Cando v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Francisco P. Cando, a senior distributing clerk at Pilipinas Bank and a ranking officer of the Pilipinas Bank Employees Union, was dismissed from his employment. The dismissal stemmed from his prolonged and unauthorized absences from work following a strike declared by the union in September 1984. Despite a return-to-work order issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Cando failed to report for duty from October 29, 1984, until the end of February 1985, with only a brief period covered by an approved official leave. Procedural History: Following his extended absences, Pilipinas Bank issued a directive for Cando to explain his conduct. After Cando's delayed written explanation, an investigating committee was formed, and an administrative charge for gross and habitual neglect of duties was filed. Cando submitted a written reply but did not request a formal hearing. The committee recommended termination, and on May 2, 1985, the bank issued a memorandum informing Cando of his dismissal effective May 7, 1985. Cando subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The labor arbiter sustained the dismissal, and upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal but ordered the bank to pay separation pay. The Petition: Petitioner Cando elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari, although it was initially mislabeled as a petition for review. Cando contended that the NLRC's decision sustaining his dismissal lacked legal basis. The Supreme Court, treating the petition as a certiorari action, reviewed whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court ultimately found the petition to be without merit, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the NLRC's findings regarding Cando's unjustified absences and violation of bank rules, and that his dismissal was warranted.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent National Labor Relations Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner's absences were authorized or condoned by his superiors. Whether the petitioner was afforded due process.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner. The Court found substantial evidence to support the NLRC's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the validity of dismissal: The Court found that the dismissal of the petitioner was based on his unjustified absences for several months. As an employee, petitioner was expected to be aware of the bank's rules and regulations regarding leaves of absence. The Commission observed that the petitioner's absences were not authorized, thus warranting his dismissal. The Court reiterated that labor cases are reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari, and the instant petition, though misdesignated, was treated as such. The Court's review is limited to determining if there was grave abuse of discretion, and in this case, the findings of fact by the NLRC were supported by substantial evidence. On whether the petitioner's absences were authorized or condoned: The petitioner's contention that his absences were authorized and/or condoned by his superiors was found untenable. While the petitioner informed his supervisor of his absences due to union business, he was consistently told to file his leave in accordance with existing bank rules. Only the absences from October 29, 1984, and November 5 to 21, 1984, were with prior knowledge and consent as they were duly approved. The other prolonged absences lacked prior knowledge, consent, and/or approval, and the petitioner failed to comply with bank rules despite reminders. The Court noted that while union officers might be extended some leeway, this does not excuse non-compliance with established rules. Furthermore, the petitioner's testimony during cross-examination regarding the specific union matters was evasive, indicating insincerity and undermining his explanation. On whether the petitioner was afforded due process: The respondent bank afforded the petitioner due process. The bank instructed him to explain his absences in writing, and an administrative charge for gross and habitual neglect was filed. He was informed of the charges, the possible consequences, and given the opportunity to submit a reply and request a formal hearing. He submitted a written reply and participated in the investigation. The Court found that the bank took steps to investigate the alleged violations, and the petitioner was given a chance to defend himself. The subsequent disciplinary measure of termination was taken after this process.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties due to unauthorized absences, after due process was afforded, is warranted. The National Labor Relations Commission's decision sustaining the dismissal but ordering separation pay is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.