Almogera v. A & L Fishpond
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. was employed by A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. as an all-around harvester. In January 2017, Almogera took an eleven-day leave of absence from January 6 to January 16, allegedly after verbally securing permission from his supervisor due to a family emergency. Upon his return on January 25, 2017, he was issued a notice to explain his absence without official leave (AWOL) and was placed under preventive suspension. Subsequently, he received a formal notice of termination for violating the company's Code of Discipline. Procedural History: Almogera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Almogera, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering the company to pay backwages, separation pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC, however, reversed the LA's decision, finding Almogera's dismissal valid and setting aside the awards for backwages and separation pay, while affirming the service incentive leave pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling, upholding the validity of the dismissal. Almogera's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Almogera filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argues that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's finding that he was not illegally dismissed and thus not entitled to his monetary claims. Almogera contends that his dismissal was illegal, that his absences were authorized, and that the company's rules on leave applications were not properly communicated to him. He also argues that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh. The respondents countered that the petition raises questions of fact already resolved by the lower tribunals and that the CA and NLRC correctly found the dismissal to be valid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the NLRC, finding that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed from work, and therefore, not entitled to any of his monetary claims. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the NLRC setting aside the monetary award given by the Labor Arbiter.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision dated November 12, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155442 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal, substantive due process, procedural due process, and the penalty of dismissal: The Court found that petitioner was validly dismissed. The employer, A & L, discharged its burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause, specifically willful disobedience. The company's rules and regulations required a written leave application approved by a supervisor at least five days before the leave. Petitioner's prolonged absence of 11 days without complying with this procedure, despite being verbally permitted by his supervisor, constituted a violation of company policy. The Court noted that the company's Code of Discipline clearly outlined the penalties for AWOL, with 7 or more days resulting in dismissal. Petitioner's failure to report for work and his subsequent disregard of the notice to explain and the scheduled hearing demonstrated a wrongful and perverse attitude, indicative of willful disobedience. Substantive due process requires a just or authorized cause for dismissal. Here, willful disobedience, as a just cause under Article 282(a) [now Article 297(a)] of the Labor Code, was established. The A & L rules on leave applications were found to be reasonable and lawful, necessary for business efficiency, and relevant to petitioner's duties. The Court also found that these rules were made known to petitioner, contrary to his claims, as evidenced by the Code of Discipline which included a Filipino translation and was discussed with employees. Petitioner's belated claim of not being aware of the rules was dismissed as an afterthought, as it was not raised in the lower tribunals. A & L complied with procedural due process, which requires notice and hearing. The employer issued a first notice (January 24, 2017 letter) apprising petitioner of the specific infraction (11 days AWOL) and giving him five days to explain. Petitioner failed to submit an explanation. A hearing was scheduled, which petitioner also ignored. Subsequently, a second notice (January 30, 2017 memorandum) informed him of the termination decision. The Court emphasized that the opportunity to be heard is sufficient, even if no actual hearing is conducted, and petitioner's failure to avail himself of these opportunities was tantamount to an admission of guilt. The penalty of dismissal was proper and justified, as it was in accordance with the company's Code of Discipline for 7 or more days of AWOL. The Court rejected the argument that dismissal was too harsh for a first offense, noting evidence of prior AWOL incidents by the petitioner. The Court reiterated that an employee's right to security of tenure does not grant a vested right to a position, and employers have the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and disciplinary measures, provided there is no abuse of discretion. On the issue of monetary claims: Since the dismissal was valid, the awards for full backwages and separation pay granted by the LA were deemed improper, as these are reserved for illegally dismissed employees. However, the award of service incentive leave pay was upheld because respondents failed to present evidence of payment thereof. The claim for attorney's fees was denied as the dismissal was for a just cause and respondents acted in good faith. Legal interest at 6% per annum was imposed on the service incentive leave pay from the finality of the judgment.
Main Doctrine
An employee's prolonged absence without official leave, coupled with failure to submit an explanation despite notice and opportunity to be heard, constitutes willful disobedience, a just cause for termination. Compliance with both substantive and procedural due process is required for a valid dismissal.