G.R. No. 193107, March 24, 2014
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC. and JANETTE G. LAGAZO, Petitioners, vs. LARRY S. LABRADOR, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Sutherland Global Services (Philippines), Inc. hired respondent Larry S. Labrador as a call center agent in August 2006. During his employment, Labrador committed several infractions. On June 17, 2008, he was charged with violating the “Non-Compliance Sale Attribute” policy for an incident on May 13, 2008, where a customer complained that Labrador created a second account and placed a new order without her consent, resulting in her being billed twice. This was classified as an act of dishonesty or fraud under the Employee Handbook. A Notice to Explain was sent. An administrative hearing considered this and past infractions: a “Last Written Warning” on September 24, 2007, for a similar offense of creating a second account without verification; and being placed under a Monitoring Improvement Program on February 8, 2008, for a fatal error. After investigation, a recommendation found him guilty of gross or habitual neglect of duty. The recommendation noted Labrador’s request “for resignation instead of termination” and that management allowed his request to resign effective immediately. On June 17, 2008, Labrador submitted a resignation letter. Later, on October 27, 2008, he filed a complaint for constructive/illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding just cause for termination and voluntary resignation. The NLRC reversed, applying liberal interpretation of procedural rules regarding Labrador’s appeal and finding illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in taking cognizance of the appeal despite Labrador’s failure to comply with the NLRC’s Rules of Procedure (specifically, failure to state the date of receipt of the appealed decision and to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping).
2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that Labrador was illegally terminated and did not voluntarily resign.
3. Whether Labrador’s offense constitutes gross negligence as to warrant his dismissal from the service.

RULING

1. On procedural defects: The Supreme Court found the procedural arguments unmeritorious. Technical rules are not necessarily fatal in labor cases and can be liberally applied, with doubts resolved in favor of labor. The failure to state the date of receipt and to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping were not considered fatal defects, especially since the date could be verified from records and the 2011 NLRC Rules no longer required the certificate. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the appeal.
2. & 3. On the merits (illegal dismissal and just cause): The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious on the substantive issues. It held that the CA gravely misappreciated the evidence and the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding undisputed evidence of Labrador’s repeated infractions. The first offense on September 24, 2007, resulted in a “Last Written Warning” stating it was a serious offense constituting neglect of duty and that a second similar offense would lead to dismissal. The final infraction on May 13, 2008, was a repetition of the first offense. The Court ruled that Labrador’s resignation was voluntary, made upon his own request to avoid termination and preserve his reputation, after being found guilty of gross neglect. The power to dismiss is a management prerogative, and the employer had just cause based on gross negligence due to habitual neglect, evidenced by repeated violations despite warnings. Therefore, Labrador was not illegally dismissed.