G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998
ROMEO LAGATIC, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CITYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, JESUS GO, GRACE LIUSON, and ANDREW LIUSON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo Lagatic was employed by respondent Cityland Development Corporation (Cityland) in May 1986, first as a probationary sales agent and later as a marketing specialist. His duties included soliciting sales, accepting call-ins and referrals, making client calls, and performing “cold calls” (prospecting for clients via telephone directory). Cityland required its marketing specialists to make cold calls and to submit daily progress reports on them to assess performance. On October 22, 1991, petitioner was issued a written reprimand for failing to submit cold call reports for specific dates in September and October 1991. Despite this, he again failed to submit reports for multiple dates in September and October 1992. He was required to explain and warned that further non-compliance could result in termination. In his reply, he claimed it was an honest omission due to concentration on other job aspects. Cityland found this inadequate and suspended him for three days on November 9, 1992, with a similar warning. Petitioner again failed to submit reports for dates in February 1993. He was verbally reminded and given until February 17, 1993, to comply. Instead, on February 16, 1993, he wrote a note stating “TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?” and exhibited it to co-employees, leaving it on his desk. On February 23, 1993, he received a memorandum requiring him to explain why the previous warning should not be enforced for his failure to submit reports and for issuing the statement. In his February 24, 1993 reply, he alleged his failure should not be deemed gross insubordination and denied knowledge of the statement. Cityland found him guilty of gross insubordination and served a notice of dismissal on February 26, 1993. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petition, and the NLRC affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
2. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to salary differentials, backwages, separation pay, overtime pay, rest day pay, unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming the NLRC resolution.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner’s dismissal was valid both substantively and procedurally. Substantively, there was just cause for dismissal based on willful disobedience. The requisites for willful disobedience were met: (a) petitioner’s conduct was willful, as shown by 28 instances of failing to submit required cold call reports despite a reprimand and suspension, and his written statement exhibited open defiance; (b) the order violated was reasonable, lawful, made known to him, and pertained to his duties. Company policies, like the cold call report requirement, are generally valid and binding unless grossly oppressive or contrary to law. Petitioner’s continued infraction justified dismissal. Procedurally, due process was observed. Petitioner was furnished the twin notices: a February 19, 1993 memorandum (received February 23) apprising him of the charges, and a February 26, 1993 notice of dismissal. He was given an opportunity to be heard through his February 24 letter-reply. A formal hearing was not necessary as he admitted failing to submit reports and merely denied the statement without substantiating evidence.
2. On the second issue, the Court held petitioner was not entitled to the claimed monetary awards. His claim for illegal deductions from commissions, based on Cityland’s commission formula where an increase in salary led to a higher “Amounts Received” (AR) component reducing commissions, was unfounded. The Court found the formula was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative, not a violation of the non-diminution clause, as the commission structure was a separate incentive system. His claims for overtime and rest day pay failed due to lack of sufficient evidence that he actually performed such work; minutes of meetings assigning work did not prove actual performance. His agreement to submit the case for decision based on available records amounted to abandonment of his pending motion for production of documents. With the finding of valid dismissal, his claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees also failed.