GR 196557; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196557 . June 15, 2016
GREGORIO “TONGEE” BALAIS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SE’LON BY AIMEE, AMELITA REVILLA AND ALMA BELARMINO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio Balais, Jr. was a senior hairstylist at Se’lon by Aimee. He alleged that on July 1, 2008, salon manager Alma Belarmino angrily shouted at him to get out of the company in front of co-workers, leading him to feel humiliated and not report for work the next day. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondents countered that Balais was not terminated but abandoned his work after a confrontation regarding his alleged refusal to comply with a salon policy requiring rotation among junior stylists for assistance. They claimed his insistence on choosing only specific juniors despite reminders constituted willful disobedience, justifying dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Balais, finding he was illegally dismissed. They held respondents failed to prove the existence of a clear salon policy on rotation or that Balais’s acts amounted to serious misconduct. The Court of Appeals reversed, sustaining the dismissal as valid based on alleged insubordination, but ordered payment of accrued 13th-month pay and unpaid salaries.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding that petitioner was validly dismissed from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC decision which found illegal dismissal. The legal logic centers on the employer’s twin burden of proof in dismissal cases. First, the employer must prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Second, it must prove that due process was observed. The Court found respondents failed to discharge the first burden.
The alleged policy on the rotation of junior stylists was not proven; no written policy or company rule was presented. Mere allegations of its existence, without corroborating evidence, are insufficient. Even assuming such a policy existed, Balais’s alleged preference for certain juniors did not constitute willful disobedience, which requires the employee’s conduct to be characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. The single incident, described as a heated exchange, did not rise to the level of serious misconduct or insubordination warranting dismissal. The employer’s failure to establish a valid cause rendered the dismissal illegal. Consequently, Balais is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, plus attorney’s fees. The award of 13th-month pay and unpaid salaries was affirmed.