ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No.146000.January 24, 2001]

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEV'T vs. RAMOS

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2001 .

G.R. No. 146000(Automotive Technology Development vs. Raymundo P. Ramos.)

Respondent Raymundo P. Ramos was employed at petitioner Automotive Technology Development on August 8, 1989. Starting as a metal fabricator supervisor, he rose to the position of production supervisor, serving as acting production manager until, on October 4, 1993, he was dismissed for insubordination and violations of company rules.

On December 4, 1996, the labor arbiter rendered a decision finding respondent to have been illegally dismissed and ordered petitioner to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and pay him back salaries from the date of his dismissal on October 4, 1993 to the rendition of the decision on December 4, 1996, or a total of 38 months, in the amount of P460,941.52, and 13th month pay of P36,390.12, plus 10% of the total amount as attorney's fees.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter except that, in lieu of reinstatement, respondent was awarded separation pay equivalent to his one-month salary for every year of service. On further appeal, the NLRC decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.Petitioner contends that there was just and valid cause for the dismissal of respondent, based on the record of his work and loss of confidence. It maintains that respondent was accorded due process prior to his dismissal.

The petition has no merit.

First. Petitioner alleges that respondent is guilty of the following:

1. Uttering slanderous remarks against the Personnel Manager of Auto Tech, Atty. Reynaldo B. Destura, a member of the Philippine Bar of good standing and repute;

2. Committing gross misconduct in the performance of his duties by defiantly resisting the instruction of his Department Manager to take charge and prepare all operational requirement of their department while the latter is out-of-town in an official business, thereby incurring production losses;

3. Committing gross misconduct in the performance of his duties by defiantly resisting the instruction of his Department Manager to be present in an important exhibit of the Company;

4. Committing gross habitual neglect of duty by being tardy and absent without justifiable reason for a substantial number of days;

5. Committing gross and habitual neglect of duty by sleeping under his working table covered with chairs during working hours and in the presence of his subordinates; and,

6. Uttering slanderous invectives and offensive languages against the member of the management panel purposely created to discuss his violations.

The records show, however, that corresponding sanctions have already been meted out on respondent for some of these infractions for which he was punished, while for other misdemeanors, he has made satisfactory explanation, to wit: violation of employee code of discipline for sleeping on post on June 21, 1993, he was meted 15 days of suspension; violation of meal-break schedule on July 2, 1993, he was served a reminder-memorandum; five occasions of being late for the month of August 1993, he was suspended for two working days; five occasions of being late for the month of September 1993, he was suspended for five working days; as to abandonment of post on September 30, 1993, respondent explained that he was granted a gate pass to leave the office; as to insubordination, the reason for his non-attendance of the exhibit at the Philippine Trade Center on September 24, 1993 was due to illness; as to leaving his place of work early on October 2, 1993, the same was with the knowledge of: his supervisors and, before leaving the workplace, he made sure that the work to be done was delegated to one of his co-supervisors; and, as to the alleged words uttered on September 28, 1993, he denied having insulted and uttered offensive language in the morning of October 4, 1993 against any member of the management panel.

The records further show that sometime in December 1992, respondent was asked to occupy a seat in the Labor Management Council (LMC). The council was not held. Instead, petitioner asked all the staff and supervisors to sign an oath of loyalty. Respondent was vocal in voicing his dissent and refused to sign. He insisted on the creation of the LMC. He was then given memoranda that led to his eventual dismissal on October 4, 1993. Clearly, management failed to show just cause for dismissing respondent under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Indeed, the rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause, failing in which would mean that the dismissal is not justified (Valdez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 286 SCRA 87 (1998)).

Neither can petitioner be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence of the employer. In Greenhills Products, Inc. v. NLRC, 286 SCRA 657 (1998), the following guidelines for dismissal based on this ground were given: (1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; (3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. Petitioner has not shown that the dismissal of respondent was in accordance with these guidelines.

Second. Respondent was dismissed without notice. Before dismissing an employee, the employer must furnish him two (2) written notices, to wit: (a) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him (Samillano v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788 (1996)).

It appears that on October 4, 1993, petitioner formed a management panel to investigate respondent. On the same day, he was dismissed. Just because respondent challenged the panel and said "Kung gusto ninyo, sabay-sabay tayong mag-resign" does not mean he waived the right to notice. Nor do the memoranda served on respondent suffice to comply with the requirement of the two-notice rule. Petitioner having failed to establish just cause and accord due process, the termination of respondent's employment is perforce illegal.

In view of the foregoing, we see no need to discuss the remaining argument of petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com