G.R. No. 140853; February 27, 2003
Ariel A. Tres Reyes, petitioner, vs. Maxim’s Tea House and Jocelyn Poon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ariel Tres Reyes was employed as a driver by respondent Maxim’s Tea House. In the early morning of September 27, 1997, while driving a company van to fetch employees, he was involved in a traffic accident. A ten-wheeler truck, speeding through a red light, approached his lane. Reyes maneuvered to avoid a collision but the van still struck the truck, resulting in injuries to him and his passengers and damage to the vehicles. Maxim’s required him to submit a written explanation, found it unsatisfactory, and subsequently terminated his employment for cause on November 19, 1997.
Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal valid, finding gross negligence on Reyes’s part for failing to avoid the collision. Reyes filed a “Motion for Partial Reconsideration” with the NLRC, which the Commission treated as an appeal. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding no negligence and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals, upon a certiorari petition by Maxim’s, set aside the NLRC decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in treating the “Motion for Partial Reconsideration” as an appeal, and (2) whether Reyes’s dismissal was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held the NLRC did not commit grave abuse. While a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the NLRC Rules, the Commission has the discretion to treat it as an appeal if filed within the reglementary period, as it was here, and upon payment of the appeal fee, which was also satisfied. This prevents a denial of substantial justice on mere technicality.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled the dismissal was illegal. For termination based on gross negligence under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, the negligence must be both gross and habitual. The evidence showed the accident was caused by the truck driver who ran a red light at high speed. Reyes, driving at a normal speed, took evasive action. A single isolated incident, not proven to be due to reckless or wanton disregard of duty, does not constitute gross negligence warranting dismissal. The employer failed to substantiate the charge with clear and convincing evidence. Thus, Reyes is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible.