Villarico v. D.M. Consunji
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Joy M. Villarico (Villarico) was employed by respondent D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer starting November 8, 2007, and was subsequently assigned to various projects, including the NAIA Expressway Project as a crane operator. On March 30, 2016, Villarico was informed of his suspension for four days due to a violation of company policy. Upon his return, he refused to sign a document presented by the Site Administrator, who then declared him absent without leave (AWOL) for four days. DMCI placed Villarico on floating status for two months, then required him to undergo a medical examination where he tested positive for prohibited drugs. A confirmatory test was also positive. Villarico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of monetary claims after his inquiries with DMCI yielded no results. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Villarico's complaint, finding him to be a project employee whose contract expired and that he was not illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Villarico's petition for certiorari, upholding the NLRC's ruling. Villarico elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Villarico argued that he was a regular employee due to his continuous and successive hiring for nine years, that his dismissal was illegal as it lacked proper notice and hearing, and that he was entitled to backwages, separation pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether Villarico was a regular or project employee. Whether Villarico was illegally dismissed. Whether Villarico is entitled to monetary claims such as backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. Whether Villarico is entitled to damages and attorney's fees. Whether respondent Madeline B. Gacutan can be held personally liable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It ruled that Villarico was a regular employee. While DMCI had a just cause to dismiss Villarico due to his positive drug test, it failed to observe the twin-notice requirement of due process. Consequently, Villarico is entitled to nominal damages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney's fees. Respondent Gacutan was absolved of personal liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Villarico was a regular or project employee: The Court found that Villarico was a regular employee. The extensive list of his successive employments with DMCI for nine years, performing activities necessary and desirable to the employer's business, with barely any gaps between appointments, established his status as a regular employee, applying the rulings in D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Jamin and D.M. Consunji Corp. v. Bello. The Court noted that the nature of employment is determined by law, not solely by contract, and that repeated rehiring for projects does not automatically make an employee a project employee if the activities are necessary and desirable to the employer's usual trade. On whether Villarico was illegally dismissed: The Court held that while Villarico was a regular employee, his dismissal was for a just cause, specifically serious misconduct due to testing positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165. This positive result, unrefuted by Villarico, constituted a violation of DMCI's drug-free workplace policy and Code of Conduct, which mandates dismissal. However, the Court found that DMCI failed to comply with the procedural due process requirement, specifically the twin-notice rule, which requires informing the employee of the charges and giving them an opportunity to explain, followed by a notice of dismissal. The termination paper regarding project completion did not serve as notice for the drug-related offense. On entitlement to monetary claims: The Court ruled that Villarico was not entitled to backwages and separation pay because there was a just cause for his dismissal. However, the bank advisories submitted by DMCI were deemed insufficient to prove payment of Villarico's 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, as they did not establish that the account belonged to Villarico or that he received the amounts. Therefore, DMCI was ordered to pay Villarico his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 2007 to 2016. On entitlement to damages and attorney's fees: Due to the violation of Villarico's right to due process, the Court awarded him nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00, consistent with Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission. Villarico was also awarded attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total amount awarded, based on Article 2208 of the Civil Code. However, moral and exemplary damages were denied due to the lack of proof of bad faith or malicious conduct on the part of the respondents. On the personal liability of Gacutan: The Court held that corporate officers are not personally liable for the dismissal of an employee unless they acted with malice or bad faith. As there was no evidence of such conduct by Madeline B. Gacutan, she was absolved of personal liability.
Main Doctrine
While an employer has a just cause to dismiss an employee for testing positive for dangerous drugs, failure to observe the twin-notice requirement of due process entitles the employee to nominal damages.