015. Cavite Apparel v Marquez

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_172044_2013.html 1/6

TodayisWednesday,June17,2015

Search

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.172044February06,2013

CAVITEAPPAREL,INCORPORATEDandADRIANOTIMOTEO,Petitioners,vs.MICHELLEMARQUEZ,Respondent.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

Weresolvethepetitionforreviewoncertiorari1filedbypetitionersCaviteApparel,Incorporated(CaviteApparel)andAdrianoTimoteotonullifythedecision2datedJanuary23,2006andtheresolution3datedMarch23,2006oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R.SPNo.89819insofarasitaffirmedthedisposition4oftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC) inNLRCCANo.02972601.TheNLRCsetaside thedecision5 ofLaborArbiter(LA) Cresencio G. Ramos in NLRC NCR Case No. RABIV71261300C dismissing the complaint for illegaldismissalfiledbyrespondentMichelleMarquezagainstthepetitioners.

TheFactualAntecedents

Cavite Apparel is a domestic corporation engaged in themanufacture of garments for export. On August 22,1994,ithiredMichelleasaregularemployeeinitsFinishingDepartment.Michelleenjoyed,amongotherbenefits,vacationand sick leavesof seven (7) dayseachperannum. Prior to her dismissal on June 8, 2000,Michellecommittedthefollowinginfractions(withtheircorrespondingpenalties):

a.FirstOffense:Absencewithoutleave(AWOL)onDecember6,1999writtenwarning

b.SecondOffense:AWOLonJanuary12,2000sternwarningwiththree(3)dayssuspension

c.ThirdOffense:AWOLonApril27,2000suspensionforsix(6)days.6

OnMay 8, 2000,Michelle got sick and did not report for work.When she returned, she submitted amedicalcertificate.CaviteApparel,however,deniedreceiptofthecertificate.7MichelledidnotreportforworkonMay1527, 2000 due to illness. When she reported back to work, she submitted the necessary medical certificates.Nonetheless,CaviteApparelsuspendedMichelle forsix (6)days (June17,2000).WhenMichelle returnedonJune8,2000,CaviteApparelterminatedheremploymentforhabitualabsenteeism.

On July 4, 2000,Michelle filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages andattorneysfeeswiththeNLRC,RegionalArbitrationBranchNo.IV.

TheLARuling

In a decision dated April 28, 2001,8 LA Ramos dismissed the complaint. He noted that punctuality and goodattendance are required of employees in the companys Finishing Department. For this reason, LA RamosconsideredMichellesfourabsenceswithoutofficialleaveashabitualandconstitutiveofgrossneglectofduty,ajust ground for termination of employment. LA Ramos also declared that due process had been observed inMichelles dismissal, noting that in each of her absences, Cavite Apparel afforded Michelle an opportunity toexplainhersideanddismissedheronlyafterherfourthabsence.LARamosconcludedthatMichellesdismissalwasvalid.9

TheNLRCDecision

OnappealbyMichelle,theNLRCreferredthecasetoExecutiveLAVitoC.Boseforreview,hearingandreport.10

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044


AdoptingLABoses report, theNLRCrenderedadecision11datedMay7,2003reversingLARamosdecision.TheNLRCnotedthatforMichellesfirstthreeabsences,shehadalreadybeenpenalizedrangingfromawrittenwarning to sixdayssuspension.These, theNLRCdeclared, shouldhaveprecludedCaviteApparel fromusingMichellespastabsencesasbasestoimposeonherthepenaltyofdismissal,consideringhersixyearsofservicewith the company. It likewise considered the penalty of dismissal too severe. The NLRC thus concluded thatMichellehadbeenillegallydismissedandorderedherreinstatementwithbackwages.12WhentheNLRCdeniedCaviteApparelsmotionforreconsiderationinaresolution13datedMarch30,2005,CaviteApparelfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCAtoassailtheNLRCruling.

TheCARuling

CaviteApparelchargedtheNLRCwithgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitsetasidetheLAsfindingsandorderedMichelles reinstatement. Itdisagreedwith theNLRCsopinion thatMichellspast infractionscouldno longerbeusedtojustifyherdismissalsincetheseinfractionshadalreadybeenpenalizedandthecorrespondingpenaltieshadbeenimposed.

TheCAfoundnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheNLRCandaccordinglydismissedCaviteApparelspetition on January 23, 2006.14While it agreed that habitual absenteeismwithout official leave, in violation ofcompany rules, is sufficient reason to dismiss an employee, it nevertheless did not consider Michelles fourabsences as habitual. It especially noted that Michelle submitted a medical certificate for her May 8, 2000absence,and thusdisregardedCaviteApparels contraryassertion.TheCAexplained thatMichelles failure toattachacopyofthemedicalcertificateinherinitiatorypleadingdidnotdisproveherclaim.

The CA agreed with the NLRC that since Cavite Apparel had already penalized Michelle for her three priorabsences, to dismiss her for the same infractions and for her May 8, 2000 absence was unjust. Citingjurisprudence,TheCAconcludedthatherdismissalwastooharsh,consideringhersixyearsofemploymentwithCaviteApparelitwasalsoadisproportionatepenaltyasherfourthinfractionappearedexcusable.

In its March 23, 2006 resolution,15 the CA denied Cavite Apparels motion for reconsideration hence, CaviteApparelspresentrecourse.

ThePetition

CaviteApparelimputesgraveabuseofdiscretionagainsttheCAwhen:

1.itdidnotfindthattheNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdisretioninsettingasidethedecisionoftheCA

2.itfailedtoconsiderMichellesfour(4)AWOLsoveraperiodofsixmonths,fromDecember1999toMay2000,habitualand

3.itruledthattheseriesofviolationsofcompanyrulescommittedbyMichellewerealreadymetedwiththecorrespondingpenalties.16

CaviteApparelarguesthatitisitsprerogativetodisciplineitsemployees.ItthusmaintainsthatwhenMichelle,inpatentviolationof thecompanys rulesofdiscipline,deliberately,habitually,andwithoutpriorauthorizationanddespitewarningdidnotreportforworkonMay8,2000,shecommittedseriousmisconductandgrossneglectofduty.ItsubmitsthatdismissalforviolationofcompanyrulesandregulationsisadismissalforcauseastheCourtstressedinNorthernMotors,Inc.,v.NationalLaborUnion,etal.17

TheCasefortheRespondent

Michelleassertsthatherdismissalwasarbitraryandunreasonable.Forone,shehadonlyfourabsencesinhersix(6)yearsofemploymentwithCaviteApparel.SheexplainsthatherabsenceonMay8,2000wasjustifiedasshewassickandhadsickleavebenefitsagainstwhichCaviteApparelcouldhavechargedherabsences.Also,ithadalreadysanctionedher for thethreeprior infractions.Under thecircumstances, thepenaltyofdismissal forherfourthinfractionwasveryharsh.Finally,astheCAcorrectlynoted,CaviteApparelterminatedherservicesonthefourthinfraction,withoutaffordingherprioropportunitytoexplain.

TheCourtsRuling

ThecaseposesforustheissueofwhethertheCAcorrectlyfoundnograveabuseofdiscretionwhentheNLRCruledthatCaviteApparelillegallyterminatedMichellesemployment.

Westressattheoutsetthat,asarule,theCourtdoesnotreviewquestionsoffact,butonlyquestionsoflawinanappealbycertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.18TheCourtisnotatrieroffactsandwillnotreviewthefactual findings of the lower tribunals as these are generally binding and conclusive.19 The rule though is not

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044


absoluteastheCourtmayreviewthefactsinlaborcaseswherethefindingsoftheCAandofthelabortribunalsarecontradictory.20Given the factualbackdropof thiscase,we findsufficientbasis fora reviewas the factualfindingsoftheLA,ontheonehand,andthoseoftheCAandtheNLRC,ontheotherhand,areconflicting.

After a careful reviewof themerits of the case, particularly the evidenceadduced,we find no reversible errorcommitted by the CA when it found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC ruling that Michelle had beenillegallydismissed.

Michellesfourabsenceswerenothabitual"totalityofinfractions"doctrinenotapplicable

CaviteApparelargues thatMichellespenchant for incurringunauthorizedandunexcusedabsencesdespite itswarningconstitutedgrossandhabitualneglectofdutyprejudicialtoitsbusinessoperations.Itinsiststhatbygoingonabsencewithoutofficial leave four times,Michelledisregardedcompany rulesand regulations if condoned,theseviolationswouldrendertherulesineffectualandwoulderodeemployeediscipline.

CaviteAppareldisputestheCAsconclusionthatMichellesfourabsenceswithoutofficialleavewerenothabitualsinceshewasabletosubmitamedicalcertificateforherMay8,2000absence.Itassertsthat,onthecontrary,noevidenceexistsonrecordtosupportthisconclusion.ItmaintainsthatitwasintheexerciseofitsmanagementprerogativethatitdismissedMichellethus,itisnotbarredfromdismissingherforherfourthoffense,althoughitmayhavepreviouslypunishedherforthefirstthreeoffenses.CitingtheCourtsrulinginMendozav.NLRC,21 itcontendsthatthetotalityofMichellesinfractionsjustifiesherdismissal.

Wedisagreeandaccordinglyconsiderthecompanyspositionunmeritorious.

Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be both gross andhabitual.22Grossnegligence implieswantof care in theperformanceofonesduties.Habitual neglect impartsrepeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending on the circumstances.23 Under thesestandardsandthecircumstancesobtaininginthecase,weagreewiththeCAthatMichelleisnotguiltyofgrossandhabitualneglectofduties.

CaviteApparel faults theCA forgivingcredit toMichellesargument thatshesubmittedamedicalcertificate tosupportherabsenceonMay8,2000 therewas in factnosuchsubmission,except forherbareallegations. ItthusarguesthattheCAerredinholdingthatsincedoubtexistsbetweentheevidencepresentedbytheemployeeand that presented by the employer, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the employee. The principle, itcontends,findsnoapplicationinthiscaseasMichelleneverpresentedacopyofthemedicalcertificate.Itinsiststhat therewasnoevidenceonrecordsupportingMichellesclaim, therebyremoving thedoubtonherbeingonabsencewithoutofficialleaveforthefourthtime,aninfractionpunishablewithdismissalunderthecompanyrulesandregulations.

CaviteApparelspositionfailstoconvinceus.Basedonwhatweseeintherecords,theresimplycannotbeacaseof gross and habitual neglect of duty against Michelle. Even assuming that she failed to present a medicalcertificate for her sick leave onMay 8, 2000, the records are bereft of any indication that apart from the fouroccasions when she did not report for work, Michelle had been cited for any infraction since she started heremployment with the company in 1994. Four absences in her six years of service, to our mind, cannot beconsideredgrossandhabitualneglectofduty,especiallysosincetheabsenceswerespreadoutoverasixmonthperiod.

Michellespenaltyofdismissaltooharshornotproportionatetotheinfractionsshecommited

AlthoughMichellewas fullyawareof the company rules regarding leavesof absence,andherdismissalmighthavebeeninaccordancewiththerules,itiswelltostressthatwearenotboundbysuchrules.InCaltexRefineryEmployees Association v. NLRC24 and in the subsequent case of Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing MachineCompany,25weheldthat"[e]venwhenthereexistsomerulesagreeduponbetweentheemployerandemployeeon the subject of dismissal, x x x the same cannot preclude the State from inquiring on whether [their] rigidapplicationwouldwork tooharshlyon theemployee."ThisCourtwillnothesitate todisregardapenalty that ismanifestlydisproportionatetotheinfractioncommitted.

Michellemighthavebeenguiltyofviolatingcompanyrulesonleavesofabsenceandemployeediscipline,stillwefindthepenaltyofdismissalimposedonherunjustifiedunderthecircumstances.Asearliermentioned,MichellehadbeeninCaviteApparelsemployforsixyears,withnoderogatoryrecordotherthanthefourabsenceswithoutofficial leave in question, not tomention that shehadalreadybeenpenalized for the first threeabsences, themostseriouspenaltybeingasixdaysuspensionforherthirdabsenceonApril27,2000.

While previous infractions may be used to support an employees dismissal from work in connection with asubsequentsimilaroffense,26wecautionedemployersinanearliercasethatalthoughtheyenjoyawidelatitudeofdiscretionintheformulationofworkrelatedpolicies,rulesandregulations,theirdirectivesandtheimplemtation

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044


of theirpoliciesmustbe fairandreasonableat thevery least,penaltiesmustbecommensurate to theoffenseinvolvedandtothedegreeoftheinfraction.27

Asweearlierexpressed,wedonotconsiderMichellesdismissaltobecommensuratetothefourabsencessheincurredforhersixyearsofservicewiththecompany,evengrantingthatshefailedtosubmitontimeamedicalcertificateforherMay8,2000absence.Wenotethatsheagaindidnotreport forworkonMay15to27,2000duetoillness.Whenshereportedbackforwork,shesubmittedthenecessarymedicalcertificates.ThereasonforherabsenceonMay8,2000duetoillnessandnotforherpersonalconvenienceallthemorerenderedherdismissalunreasonableasitisclearlydisproportionatetotheinfractionshecommitted.

Finally,wefindnoevidencesupportingCaviteApparelsclaimthatMichellesabsencesprejudiceditsoperationsthereisnoindicationintherecordsofanydamageitsustainedbecauseofMichellesabsences.Also,wearenotconvinced thatallowingMichelle to remain inemploymentevenafterher fourthabsenceor the impositionofalighterpenaltywouldresultinabreakdownofdisciplineintheemployeeranks.Whatthecompanyfailstograspisthat,giventheunreasonablenessofMichellesdismissal i.e.,onemadeaftershehadalreadybeenpenalizedfor her three previous absences, with the fourth absence imputed to illness confirming the validity of herdismissalcouldpossiblyhave theoppositeeffect. Itcouldgive rise tobelief that thecompany isheavyhandedandmayonlygiverisetosentimentsagainstit.1 w p h i1

Infine,weholdthatCaviteApparelfailedtodischargetheburdenofprovingthatMichellesdismissalwasforalawfulcause.28We,therefore,findhertohavebeenillegallydismissed.

Asa finalpoint,wereiterate thatwhilewerecognizemanagementsprerogative todiscipline itsemployees, theexercise of this prerogative should at all times be reasonable and should be tempered with compassion andunderstanding.29Dismissal is theultimatepenalty thatcanbe imposedonanemployee.Whereapenalty lesspunitivemaysuffice,whatevermisstepsmaybecommittedbylaboroughtnottobevisitedwithaconsequencesosevereforwhatisatstakeisnotmerelytheemployeespositionbuthisverylivelihoodandperhapsthelifeandsubsistenceofhisfamily.30

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedJanuary23,2006decisionandMarch23, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 89819 are AFFIRMED. Costs against CaviteApparel,Incorporated.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRIONAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLOAssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZAssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABEAssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJusticeChairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVllloftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,lcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOChiefJustice

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044


Footnotes

1DatedMay9,2006andfiledunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtrollopp.1129.

2 Id at 1118 penned byAssociate JusticeRenatoC.Dacudao and concurred in byAssociate JusticesLucasP.Bersamin(nowamemberofthisCourt)andCeliaC.LibreaLeagogo.

3Idat9

4 Id at 7681 and 8788 respectively. Decision of the NLRC First Division dated May 7, 2003 and itsresolutiondatedMarch30,2005.

5Idat5762datedApril28,2001.

6Id.at12,1617and79.

7 Id. at 12, 17, 79 and 186.CaviteApparel denied receivingMichellesmedical certificate. SeePetition,CaviteApparelsReply,andAnnexG1ofitsPositionPaper,Annex"A"tothePetitionat17,186and43,respectively.

8Supranote5.

9Rollo,pp.6162.

10Id.at77.

11Id.at7680.

12Ibid.

13Id.at8788.

14Supranote2.

15Supranote3.

16Rollo,pp.1827.

17102Phil.958,960(1958).

18DUPSoundPhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.168317,November21,2011,660SCRA461,467,citingUnionIndustries,Inc.v.Vales,517Phil.247(2006).

19 Iglesia Evangelista Metodista en las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Inc. v. Juane, G.R. Nos. 172447 and179404,September18,2009,600SCRA555,567.

20DUPSoundPhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,supranote18,at467citationomitted.

21G.R.No.94294,March22,1991,195SCRA606,613.

22NissanMotorPhils.,Inc.v.Angelo,G.R.No.164181,September14,2011,657SCRA520,530.

23Valiaov.CourtofAppeals,479Phil.459,469(2004),citingJGB&Associates,Inc.v.NLRC,324Phil.747,754(1996).

24316Phil.335,343344(1995).

25458Phil.401,413(2003).

26DeGuzmanv.National LaborRelationsCommission, 371Phil. 192, 204 (1999), citingFilipro, Inc. v.Hon.MinisterOple,261Phil.104(1990).

6/17/2015 G.R.No.172044


27Morenov.SanSebastianCollegeRecoletosManila,G.R.No.175283,March28,2008,550SCRA414,429citationomitted.

28LaborCode,Article277(b).

29PhilippineLongDistanceCompanyv.Torres.G.R.No.1435511,November15,2010,634SCRA538552.

30Ibid.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

Documents

015. Cavite Apparel v Marquez