RAMIRO I. SAMAR, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILS, INC./VIRGILIO MINDO/CHRISTINE KALAW/JOEL JAVELLANA, RESPONDENTS.

Samar versus National Labor Relations Commission and Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Ramiro Samar against the National Labor Relations Commission and Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, together with its officers Virgilio Mindo, Christine Kalaw, and Joel Javellana. Samar, a promoted Account Developer, was dismissed by his employer for serious misconduct, willful disobedience to a lawful order, and gross and habitual neglect of duty. He asks the Supreme Court to set aside the labor tribunal's rulings and to declare that he was illegally dismissed and entitled to damages and money claims. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process in dismissal, the employer's burden of proof by substantial evidence, and the settled rule that habitual absenteeism without leave and repeated refusal to obey valid work orders are just causes for termination.

Procedural History

Samar first filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and money claims before the labor arbiter, docketed as one case, and later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after he was actually dismissed, docketed as another. The two cases were consolidated. The labor arbiter upheld the validity of the dismissal but awarded separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and thirteenth month pay. Samar appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, and the company filed a partial appeal on the awards. The Commission affirmed the dismissal but deleted the three monetary awards. Samar's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Ramiro Samar began working for Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines as a salesman in February 2001 and was promoted to Account Developer in July 2009. He was sent to the first Account Developer daily routine training, but he refused to answer the test and wrote across the paper that he would do it in actual work. He failed that training, was given a second training, and passed. When he was given his area map and list of outlets, he refused to accept them. He was furnished a memorandum reiterating his assignment and ordering him to report to his team leader, and he was given a service vehicle, which he also refused, demanding a better four wheeled vehicle.

From April 2010 onward, Samar failed to submit the required Individual Attendance Sheets, and he ignored the notices to explain his absences. He filed a constructive dismissal complaint in May 2010. The company kept accommodating him, replacing the vehicle with a larger truck and then with a smaller three pallet truck with power steering, and making his tools of trade available. Still he refused to report to his assigned area, offering one excuse after another, including a claimed medical condition and a demand that the company guarantee his health. He claimed some absences were union leaves, but the Personnel Leave Authorities were neither filed nor approved within the periods required by the collective bargaining agreement. He also claimed he was inside the Naga plant on some days, but that was not his assigned area and he showed no proof of work done there. After notices and hearings, which he refused to attend, he was dismissed in December 2010.

Issues

• Whether or not Samar was validly dismissed from employment on the grounds of serious misconduct, willful disobedience to a lawful order, and gross and habitual neglect of duty.
• Whether or not Samar is entitled to damages, attorney's fees, and other money claims.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code, invoked by the company and applied by the Court, provides:

An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; 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 Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

This is the substantive basis for the dismissal, since the Court holds that a valid dismissal must rest on a just or authorized cause under Articles 282, 283, or 284.

The company's Employee's Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations, which the Court found violated, is described in the decision through its Rule 2, Section 5 on Absence without Permission or Without Leave and its Rule 3, Section 10 on Insubordination or willful disobedience in complying with, or carrying out, reasonable and valid orders, or instructions of superiors. These company rules supply the standard of conduct whose breach the Court treats as serious misconduct and willful disobedience.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Samar was validly dismissed. A valid dismissal requires both substantive and procedural due process, and the burden of proving lawfulness rests on the employer, who must discharge it by substantial evidence. The Court defined that quantum as the amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might opine otherwise. On substance, the numerous memoranda and notices to explain proved the absences without leave. The claimed union leaves failed because the Personnel Leave Authorities were not filed within the required periods, and some bore no received stamp. His presence at the Naga plant was meaningless because it was not his assigned area and he proved no work done there. On insubordination, the Court found it was Samar who rejected every accommodation, refusing vehicle after vehicle and demanding a health guarantee, and who failed to claim his tools of trade until the very day he was charged. The Court defined gross negligence as the want or absence of even slight care, and habitual neglect as repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, and held that his repeated unauthorized absences and refusals amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duty, serious misconduct, and willful disobedience.

On the second issue, the Court found no reversible error in the deletion of the monetary awards, since a dismissal for just causes does not entitle the employee to separation pay as financial assistance, and his claims for damages and attorney's fees must fail absent any showing of unlawful act by the employer.

Doctrine

A valid dismissal requires both substantive due process, meaning a just or authorized cause under Articles 282, 283, or 284 of the Labor Code, and procedural due process, meaning the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the dismissal, and the quantum is substantial evidence. Habitual absenteeism without leave and repeated refusal to obey reasonable and valid work orders constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty, serious misconduct, and willful disobedience, all just causes under Article 282. Union leave not filed and approved within the periods fixed by the collective bargaining agreement is treated as absence without leave.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court upheld Samar's dismissal and the deletion of the monetary awards in favor of the company.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the employer must prove a just cause by substantial evidence, and habitual unauthorized absences plus repeated refusal of valid orders are just causes. Examiners use this case for the twin notice and hearing requirement, the substantial evidence standard, and the treatment of unapproved union leave as absence without leave.