Press vs. GalitGR No. 153510February 13, 2008

Petitioners R.B. Michael Press Annalene Reyes Escobia

Respondent Nicasio G. Galit

The Facts May 1, 1997: Galit was employed by

Press as an offset machine operator, with schedule 8 AM to 5 PM, Mondays to Saturdays, and a salary of PHP 230 per day

For the duration of his employment, Galit was:o Tardy 190 times (6,117 minutes

total)o Absent without leave for 9 and

½ days February 22, 1999: Galit was

ordered to render overtime service to comply with a job order deadline but he refused to do so

February 23, 1999: Galit reported for work but Escobia told him not to, and to instead return for a hearing that afternoon at 4 PM; upon his return, he was given an Office Memorandum

Office Memorandum contained a warning for dismissal and a list of offenses, consisting of the following:o Habitual and excessive

tardinesso Committing acts of discourtesyo Failure to work overtime after

having been instructed to do soo Insubordination – willfully

disobeying, defying or disregarding company authority

February 24, 1999: Galit was terminated, and was given his two-day salary and a termination letter, containing the result of the hearing, in which Galit admitted his offenses

Galit filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

The Issues Main contentions:

1. Cause of termination2. Due process in termination3. Entitlement to backwages

October 29, 1999: labor arbiter decided that Galit was illegally dismissed and ordered Press and Escobia to reinstate Galit to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, as well as be paid in full backwages computed from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual reimbursement

January 3, 2000: Galit and Escobia appealed the case to the NLRC, which dismissed it for lack of merit; they then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals

November 4, 2001: Court of Appeals decided to affirm the decision of the NLRC, with modificationo Modification: backwages should

be computed from February 22, 1999 up to the finality of the CA’s decision, plus the 13th

month and service incentive leave pay

o CA found that the termination was caused by Galit’s refusal to do overtime work on February 22, 1999, and not his tardiness and absences

o CA also found that he could not have afforded ample opportunity to explain his side and to adduce evidence

December 3, 2001: Press and Escobia asked for reconsideration

May 7, 2002: Press and Escobia were denied; but they instituted an instant petition regarding the following issues:o Whether there was just cause to

terminate the employment of Galit and whether due process was observed in the dismissal process

o Whether respondent is entitled to backwages and other benefits despite his refusal to be reinstated

Held1. Tardiness constituting neglect of

dutyo Labor Arbiter: petitioners

already deducted corresponding amounts to salary and hence cannot punish him further for tardiness; no admonition had been given, which signifies the petitioners’ condoning of his offenses

o Court of Appeals: no evidence to show that he had been warned or reprimanded for his tardiness

o Supreme Court: disagrees, says no admonition or sanctions does not mean condonation; waiver only valid if clear and unequivocal; deduction from salary is not a penalty because he is really only supposed to be paid on the days he worked

Reference: Cando vs. NLRC (employee absenteeism; burden of proof is upon employee to adduce evidence that demonstrate condonation or waiver from the management)

Reference: Filipio vs. The Honorable Minister Blas F. Ople (employees’ past infractions can only be used as supporting justification at most for a subsequent similar offense; since Press did not impose prior punishments, he can use Galit’s infractions as ground for dismissal without it becoming double jeopardy)

2. Insubordination or willful disobedienceo Court of Appeals: serious

misconduct not sustained, but insubordination is meritorious (SC agrees)

o Elements of willful disobedience:

Employees’ assailed conduct must have been willful or characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude

Order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the

employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge

o Press’s request for Galit to render overtime service to meet a production deadline complies with the second requisite (Article 89 of the Labor Code), especially due to the nature of his business (a printing press)

o Galit, according to Dennis Reyes, apparently had no apparent reason for refusing to render overtime work, while Galit claims that he was not feeling well that day

Reference: Lakpue Drug vs. Belga (willfulness defined as a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering employees to act inconsistent with proper subordination)

o Excuse is believed to be an afterthought, as proven by how he stayed for work the rest of the day, and even tried to go to work the next day, thus making his disobedience willful

o Both requisites for willful disobedience are therefore fulfilled by Galit, who can be reasonably believed to have been a difficult employee

3. Due processo Press claims they maintained

due process by giving Galit two notices and scheduling a hearing for him to explain and defend himself

o Supreme Court: disagrees, believes Press’s two notices were insufficient and that the hearing was unfair

Reference: Agabon vs. NLRC (two written notices and a hearing)

o Twin notice requirement 1st notice: apprise

employees of their fault 2nd notice: communicate to

the employees that their employment is being terminated

o Purpose of hearing: for employees to defend himself personally or by the counsel of his choice

Reference: King of Kings Transport v. Mamac (first written notice must contain specific grounds or causes for termination, a detailed narration of facts for the basis of termination, a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit a written explanation within a reasonable period of at least 5 days so they can consult a union official or lawyer and prepare, and a list of company rules violated; hearing must allow employee to explain and clarify their defenses, present evidence, and rebut the evidence against them, as well as for them to have proper representation; second notice must indicate all circumstances involving the charge against the employee have been considered and that grounds have been established to justify severance)

o SC believes that respondent was not given a real opportunity to defend himself, as the hearing was scheduled on the same day he received the first notice, thus not allowing him to consult an official or lawyer, or to prepare a defense

o Serious breach of due process SC declares Galit’s dismissal as

valid and legal, but petitioners are ordered to pay him nominal damages worth PHP 30,000 for violation of his right to due process