De Leon v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alvin M. de Leon (de Leon) was employed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) as a Hotel Personnel Planner, later promoted to Hotel Personnel Officer, and then seconded to First Maritime Shared Services, Inc. (FMSSI) as a Scheduler. During his tenure, de Leon received numerous awards for his performance. However, in 2010, he received two written memoranda regarding alleged violations of PTC's Code of Discipline, specifically concerning the acceptance of gifts. One incident involved receiving a gift on October 11, 2010, which he explained as assisting a crewmember in giving a gift to a relative. PTC found his explanation honest and issued a verbal reprimand. In 2012, PTC revised its Code of Discipline, explicitly stating that offering or accepting any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 or more, or any gift in kind from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member, would result in dismissal. De Leon was served a copy of this revised code. Procedural History: On October 9, 2013, de Leon and a co-employee were caught on CCTV accepting a brown bag containing two bottles of whiskey from a friend and former co-employee, Mr. Mustafa Acar. De Leon admitted to receiving the gift but argued it was not from a crew member and thus not a violation. Following an administrative hearing, PTC terminated de Leon's employment on November 22, 2013, citing violation of the company's Code of Discipline. De Leon filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, which was dismissed. He appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Initially, the NLRC partially granted his appeal, finding the dismissal too harsh. However, upon PTC's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its decision, upholding de Leon's dismissal as valid due to his willful violation of the company policy. De Leon then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed de Leon's Petition for Certiorari, primarily on the ground that it was filed out of time. De Leon received the NLRC Resolution on December 3, 2014, making his deadline for filing the petition February 1, 2015. However, February 1, 2015, was a Sunday, and he filed his petition on February 2, 2015. The CA initially ruled this was one day late. De Leon then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for being filed out of time and, alternatively, on the merits of his dismissal. The Supreme Court found that the CA erred in ruling the petition was filed out of time, as February 2, 2015, was the next business day. However, the Court ultimately affirmed the CA's decision on the merits, holding that de Leon was validly dismissed for willful misconduct and disobedience of company rules, specifically violating the policy against accepting gifts valued at Php 500.00 or more, regardless of the source.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing de Leon's Petition for Certiorari on the ground of being filed out of time. Whether de Leon was validly dismissed by PTC for violating Section O, Number 5 of PTC's Code of Discipline.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The Court found that while the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed, de Leon was validly dismissed by PTC for violating its Code of Discipline.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing de Leon's Petition for Certiorari on the ground of being filed out of time. De Leon received the NLRC Resolution on December 3, 2014, giving him 60 days to file the petition, which would be until February 1, 2015. Since February 1, 2015, was a Sunday, the deadline was extended to the next business day, February 2, 2015. Therefore, de Leon's petition filed on February 2, 2015, was timely. The Court cited the case of Dela Rosa v. Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. to support the principle that when the last day of the reglementary period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the filing may be made on the next succeeding business day. On the validity of de Leon's dismissal: Despite finding that the CA erred on the procedural issue of timeliness, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling on the merits of the case, affirming that de Leon was validly dismissed. The Court found that de Leon violated Section O, Number 5 of PTC's Code of Discipline, which prohibits offering or accepting any gift with a collective value of Php 500.00 and above, regardless of the source. De Leon received two bottles of whiskey valued at $36 USD, exceeding the threshold. The Court rejected de Leon's contention that the rule was vague, unreasonable, and unfair, stating that the policy was absolute, making the origin or purpose of the gift irrelevant. The Court also noted that PTC's strict policy was justified by the POEA Rules and Regulations, which impose severe penalties, including license cancellation, for similar violations by manning agencies. Furthermore, de Leon's actions, such as instructing a co-employee to receive the gift in a less conspicuous area due to the presence of CCTV, indicated his awareness that he was violating a company rule, thus constituting willful misconduct or disobedience, which further justified his termination.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for certiorari, holding that while the petition was timely filed, the employee was validly dismissed for violating the company's Code of Discipline prohibiting the acceptance of gifts above a certain value, which constituted willful misconduct and disobedience.