GR 171703; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171703 ; September 22, 2006
ACE PROMOTION AND MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REYNALDO URSABIA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ace Promotion and Marketing Corporation employed respondent Reynaldo Ursabia as a company driver. On July 6, 2001, respondent failed to report for work. Petitioner issued a memorandum on July 9 requiring him to explain his absence. When he reported, he refused to acknowledge the memo. The next day, petitioner issued another memorandum citing damage to the company vehicle and respondent’s alleged negative behavior, again demanding an explanation. Subsequently, an anonymous threatening note was discovered, which a PNP Crime Laboratory examination allegedly linked to respondent’s handwriting. On August 6, 2001, petitioner served a termination letter citing violations of company rules and the threatening note. Respondent refused receipt. He filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal valid. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondent was validly dismissed from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC’s finding of valid dismissal but with modification. The Court found just causes for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code: willful disobedience and serious misconduct. Respondent’s unexplained absence and refusal to comply with the lawful directives to explain his actions constituted willful disobedience. His alleged act of damaging the company vehicle and writing a threatening note constituted serious misconduct, as these acts were prejudicial to the employer’s interests. However, the Court found that petitioner failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement of procedural due process. The termination letter was vague and introduced a new charge (the threatening note) without giving respondent a chance to respond. Applying the doctrine in Agabon v. NLRC, the dismissal for a just cause is upheld, but the employer must pay nominal damages for procedural defects. The Court thus ordered petitioner to pay respondent P30,000.00 as nominal damages and affirmed the NLRC’s award of unpaid service incentive leave pay.