[G.R. NO. 162583 : June 8, 2007]ALBERTO NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS !"LS. "NC.,#AN$EL GARC"A %n& R$ST$# ALEJAN'R"NO, Respondents.' E C " S " O N($"S$#B"NG, J.:This is an appeal to reverse and set aside both the Decision1 dated August 27, 2003 and the Resolution2 dated March 8, 200 o! the "ourt o! Appeals in "A#$.R. %& 'o. (337). The appellate court had reversed the Resolution3 o! the 'ational *abor Relations "o++ission ,'*R"- and held that petitioner Alberto 'avarro .as validl/ dis+issed b/ the respondents.The !acts are undisputed.&etitioner .as an e+plo/ee o! the respondent "oca#"ola 0ottlers &hils., 1nc. ,"oca#"ola- !or +ore than a decade. %peci!icall/, he .or2ed as a !or2li!t operator !or "oca#"ola !ro+ 'ove+ber 1, 1)87 to 3ebruar/ 27, 1))8.The respondent co+pan/ has an 4+plo/ees "ode o! Disciplinar/ Rules and Regulations, .hich includes Rule 002#85. %ection ,i- o! the rule provided !or the penalt/ o! D1%"6AR$4 !or a tenth A78&

9A78*,5 .hether consecutive or not, !ollo.ing other A78&9A78*s .ithin one calendar /ear.8n August 11, 1))7, petitioner did not report to .or2 because o! heav/ rains .hich !looded the entire baranga/ .here he resided. 1n a Me+orandu+ dated 8ctober 1, 1))7, he .as re:uired to e;plain in .riting .ithin 2 hours .h/ no disciplinar/ action should be i+posed on hi+ !or his tenth absence .ithout per+ission. 1n response, petitioner sub+itted a .ritten e;planation acco+panied b/ a "erti!ication( !ro+ his Barangay "aptain, stating that his absence .as due to heav/ rains and subse:uent !looding that hit his baranga/. *ater, petitioner !iled a %upple+ental 7ritten 4;planation,7in lieu o! ans.ers to a :uestionnaire provided b/ the co+pan/. &etitioner stated that on August 11, 1))7, his house .as heavil/ !looded and that on the ne;t da/, he i++ediatel/ !iled an application !or leave o! absence. Despite his co+pliance and e;planation, petitioner .as dis+issed on 3ebruar/ 27, 1))8 and given a notice o! ter+ination8 .hich enu+erated the dates o! his absences .ithout per+ission.Therea!ter, petitioner !iled a co+plaint !or illegal dis+issal .ith the *abor Arbiter, .hich .as dis+issed !or lac2 o! +erit.8n appeal, the '*R" reversed the Decision o! the *abor Arbiter. The dispositive portion o! the '*R" Resolution readsRT 83 A&&4A*% D1D '8T 644D T64 1'B>'"T18' 83 T61% 68'8RA0*4 "8>RT T6AT< CA% 1% 74**#%4TT*4D, 13 D8>0T% 4D1%T 04T744' T64 4@1D4'"4 &R4%4'T4D 0A T64 4M&*8A4R A'D T64 4M&*8A44, T64 %"A*4% 83 B>%T1"4 M>%T 04 T1*T4D 1' 3A@8R 83T64 4M&*8A44. %1'"4 1T 1% A T1M4#68'8R4D R>*4 T6AT 1' "8'TR8@4R%14% 04T744' A *A08R4R A'D 61% MA%T4R, D8>0T% R4A%8'A0*A AR1%1'$ 3R8M T64 4@1D4'"4, 8R 1' T64 1'T4R&R4TAT18' 83 A$R44M4'T% A'D 7R1T1'$% %68>*D 04 R4%8*@4D 1' T64 38RM4R=% 3A@8RC 1' R4'D4R1'$ T64 D1%&>T4D D4"1%18' A'D R4%8*>T18'.11Raised also as the threshold issue in this petition is< 764T64R &4T1T18'4R=% A&&*1"AT18' 38R *4A@4 83 A0%4'"4 %68>*D 6A@4 044' A**874D 0A T64 "8M&A'A.Respondents contend that the application !or leave .as correctl/ denied, and that petitioner violated the 4+plo/ees "ode o! Disciplinar/ Rules and Regulations .hen he incurred his tenth absence.&etitioner, on the other hand, argues that his absence .as e;cusable under the circu+stances.8n this point, .e are in agree+ent that petitioner=s application !or leave should have been approved b/ the co+pan/. 6is absence .as due to a !ortuitous event outside o! petitioner=s control.1n our vie., petitioner had no .rong!ul, perverse or even negligent attitude, intendedto de!/ the order o! his e+plo/er .hen he absented hi+sel!. 6e did so because heav/rains !looded their residential area .hich .as along the railroad.12 1n his !avor, the Barangay "aptain certi!ied that indeed there .as !looding in their place o! residence.A .or2er cannot be reasonabl/ e;pected to anticipate ti+es o! sic2ness nor e+ergenc/. 6ence, to re:uire prior notice o! such ti+es .ould be absurd. 6e can onl/ give proper notice a!ter the occurrence o! the event # .hich is .hat petitioner did in this case.1n earlier cases, .e have e;pressed disapproval o! dis+issal o! e+plo/ees .ho have absented the+selves due to e+ergenc/ circu+stances. 1n Brew Master International,Inc. v. National Federation of Labor Unions (NFLU!,13 the e+plo/ee=s absence .asprecipitated b/ a grave !a+il/ proble+ .hen his .i!e une;pectedl/ deserted hi+ andabandoned the !a+il/. >nder said circu+stances, his absence .as dee+ed Eusti!ied. %i+ilarl/, in this case, the reason !or petitioner=s absence .as not o! his o.n doing +uch less to his li2ing, thus .e are o! the vie. that he did not +erit the e;tre+e penalt/ o! dis+issal !ro+ the service.7e reiterate that the %tate polic/ is to a!!ord !ull protection to labor. 7hen con!licting interests o! labor and capital are .eighed on the scales o! social Eustice, the heavier in!luence o! capital should be counterbalanced b/ the co+passion that the la. accords the less privileged .or2ing+an.1 >nder Article 27)15 o! the *abor "ode, an e+plo/ee .ho is unEustl/ dis+issed is entitled to reinstate+ent, .ithout loss o! seniorit/ rights and other privileges, and to the pa/+ent o! !ull bac2.ages, inclusive o! allo.ances, and other bene!its or their +onetar/ e:uivalent, co+puted !ro+ the ti+e his co+pensation .as .ithheld !ro+ hi+.1()!ERE*ORE, both the assailed Decision dated August 27, 2003 o! the "ourt o! Appeals and its Resolution dated March 8, 200 den/ing the +otion !or reconsideration are R4@4R%4D and %4T A%1D4.Respondent "oca#"ola 0ottlers &hils., 1nc. is hereb/ OR'ERE':,1- to i++ediatel/ reinstate petitioner 'avarro to his !or+er position .ithout loss o! seniorit/ rights and other privilegesF2,2- to pa/ his !ull bac2.ages, inclusive o! allo.ances, and his other bene!its or their +onetar/ e:uivalent co+puted !ro+ the ti+e he .as illegall/ dis+issed up to the ti+e o! his actual reinstate+entF andcrala.librar/,3- to pa/ petitioner 'avarro attorne/=s !ees e:uivalent to 10? o! his total +onetar/ a.ard."osts against respondents.SO OR'ERE'.3