G.R. No. 79731. July 09, 1990
REYNALDO LAUSA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER, AND NEGROS NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENTS.
FELICIANO, J.:
Negros Navigation Company, Inc. and its
Personnel Officer (petitioners in G.R. No. 80407) and Reynaldo Lausa (petitioner in G.R. No. 79731) both ask us to set
aside and nullify the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission
(“NLRC”) in RAB Case No. VI-0030-85 which had affirmed a Decision of
the Executive Labor Arbiter requiring Negros
Navigation and its Personnel Officer to pay Reynaldo Lausa
separation pay amounting to his one-month salary for every year of service,
plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney’s fees.
Reynaldo Lausa had been employed as a messman by Negros Navigation
since January 1979. On Christmas day of
1984, Lausa was assigned as messman
in Negros Navigation’s vessel. M/S “Sta. Maria”. The “Sta. Maria” was then berthed
at the Muelle Loney wharf
in Iloilo City,
the vessel’s home port, receiving passengers and cargo bound for Manila,
the vessel’s departure being then scheduled for 7:00
o’clock in the evening. At
about 5:30 in the afternoon, messman Lausa arrived at the
vessel’s lobby, with his authorized uniform tucked out (rather than tucked in)
with front unbuttoned thus baring his chest and stomach. He was obviously drunk. Without provocation,
and in the presence of some of the vessel’s officers including the Chief Mate,
Antonio Tendencia, Jr., crew members and passengers,
he became very belligerent and in a loud and angry voice challenged everyone
present to fight with him. Chief Mate Tendencia sought to pacify him, but he refused to be
pacified and instead insulted and challenged the Chief Mate in front of
everyone. After sometime, Lausa disembarked from the vessel and while descending the
gangplank, continued to shout at and challenge all and sundry on shipboard to
come down and fight with him.
The “Sta. Maria” left the port
of Iloilo at the scheduled
hour. While the vessel was on its way to
Manila, the Chief Mate was informed
that Lausa was on board the vessel, sleeping off his
liquor inside his quarters. Apparently
apprehensive that Lausa might cause further trouble,
the Chief Mate instructed the Chief Steward, who was Lausa’s
immediate supervisor, as well as the Boatswain, to see to it that Lausa did not leave his quarters and immediately to report
any sign of further trouble. The Chief
Mate then prepared a brief report on the behavior of Lausa,
with a view to submitting the same to his superiors in Iloilo
City.[1]
After receipt and study
of the report submitted by Chief Mate Tendencia, Negros Navigation required messman
Lausa to submit a written explanation why his
services should not be terminated for cause.
Lausa denied the material allegations of the
report. The following is his version of
the Christmas Day incident set out in his letter dated 16
January 1985:
“x x x x x x x x
x
On December 25, 1984,
my wife and I had a slight marital argument at the back part of the ship M/S
‘Sta. Maria.’ While we were arguing, all of a sudden, I heard someone shouted
on my back ‘hijo de puta‘. Instinctively, I turned around, and told that
someone in a moderately mild voice, ‘wala ako mahadlok sa
imo‘, not knowing at the time that, that someone
was Chief Mate Antonio Tendencia, Jr. who had been
listening and prying into our marital argument for a considerable length of
time. After that incident, nothing more
happened, and we parted ways, probably he realized that it was his fault in
interfering with our marital argument and he was the one who provoked me to say
those kind of words to him.
The next morning, I met Chief Mate Tendencia,
Jr. and we talked to each other. He told
me to forget everything that had happened, because it was nobody’s fault anyway. Presuming that everything was all right, I
continued doing my duties on board M/S ‘Sta. Maria’ where I am a messman.
x x x x x x x x
x
I therefore vehemently deny that on December 25, 1984 I insulted and hurled invectives and
threats to Chief Mate Tendencia, Jr. and Third Mate Seruelo. In fact
Chief Mate Tendencia defamed, slandered, attacked and
questioned my reputation in telling me on my back that I am ‘Hijo De Puta‘, and
much worse in the presence of my wife. I
also deny having reported to work under the heavy influence of liquor, otherwise I could not have performed my
duty for that day.
x x
x x
x x x x
x.”[2]
(Underscoring supplied)
A formal investigation and hearing was conducted by Negros Navigation.
Thereafter, convinced that the report of Chief Mate Tendencia
was substantially correct, Negros Navigation
terminated the services of Reynaldo Lausa effective 18 January 1985 for serious
misconduct.[3]
Lausa filed on 1 March 1985 a complaint against Negros Navigation and its Personnel Officer for, among
other things, illegal dismissal.
Conciliation proceedings were had, but without success. After submission of the parties’ respective position papers and supporting
documents, the Executive Labor Arbiter issued on 13 June 1986 a decision holding that messman
Lausa had been illegally dismissed and required the
employer and its Personnel Officer to pay him separation pay. The dispositive
portion of this decision read as follows:
“In view of the foregoing, we find that respondents’ act in
dismissing the complainant is arbitrary and does not constitute a just cause
for respondent to separate him from work.
We believe that the alleged serious misconduct is not attendant in the
instant case. If ever complainant
committed a misconduct it was not serious as to
warrant his dismissal. Though we find
the termination to be illegal, the remedy of reinstatement in the instant case
is not in the best interest of the parties.
In lieu thereof, separation pay will be provided as there is a clear
rupture or severe breakdown of employer-employee relationship (Mario Libunao vs. Olympia International Inc., NLRC Case No. RB
VI-2420, TALA, April 1978, p. 290)
This Executive Labor Arbiter finds the foregoing report and
recommendation to be fully substantiated by evidence and hereby adopts the same
as his own.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to
pay complainant separation pay in an amount equivalent to complainant’s one
month salary for every year of service and 10% attorney’s fees of the amount
awarded.
Complainant’s other causes of actions are hereby dismissed for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
Negros Navigation, et al. and messman Lausa appealed separately
to the NLRC. Negros
Navigation, et al. contended that the Executive Labor Arbiter had seriously
erred in giving credence to the uncorroborated version of Lausa
of the relevant events. Reynaldo Lausa, upon the other hand, appealed from the Executive
Labor Arbiter’s Decision to the extent that it had awarded him separation pay
instead of reinstatement with backwages, arguing that
his non-reinstatement cum separation pay was inconsistent with the finding
that he was not guilty of serious misconduct.
In a Resolution dated 16 June
1987,[5]
the NLRC dismissed both appeals for lack of merit, and accordingly sustaining,
in all its parts, the Decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter.
Both Negros
Navigation, et al. and Reynaldo Lausa are now before
us on certiorari, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC in
rendering its aforementioned Resolution.
Negros Navigation, et al.’s principal
contentions are two-fold: that the NLRC
acted with grave abuse of discretion in, firstly, disregarding the evidence
submitted by them while accepting the allegations of Lausa;
and secondly, in holding that Lausa had not committed
serious misconduct and had not given just cause for termination of his
services. Reynaldo Lausa,
on the other hand, contends that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion
in, firstly, terminating his services and giving him separation pay instead of
ordering his reinstatement with backwages after
having found that he was not guilty of serious misconduct; and secondly, in not
awarding him moral and exemplary damages when there was legal basis therefor.
An examination of the records shows that both the Executive Labor
Arbiter and public respondent NLRC had indeed rejected the evidence presented
by Negros Navigation, et al. in arriving at their
respective assailed decisions. In
particular, the NLRC, following the conclusions of the Executive Labor Arbiter,
disregarded the report dated 26
December 1984[6]
and the affidavits dated 21 January
1985 and 30 April 1985,[7]
all executed by Chief Mate Tendencia upon the ground
that the report and affidavits were inconsistent with each other in their
material averments.
We have, however, examined these report and affidavits for
ourselves and find no material inconsistencies between them. Unlike the Executive Labor Arbiter, we find
no necessary contradiction between the statement in the report of Chief Mate Tendencia of 26 December 1984 that he “immediately
apprehended” the complainant upon the latter’s drunken and belligerent
behavior and the statement in the Chief Mate’s affidavit that he “tried to
pacify” respondent Lausa since the
“apprehension” or restraint of Lausa was
precisely intended to “pacify” him.
The Executive Labor Arbiter also pointed to the fact that the report
dated 26 December 1984 and the affidavit of 21 January 1985 did not set out the
“exact utterance of the complainant”, while the affidavit dated 30
April 1985, did set out such utterance.
The Executive Labor Arbiter apparently concluded that the subsequent
affidavit was false or unreliable. We do
not believe so. We note that the subsequent affidavit of 30
April 1985 is cast in question-and-answer form and that the affiant, Chief Mate
Tendencia, was asked by the administering officer
what messman Lausa had
stated and that, accordingly, the Chief Mate in response repeated as far as he
remembered the language employed by Lausa:
“8-Q : Do
you know one Reynaldo Lausa?
A : Yes,
sir, he was one of our vessel messmen.
9-Q : Do
you recall having seen Mr. Reynaldo Lausa at between 5:00 and 6:00
in the afternoon of December 25, 1984?
A : Yes,
sir, I did.
10-Q : On
what occasion?
A : I was standing at the vessel lobby together
with Third Mate Milo Seruelo and some of our
passengers when Mr. Reynaldo Lausa showed up under
the influence of liquor.
11-Q : How
was he attired then?
A : He was
wearing his messman uniform, which was tucked out,
with its front being unbuttoned with his chest and stomach bared open.
12-Q : While
there, what did Mr. Lausa do if he did something?
A : Without
provocation, he suddenly shouted and challenging those present, including
myself and Third Mate Milo Seruelo, to a fight.
13-Q : What,
in substance, did he utter?
A : At the top of his voice he shouted: ‘Sin-o ang nagapangita diri sa akon? Bisan sin-o sa inyo wala ako mahadlok. Sin-o ang maaway sa
inyo? Ikaw? Ikaw? Ikaw?’ (meaning
‘Who of you are looking for me? I am not
afraid of anyone of you. Who wants to
fight? You? You? You?‘ )
14-Q : What
were his actions as he uttered those?
A : He
was pointing to us belligerently.
15-Q : Was
there anything you did?
A : Yes, sir, more than anything else my concern
was for the passengers who looked apprehensive and afraid, and so I avoided
doing any violent act or making provoking statement except to pacify him by
saying: ‘Daw wala man diri sing may nagapangita sa imo.’ (meaning, ‘Nobody here seems
to be looking for you.’ )
x x
x x
x x x x x“[8]
The NLRC had also stated that there was some delay in the
transmittal of the report of Chief Mate Tendencia to
his superiors in the vessel’s home port, Iloilo
City. We have examined the record in this respect
and do not believe that the delay, if delay it was, was material, nor that it
affected the credibility of such report concerning the misconduct of respondent
Lausa. The
sailing schedule of the M/S “Sta. Maria” provides adequate
explanation for such delay. The vessel
left the port of Iloilo
City at 7:00 o’clock p.m. on 25 December 1984 shortly after the
incident occurred. The vessel reached Manila
on 26 December 1984 and
left on 27 December 1984
for Bacolod
City, arriving in said City on 28 December 1984. On the same day, 28 December 1984, the vessel departed once again
for Manila, arriving there on 29 December 1984. On the following day, 30 December 1984, the M/S “Sta. Maria”
left Manila and arrived in Iloilo
City on 31 December 1984 at 12:30 p.m.[9]
On the same day that the “Sta. Maria”
arrived in Iloilo City,
Chief Mate Tendencia hand-carried his report to his
superiors in the office of petitioner
company. Assuming, as the Labor Arbiter
stated, that Chief Mate Tendencia might have
forwarded his report to the home office earlier than 31 December 1984, we do
not understand how the failure to do so could have diminished the intrinsic
credibility of the report which was rendered in the ordinary course of business
and in the performance of duty on the part of Chief Mate Tendencia.
Finally, the Executive Labor Arbiter sought to justify rejection
of the affidavits executed by several crew members of the “Sta.
Maria” corroborating and reinforcing the report and affidavits of Chief
Mate Tendencia, upon the ground that those affidavits
had been executed “by practically [sic] all men under the direct
supervision and control of Mr. Tendencia, Jr., except
Mr. Codilla who did nothing while the alleged
incident was taking place. In fact, if
witnesses should undertake to tell all that occurred in precisely the same
order, each giving the same incident as the order in precisely the same words,
that fact would be itself a suspicious circumstances [sic]
(People v. Lopez, L-12704, September 30, 1961)”.[10]
There is no evidence whatsoever to
suggest that Chief Mate Tendencia coerced the
affiants — Messrs. Seruelo, Momboy,
Mondadero and Palma — to perjure themselves. The fact that these crew members may have
narrated the Lausa incident giving substantially the
same sequence of events and using substantially similar words,
is certainly not sufficient basis to exclude such evidence. Firstly, these affidavits were subscribed to
on the same date before the same notary public, who very probably drafted them using substantially similar words in English, after the
affiants had described what they had seen of the incident. Secondly, the affiants and Reynaldo Lausa belonged to the same labor union, the Iloilo-Negros Employees and Laborers Union (INELU). There is nothing in the record to explain why
affiants would have fabricated out of thin air the whole incident which clearly
would lead to imposition of sanctions against a fellow union member.
We are thus compelled to conclude that clearly relevant evidence
for Negros Navigation, et al. was, without rational
basis, excluded and disregarded by both the Executive Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC and that such failure to consider material evidence of record constitutes a
grave abuse of discretion.[11]
We turn to the question of whether or not the drunken behavior of
respondent Lausa constituted misconduct so serious as reasonably to warrant his dismissal from the
service of petitioner corporation. The
Executive Labor Arbiter undertook to substitute his own judgment for that of petitioner company in this respect, holding that: “if ever complainant committed a
misconduct, it was not [so] serious as to warrant his dismissal”.[12]
Respondent NLRC simply accepted this substituted
judgment on the part of the Executive Labor Arbiter.
Article 283 of the Labor Code recognizes the right of an employer
to terminate the services of an employee where, among other things, such an
employee is guilty of “serious misconduct”:
“Article 283. Termination by Employer.
— An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just
causes:
(a) serious misconduct or lawful disobedience by
the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his work:
x x
x x
x x x x x”
(Underscoring
supplied)
Clearly, the drunken and bellicose
behavior of Reynaldo Lausa constituted misconduct on
his part. The critical question relates
to appreciation of the gravity of such misconduct. In appraising the character of the misconduct
committed by messman Lausa,
it is important to stress that petitioner corporation is a public carrier,
engaged in transporting passengers and cargo across our waters and seas. As a public carrier, petitioner
corporation is, “from the nature of [its] business and for reasons of
public policy”, bound to observe “extraordinary diligence” in the
vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of passengers transported by it.[13] The standard of care established by the
Civil Code — extraordinary diligence — is defined rigorously as a duty
“to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a
due regard for all the circumstances.”[14]
In the context of this duty of extraordinary diligence imposed by law upon petitioner corporation, the drunken and disorderly and
pugnacious behavior of respondent Lausa on board the
vessel was clearly a serious
matter. Such kind of behavior could
easily have provoked or triggered off a brawl and mindless panic on board the
vessel, and endangered the safety of passengers and crew members and, under
certain conditions, the safety of the vessel itself. The fact that, in the case at bar, no violence and terror and panic actually
broke out on board the M/S “Sta.
Maria”, was certainly not due to Reynaldo Lausa. Under these circumstances, we consider that
the behavior of respondent Lausa is properly
characterized as serious misconduct warranting his dismissal from the service.[15]
The statutory duty of Negros Navigation of
extraordinary diligence would have justified, indeed required, the Chief Mate
and other crew members of the “Sta. Maria” to take reasonable
measures to apprehend and restrain Lausa to ensure
that no such panic and stampede resulted.
Negros Navigation was moreover
justified in taking into account, in dismissing respondent Lausa,
the fact that the 25 December 1984
drunken incident was not the first such serious misconduct on the part of
respondent Lausa.
The evidence submitted by Negros Navigation,
et al. showed that on 27 September 1980, on board the M/S “Doña
Florentina” where he was previously assigned,
Reynaldo Lausa and other crew members were caught
playing cards (Lucky 9) and that under the influence of liqour,
and having lost money in the game, he provoked a fight in the course of which
he inflicted physical injuries upon one of the card players whom he chased and
slashed with a broken bottle.[16]
Negros Navigation would have dismissed Lausa back in 1980 had the union not intervened on his
behalf and promised that next time, it would not so intervene.
We
hold that, in the specific
circumstances of this case, respondent NLRC and the Executive Labor Arbiter
committed a grave abuse of discretion in substituting their own judgment for
that of Negros Navigation who could have been held
liable for damages if any of the passengers had been hurt as a result of the
drunken misbehavior of Reynaldo Lausa.
Since the dismissal of Reynaldo Lausa
was for a just cause, he was not entitled to separation pay,[17]
much less to reinstatement and backwages. His claim for moral and exemplary damages is
hence devoid of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No.
80407 is hereby GRANTED, while the Petition in G.R. No. 79731 is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Resolution dated 16 June 1987 of public respondent NLRC as well as the Decision
dated 13 June 1986 of the
Executive Labor Arbiter Celerino Greica
II are both hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 125, in G.R. No. 80407.
[2]
Id., pp. 111-112,
Annex ‘5’ of Annex “F” of the Petition.
[3]
Id., pp. 114-115,
Annex ‘7’ of Annex “F” of the Petition.
[4]
Id., pp. 43-54;
Annex “B” of the Petition.
[5]
Id., pp. 35-42;
Annex “A” of the Petition.
[6]
Id., p. 126.
[7]
Id., pp. 105-108.
[8]
Id., pp. 105-106.
[9]
Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter, p. 7.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 52-53, in G.R. No. 80407.
[11]
Padilla v. Commission on Elections, et al., 137 SCRA
at 437 (1985).
[12]
Rollo, p. 53, in G.R. No. 80407.
[13]
Article 1733, Civil Code: Mecenas, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88052,
December 14, 1989.
[14]
Article 1755, Civil Code. The standard of “extraordinary diligence” on
the care of goods carried by a public carrier is also defined with equal
rigor: see Articles 1734, 1735, 1739,
1740, 1742 and 1744, et seq., Civil Code.
[15]
Seashore Maritime Corporation & Seashore Shipping Corporation v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 84712, 15 May 1989.
[16]
Annex ‘1’ of Annex “F” of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 102-103, in G.R. No. 80407.
[17]
Pacaña
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 83513, 18 April 1989;
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 83320, 9 February 1989; Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
80609, 23 August 1988.