Manila Broadcasting Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Samuel L. Bangloy, a production supervisor and radio commentator for petitioner Manila Broadcasting Company (MBC), applied for a 50-day leave of absence to run for Board Member. He cited Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which requires mass media personalities who are candidates to take a leave of absence. His application was returned with a memorandum stating that company policy considered any employee filing a certificate of candidacy as resigned. Private respondent ran in the election, lost, and upon attempting to return to work, was informed his employment was terminated. MBC cited company policy, the leave duration being excessive, and that R.A. No. 6646 did not require leave for his position as production supervisor, among other reasons. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring him illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the illegal dismissal but deleted the award of damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner contended that the NLRC abused its discretion by interfering with management prerogative and nullifying the company policy, and by ruling that private respondent was made to believe his leave was approved despite knowledge of its non-approval.
Issue(s)
Whether the unwritten company policy deeming an employee who files a certificate of candidacy as resigned is valid and enforceable. Whether private respondent was sufficiently informed of the company policy. Whether private respondent acted in good faith when he filed his certificate of candidacy and took a leave of absence. Whether the dismissal of private respondent was justified, considering his unauthorized absence beyond the approved leave period. Whether the penalty of dismissal was too severe under the circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision with modification, holding that while the company policy was valid, the dismissal was not justified due to the employee's good faith and lack of clear notice. The award of backwages was modified to exclude a one-month suspension period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and enforceability of the unwritten company policy: The Court held that a company may validly require employees running for public office to resign as a matter of policy, even if R.A. No. 6646 only mandates a leave of absence for mass media personalities. This policy is justified by the potential disadvantage and prejudice to the company and the public if an employee serves both the government and the company, or if their impartiality as a broadcast personality is compromised. The Court found no law prohibiting such a rule and considered it reasonable and not contrary to law. On whether private respondent was sufficiently informed of the company policy: The Court found it probable that private respondent did not know of the policy, as it was unwritten and only communicated verbally. The station manager testified that there was no written policy given to employees. Private respondent claimed he was not present when the policy was allegedly announced and learned of it later, even after his dismissal. The fact that a memorandum was issued due to an inquiry by a company official also suggested the policy was not well-known. The Court noted that such an important rule should be written and published to ensure certainty and definiteness. On whether private respondent acted in good faith: The Court ruled that private respondent acted in good faith, believing he could take a leave without resigning. This belief was bolstered by assurances from the station manager, Medy Lorenzo, who did not deny the private respondent's recollection of these assurances. The Court found that the return of his leave application, coupled with the memorandum, might imply disapproval, but the circumstances cast doubt on management's intention. Therefore, private respondent could be presumed to have acted in good faith when relying on his superior's assurances. On whether the dismissal was justified due to unauthorized absence: While private respondent exceeded his applied leave by eleven days, the Court deemed dismissal too severe a penalty for this infraction. Citing Dolores v. NLRC, the Court noted that an eleven-day unauthorized absence, especially for an employee with six years of service and no prior offenses, did not warrant termination. On whether the penalty of dismissal was too severe: The Court concluded that dismissal was too severe a penalty. It modified the ruling by imposing a one-month suspension instead of dismissal. The backwages were ordered to be computed from the day after the suspension ended until actual reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
An unwritten company policy requiring employees running for public office to resign is valid if justified by business interests and made known to employees. However, dismissal for violating such a policy may be deemed illegal if the employee acted in good faith, relying on assurances from superiors, and if the policy was not clearly published or enforced.