G.R. No. 168120; January 25, 2012
MANSION PRINTING CENTER and CLEMENT CHENG, Petitioners, vs. DIOSDADO BITARA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Mansion Printing Center, a single proprietorship owned by Clement Cheng, engaged respondent Diosdado Bitara, Jr. as a helper in August 1998, later promoting him to the company’s sole driver. His duties included picking up raw materials, collecting receivables, and delivering products within strict schedules. Petitioners closely monitored his attendance due to the importance of timely deliveries. They noted his habitual tardiness and absenteeism. A memorandum was issued on June 23, 1999, requiring him to explain his habitual tardiness. On November 29, 1999, respondent submitted a written apology and promised to report on time. However, his weekly time record for the first quarter of 2000 showed he was late 19 times out of 47 workdays and absent 19 times out of 66 working days. His unapproved absences from March 11-16, 2000, were deemed a serious infraction. On March 17, 2000, a “Notice to Explain” for possible termination was issued and personally handed to him, but he refused to acknowledge receipt and did not submit an explanation. He thereafter stopped reporting for work. On March 21, 2000, a “Notice of Termination” was served, effective April 1, 2000, citing gross negligence. Respondent requested reconsideration, which was denied, though management offered financial assistance equivalent to one month’s salary (₱6,110.00). Respondent demanded two months’ salary, which was refused. On April 27, 2000, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, seeking reinstatement, backwages, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. He claimed he took a leave from March 17-23, 2000, due to a family emergency, that his wife informed the office, and that he was refused admission upon his return on March 24, 2000. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on December 21, 2000. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision in its Resolution dated June 29, 2001. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 18, 2004, granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, reversed the NLRC, and declared respondent illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, and service incentive leave pay. The CA denied reconsideration on May 10, 2005.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion (a) in upholding the termination of respondent’s employment and (b) in affirming the denial of his claims for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC’s decision which upheld the validity of the dismissal. The Court held that the CA erred in its findings. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The inquiry is limited to whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the NLRC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not tainted by grave abuse of discretion. On the substantive issue, the Court found respondent’s dismissal for just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code due to gross and habitual neglect of duties. His pattern of habitual tardiness and absenteeism, particularly the unapproved absences from March 11-16, 2000, which disrupted business operations, constituted gross negligence. The Court noted that respondent had been previously warned and had promised to reform, but continued his infractions. The procedural due process requirements of twin notices (notice to explain and notice of termination) and an opportunity to be heard were satisfied. The “Notice to Explain” was personally served on March 17, 2000, and respondent’s refusal to acknowledge it and failure to submit an explanation did not negate proper service. The subsequent “Notice of Termination” was also properly served. The Court also found respondent’s claim for monetary benefits (holiday pay, service incentive leave pay) unsubstantiated. The NLRC’s affirmance of the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings, which are accorded respect and finality, was thus proper. The CA therefore committed reversible error in overturning the NLRC’s decision.