BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Nerbes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Nestor N. Nerbes and Armenia F. Suravilla, employees of Equitable PCI Bank (now BDO Unibank, Inc.) and officers of the Equitable PCI Bank Employees Union (EPCIBEU), were elected President and Executive Vice President, respectively. Following their proclamation and oath-taking, they notified the bank of their intent to exercise their privilege under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to take full-time union leaves. The bank, however, disapproved these leaves and ordered them to return to work, citing the pendency of an appeal by the losing candidates in the union election. Nerbes and Suravilla failed to comply, leading to their dismissal by the bank for serious misconduct and willful disobedience. Procedural History: Following their dismissal, Nerbes and Suravilla filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found their dismissal to be a valid exercise of management prerogative but ordered their reinstatement with backwages or separation pay, considering their defiance was anchored on law. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, dismissing the complaint. Upon petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA's decision, finding the dismissal illegal due to a disproportionate penalty for their actions. The bank then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. The Petition: In their Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, BDO Unibank, Inc. assailed the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the dismissal of Nerbes and Suravilla for serious misconduct and willful disobedience was justified. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition. It found that while the employees' refusal to return to work was intentional, it was not characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, especially given their good faith belief in their entitlement to union leaves based on the CBA and relevant department orders. The Court also approved a compromise agreement between the bank and Suravilla, granting the bank's motion to withdraw the petition as to her, while protecting the attorney's fees of their counsel. The Court affirmed the CA's finding of illegal dismissal for Nerbes and ordered a recomputation of his backwages and separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the refusal of respondents Nestor N. Nerbes and Armenia F. Suravilla to report to work despite the bank's order constitutes disobedience of such a willful character as to justify their dismissal from service. Whether the bank's motion to withdraw its petition with respect to Suravilla is meritorious. Whether Atty. Jabla's motion for intervention to protect his attorney's fees can prosper and, if so, the amount he is entitled to recover.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that respondents Nestor N. Nerbes and Armenia F. Suravilla were illegally dismissed. The Compromise Agreement between BDO Unibank, Inc. and Suravilla was approved, and the bank's motion to withdraw the petition with respect to Suravilla was granted. Suravilla was ordered to pay Atty. Emmanuel R. Jabla attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the amount she received from the compromise. The Labor Arbiter was directed to recompute the proper amount of backwages and separation pay due to respondent Nerbes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court agreed with the CA that while Nerbes and Suravilla disobeyed the bank's order to return to work, their disobedience was not characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude that would justify dismissal. Their refusal was based on an honest belief, anchored on the CBA and Department Order No. 09, that they were entitled to full-time union leaves as elected officers. The Court noted that the bank itself tacitly recognized their entitlement by continuing to pay their full salaries for a period. The Court emphasized that the penalty of dismissal is harsh and severe, and must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, especially considering that Nerbes and Suravilla had long and unblemished service records prior to the incident. The Court reiterated that willful disobedience requires a wrongful and perverse attitude, which was absent in this case as their interpretation of their rights was not entirely without basis. On the bank's motion to withdraw the petition with respect to Suravilla: The Court approved the Compromise Agreement between the bank and Suravilla, finding it to be in order and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, and public policy. Consequently, the bank's motion to withdraw its petition concerning Suravilla was granted. The Court acknowledged the client's right to enter into a compromise agreement to terminate litigation, provided it is fair and equitable. On Atty. Jabla's motion for intervention: The Court protected Atty. Jabla's right to compensation, citing equity and fairness. It held that a client cannot compromise a case behind their attorney's back to avoid paying fees. The Court found Atty. Jabla entitled to reasonable compensation, which it fixed at 10% of the settlement amount received by Suravilla, amounting to PhP 348,751.27, based on the factors outlined in Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the Court did not hold the bank solidarily liable for the attorney's fees in the absence of proof of connivance to deprive Atty. Jabla of his fees.
Main Doctrine
The penalty of dismissal for insubordination or willful disobedience must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, and not every instance of insubordination warrants dismissal, especially when the employee's belief is anchored on a plausible interpretation of the CBA and relevant regulations, and the employee has a long and unblemished service record.