G.R. No. 150171; July 17, 2007
Acebedo Optical and Miguel Acebedo III, Petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Melencia Asegurado, Respondents.

FACTS

Melencia Asegurado was hired by Acebedo Optical as a packaging clerk on August 16, 1991, and was regularized on March 1, 1992. Throughout her employment, she received several disciplinary memoranda for habitual tardiness. These included a written warning in September 1991, a first written warning in October 1992, a three-day suspension in April 1994 for 26 counts of tardiness, and a seven-day suspension in February 1995 for 21 counts of tardiness. In May 1995, Asegurado applied for an indefinite leave of absence, which was denied by the company. She was subsequently dismissed from employment. Asegurado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Asegurado, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Acebedo Optical, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision that Melencia Asegurado was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals decision. The legal logic centers on the employer’s failure to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and that due process was observed. For dismissal due to neglect of duty or willful disobedience—the grounds invoked by the employer for habitual tardiness—the employer must establish that the offense was committed willfully, intentionally, and with a wrongful attitude. The series of memoranda and suspensions showed the company treated Asegurado’s tardiness as a disciplinary issue warranting progressive penalties, not an outright dismissible offense. Her regularization despite the infractions and the continued imposition of suspensions indicated the company did not initially consider her tardiness as gross and habitual neglect warranting termination.
Crucially, the employer failed to comply with the twin-notice rule and a hearing requirement of due process. There was no showing that Asegurado was given a written notice stating the particular acts constituting the grounds for her dismissal, nor was there a hearing or opportunity to respond. The termination was therefore procedurally infirm. Consequently, as the dismissal was not shown to be valid and lawful, Asegurado is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full backwages from the time of her illegal dismissal up to her actual reinstatement.