GR 162195; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162195, April 8, 2008
Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. vs. Reynaldo Chua
FACTS
Reynaldo Chua was hired by Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. as a restaurant waiter on board M/S Black Watch under a POEA-approved contract for nine months. On February 15, 1997, he reported for duty one and a half hours late. Following an investigation, he was dismissed on March 9, 1997. Chua filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and illegal deductions for union dues. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Chua’s favor, awarding salary for the unexpired portion of his contract (limited to three months under R.A. 8042), differential pay, refund for illegal deductions, and plane fare. The NLRC modified the decision by deducting one day’s salary from the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC but deleted the entire award for the unexpired portion of the contract, despite Chua not appealing the lower decisions.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals could modify a decision to grant additional affirmative relief to a party who did not appeal; and (2) whether reporting late constitutes a valid ground for dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred. The CA improperly granted affirmative relief to the employer, Bahia Shipping, by deleting the award for the unexpired contract when it was Bahia that appealed. Since the employee, Chua, did not appeal the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions, those rulings in his favor became final as to him. An appellate court cannot grant a favorable modification to a party who did not appeal; it can only deny the petition of the appealing party, thereby leaving the lower court’s judgment undisturbed. On the substantive issue, the Court found the dismissal illegal. A single instance of tardiness, without proof of it being habitual or constituting willful disobedience, does not amount to serious misconduct or neglect of duties justifying termination. The employer failed to substantiate its claim of habitual tardiness. The Court reinstated the NLRC award but corrected the computation basis, ruling that the salary for the unexpired term should be based solely on Chua’s basic monthly salary of US$213, excluding “guaranteed overtime” pay which was not proven to have been actually earned or rendered.