ALERTO SERVIZIO MANPOWER RESOURCE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RANDY L. VIDAL, RESPONDENTS.

Alerto Servizio Manpower versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Alerto Servizio Manpower Resource, Inc. against the National Labor Relations Commission and its former company driver, Randy Vidal. The employer asks the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's decision and resolution, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that Vidal was illegally dismissed. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of a valid dismissal: the just cause of serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the two-notice and hearing requirements of procedural due process, the rule that the penalty must fit the offense, the two elements of abandonment, and the strict test for project employment. It is a compact reviewer's checklist for illegal dismissal.

Procedural History

Vidal filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages, and non-payment of thirteenth month pay before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering the employer to pay backwages, to reinstate him to his position as company driver or an equivalent one, and to pay attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the judgment award. The employer appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision with modification, recomputing backwages on the monthly salary plus thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay, and adding the cost of living allowance from the first of November 2012. The Commission denied the employer's motion for reconsideration. The employer then went up to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. After the parties filed their comments, replies, and memoranda, the case was submitted for decision.

Facts

Randy Vidal was hired by Alerto Servizio Manpower Resource, Inc. as a company driver and was assigned to its client, Trends and Technologies Holdings, Inc. On the eighth of October 2012, he and personnel of a sister company were conducting a routine visual inspection of fiber optic cables along Balara, Quezon City, for a project with the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. Driving slowly at about twenty kilometers per hour, he allowed a tricycle behind him to overtake. The tricycle then kept blowing its horn and stopped in front of his vehicle, so he parked on the side of the road. The passenger alighted, introduced herself as Diana Mariano, a lady guard of the waterworks system, and tried to confiscate his driver's license. He refused, she shouted at him, and the team proceeded to a barangay outpost to have the incident blottered.

On the eleventh of October 2012, Mariano wrote a letter-complaint to management, alleging that Vidal had chased and raced the tricycle on a narrow, winding road. The next day, the employer notified Vidal that it had received a report from its client about the complaint and gave him seventy-two hours to explain. He complied by email, denying that he drove recklessly. On the sixteenth of October 2012, the employer placed him on thirty-day preventive suspension.

On the twenty-ninth of October 2012, before the suspension expired, the employer terminated his employment, saying the client had decided not to hire his services anymore because of the complaint. Vidal filed his complaint in February 2013. Before the Supreme Court, the employer shifted ground and claimed he had abandoned his job by failing to report for reassignment, and that he was merely a project employee whose project had been completed.

Issues

• Whether or not Vidal was illegally dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience.
• Whether or not the employer observed the requirements of procedural due process in terminating his employment.
• Whether or not Vidal abandoned his job.
• Whether or not Vidal was a project employee who could no longer be reinstated.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of reinstatement, backwages, and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

Article 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

This is the sole just cause invoked by the employer, so the dismissal stands or falls on whether serious misconduct was proved.

Section 2, paragraph d of Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

Section 2. Security of tenure. — . . . (d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code: (i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side. (ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him. (iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

This supplies the procedural yardstick against which the employer's notice and lack of hearing are measured.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides:

An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

This is the source of the reinstatement and backwages awarded to Vidal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no serious misconduct was established. Misconduct must be serious, must relate to the performance of the employee's duties, and must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The employer never conducted its own investigation and presented no proof of one. Even if the incident were true, it did not merit the supreme penalty of dismissal, especially as a first offense; the penalty must be commensurate with the act imputed to the employee.

On the second issue, the Court found procedural due process violated. The written notice merely stated that a report had been received from the client regarding a complaint, without a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances behind the charge. No hearing or conference was held where Vidal could explain, clarify his defense, and present evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that abandonment was not proved. Two elements must concur: failure to report for work without valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The records showed no notice directing Vidal to report for reassignment, and no intent to sever was shown. Besides, how could he report for work after preventive suspension when his employment had already been terminated before the suspension expired?

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Vidal was a regular employee, not a project employee. For a valid project employment, the specific project must be identified and its period and completion date determined and made known to the employee at the time of engagement. Here, the contract, though denominated a Contract of Limited Employment, stated no completion date; it merely ran from the sixth of May 2012 up to the completion of the project. Reinstatement was therefore proper.

On the fifth issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Reinstatement and backwages follow from Article 279, and attorney's fees were proper because Vidal was compelled to litigate to seek redress for his illegal dismissal.

Doctrine

To dismiss for serious misconduct under Article 282, the employer must prove that the employee is guilty of improper conduct, that he violated an existing and valid company rule, or that he is guilty of a wrongdoing; the misconduct must be serious, work-related, and render the employee unfit to continue working. The penalty must be commensurate with the offense. Procedural due process requires a written notice specifying the grounds and giving a reasonable opportunity to explain, a hearing or conference, and a written notice of termination; a notice that does not narrate the facts and circumstances of the charge is defective. Abandonment requires concurrence of failure to report for work without valid reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Project employment requires that the project be identified and its period and completion date made known to the employee at engagement; absent that, the employee is regular. An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages under Article 279.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Commission's decision and resolution were affirmed; Vidal won, and the employer was ordered to reinstate him and pay backwages and attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a complaint is not equivalent to guilt, and that the penalty must be commensurate with the act imputed to the employee. Examiners use this case for the elements of serious misconduct, the two-notice rule, the two elements of abandonment, and the strict test for project employment.