigated the following day by Atty. Sixto Orig, private respondent and personnel officer of respondent shipping lines. Petitioner was assisted by a representative of the Philippine Labor Federation. In that investigation he admitted having disconnected the steering line cable.

After evaluation of the evidence he was found guilty of intentionally sabotaging the operation of the vessel, a serious misconduct, compounded by willful disobedience justifying the penalty of dismissal.

Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was indeed guilty of misconduct but found the penalty of dismissal harsh considering that there was no evidence showing that petitioner intended to sabotage the voyage of the vessel.

(NLRC) held that the circumstances that petitioner had been employed by respondent corporation for a long period of time and that it was his first offense were not by themselves sufficient to warrant mitigation of the consequences of his serious misconduct. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint. 2

ISSUE: whether petitioner's dismissal from the service is justified under the law.

RULING: The crux of the controversy now is whether petitioner's act of disconnecting the steering line cable and disembarking from the vessel

without permission constitute serious misconduct and willful disobedience justifying his dismissal.

Petitioner argues that although his reason for disconnecting the steering line cable was personal yet it was highly commendable since he was concerned with family unity. In addition, the disconnection was done to protect the vessel from pranksters who in the past would play with the steering wheel. By terminating his services respondent corporation thus set to naught his twenty-seven (27) years of service, completely ignoring the fact that it was his first offense. He claims that the delay he caused to the vessel was almost nil considering that it took him only thirty (30) minutes to return as compared to the delay that the voyage had already incurred.

We find these propositions of petitioner unacceptable. Among the basic duties of an employee are to conduct himself properly and to yield obedience to lawful orders of his employer. It is in this regard that serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work is a just cause for his termination. This is explicitly provided under Art. 282, par. (a), of the Labor Code. The misconduct must be related to the performance of his duties and of such grave character rendering him unfit to continue working for the employer. As regards willful disobedience, we stated in San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo 3that at least two (2) requisites must concur: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude;" and, (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

The number of violations and length of service became relevant because the infractions were minor. Consequently, these have no bearing to the case at bench where the infractions involved wereserious. In other words, considerations of first offense and length of service are overshadowed by the seriousness of the offense. As to whether an offense is minor or serious will have to be determined according to the peculiar facts of each case.

And to a shipping company engaged in the transportation of passengers and cargoes any delay of its vessels may greatly affect its business and reputation and expose the company to unmitigated lawsuits for breach of contract and damages. AFFIRMED.