GR 183399; (March, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183399 March 20, 2017
ROGEL ORTIZ, Petitioner vs DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Rogel Ortiz was employed by DHL Philippines Corporation as a Manifest Clerk. On March 19, 1999, his Branch Manager discovered he was absent from his workplace during office hours. An investigation ensued, revealing that Ortiz had been habitually leaving the office early two to three times a week for nearly two years to practice or watch basketball games, particularly when his brother-in-law’s PBA team played. He would often have a co-employee or security guard punch his time card. During the investigation process, Ortiz initially hurled invectives at his supervisor but later apologized and admitted to all charges, pleading for a lesser penalty than dismissal.
DHL terminated Ortiz for grave dishonesty and serious misconduct. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal’s validity but awarded separation pay due to his long service, finding the penalty of dismissal too severe. The Court of Appeals (CA) later deleted the separation pay, ruling the misconduct warranted dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioner Rogel Ortiz was valid.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was valid for a just cause. The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision which found the dismissal legal. The Court emphasized that habitual abandonment of one’s post during work hours constitutes serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. Ortiz’s acts were not isolated; they were deliberate, repeated over two years, and involved dishonesty through the falsification of his time records by having others punch his card. Such behavior erodes the trust essential to the employment relationship.
The Court rejected the NLRC’s imposition of separation pay. The principle of leniency due to long service cannot be applied where the employee’s acts are characterized by deceit and repeated violation of company rules. The gravity of the offense, which strikes at the heart of an employee’s duty to faithfully render service during paid hours, outweighs the mitigating circumstance of length of service. However, the Court found that DHL failed to comply with procedural due process by not properly serving the final notice of termination. Following the doctrine in Agabon v. NLRC, while the dismissal was for a valid cause, DHL was ordered to pay Ortiz nominal damages of ₱30,000 for its procedural lapse.