• Rosario v. Victory Ricemill, G.R. No.

147572, February 19, 2003 – EVY

DOCTRINE:

 It is true the Constitution regards labor as “a primary social economic force.” But
so does it declare that it “recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investment. The
Constitution bids the State to “afford full protection to labor.” But it is equally
true that “the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. And it is oppression to compel the
employer to continue in employment one who is guilty or to force the employer to
remain in operation when it is not economically in his interest to do so.

 To effect the dismissal of an employee, however, the law requires not only that
there be just and valid cause as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. It
likewise enjoins the employer to afford the employee the opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself. On the latter aspect, the employer is mandated to furnish the
employee with two (2) written notices: (a) a written notice containing a statement
of the cause for the termination to afford the employee ample opportunity to be
heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires;
(b) if the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer
must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reason
therefor.

FACTS:

The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims (separation
pay, overtime pay, 13th month pay and incentive pay) filed by petitioner against
respondent Victory Ricemill, a single proprietorship owned by Emilio Uy. The antecedent
facts, as culled from the records of the case are, as follows:

Emilio Uy was engaged in the business of milling palay under the business name Victory
Ricemill. He employed petitioner as truck driver from January 11, 1982 up to his dismissal
on June 22, 1993. Petitioner was paid the wage rate of P110.00 per day. As truck driver,
petitioner was tasked to, among others, haul palay from various points in Isabela and
Cagayan and bring them to respondents ricemill in Cabatuan, Isabela. In addition,
petitioner acted as personal driver to the family of Mr. Uy during their trips to Manila.

On June 22, 1993, respondent terminated petitioners employment for his notorious acts of
insubordination and that he attempted to kill a fellow employee. According to respondent,
petitioner was guilty of insubordination when he refused to serve as driver of Mr. Uy’s son
when the latter needed a driver. Further, on one occasion, petitioner was instructed to
deliver 600 bags of cement to the Felix Hardware in Tuguegarao. Instead of bringing the
merchandise to the said store, petitioner delivered the same to one Eduardo Interior, who
had not since then paid for it to the damage of respondent in the total sum of P60,000.00.
Because of petitioners tendency to disobey the orders to him, respondent was constrained
to engage the services of another driver in the person of Michael Ng. Petitioner resented
the new driver and became uncooperative, disrespectful and quarrelsome. On June 21,
1993, petitioner, armed with a dagger, fought with Michael Ng and inflicted an injury on the
latter. Petitioner likewise inflicted injuries on the head of Rody Senias, a co-employee,
when he intervened in the fight and tried to pacify petitioner.

After the proceedings, the regional labor arbiter rendered his decision dismissing for lack
of merit the complaint for illegal dismissal. The regional labor arbiter found that there were
valid causes, i.e., willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the employer and commission
of a crime or offense against the employers duly authorized representative, for the
termination of petitioners employment.

On appeal, the NLRC ordered the remand of the case to the regional labor arbiter for
further proceedings. The NLRC found that petitioner was denied due process during the
proceedings with the regional labor arbiter as he (petitioner) was not given the
opportunity to present his additional rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, respondent was
allowed to submit in evidence various exhibits to discredit the rebuttal testimony of
petitioner.

During the subsequent proceedings before the regional labor arbiter, petitioner submitted
the affidavit of Mario Roque. Roque averred that contrary to respondents claim, the 600
bags of cement delivered to Eduardo Interior had been paid as evidenced by DBP Check No.
B-065462, dated May 22, 1993, in the sum of P58,950.00 payable to respondent.

Thereafter, the regional labor arbiter promulgated his decision stating that he found no
reason to deviate from his previous decision. Roques testimony was not given any
probative value as the same was found to be hearsay. The regional labor arbiter concluded
that respondent was justified in terminating the employment of petitioner on ground of
loss of confidence. Accordingly, the regional labor arbiter again dismissed, for lack of merit,
petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the regional labor arbiter and declared that
petitioners dismissal was valid.

Petitioner then elevated the case to the CA which rendered the assailed decision. The
appellate court accorded respect to the findings of the NLRC. It declared that petitioners act
of delivering the merchandise to Edgardo Interior, instead of Felix Hardware, without being
authorized to do so by respondent was not only inimical to the latters business interests,
but constitutive of insubordination or willful disobedience as well. The CA likewise held
that petitioners act of fomenting a fight with a co-worker constituted serious misconduct. It
further noted that petitioners contumacious refusal to obey the reasonable orders of
respondent was not sufficiently explained. The CA thus found that respondent had
justifiable cause to dismiss petitioner.
Anent the procedural aspect, the CA observed that although there was no strict compliance
with the two-notice rule, it could be gleaned from the records that petitioner was given
ample opportunity to explain his side. Moreover, even granting that respondent fell short of
the two-notice requirement, such irregularity, according to the CA, does not militate against
the legality of the dismissal.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied the same in
the assailed resolution. Aggrieved, petitioner filed with this Court the instant petition.

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 separation pay, overtime pay, incentive leave pay,
holiday pay and other benefits granted by law.

HELD: 1. YES.

The unanimous finding of the regional labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that petitioner is
guilty of willful disobedience is based on substantial evidence on record. Petitioner’s cause
is not helped by the fact that he committed a crime against his co-worker. His actuations
clearly constituted willful disobedience and serious misconduct justifying his dismissal
under Article 282(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 the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

Willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders, as a just cause for the dismissal of an
employee, envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (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.

In this case, the order to petitioner was simple, i.e., to deliver the merchandise to the Felix
Hardware. It was clearly reasonable, lawful, made known to petitioner and pertained to his
duty as driver of respondent. Petitioner did not even proffer a justifiable explanation for his
disobedience thereto. Every employee is charged with the implicit duty of caring for the
employer’s property. Petitioner’s conduct showed that he could not even be trusted with
this task. Further, his hostile attitude towards his co-workers which eventually led him to
inflict physical injuries on one of them cannot be countenanced. As correctly put by the
 NLRC, petitioner’s “continuance in the service of respondent company is
partly inimical not only to its
interests but also to the interest of its other employees .”

2. NO.

A careful review of the records revealed that, indeed, respondent’s manner

of dismissing petitioner fell short of the two-notice requirement. While it
furnished petitioner the written notice informing him of his dismissal,
respondent failed to furnish petitioner the written notice apprising him of the
charge or charges against him. Consequently, petitioner was deprived of the
opportunity to respond thereto.
However, as correctly opined by the CA, respondent’s omission does not
render petitioner’s dismissal invalid but merely ineffectual. The prevailing
rule is that when the dismissal is effected for a just and valid cause, as in this
case, the failure to observe procedural requirements does not invalidate nor
nullify the dismissal of an employee.

3. YES

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

In fine, the lack of notice and hearing is considered as being a mere failure to
observe a procedure for the termination of employment which makes the
dismissal ineffectual but not necessarily illegal. The procedural infirmity is
then remedied by ordering the payment to the employee his full backwages
from the time of his dismissal until the court finally rules that the dismissal
has been for a valid cause.