G.R. No. 227175 , January 08, 2020
Neren Villanueva, Petitioner, vs. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., Peter Marasigan, Benjie Marasigan, Luz Marasigan, Boya Marasigan, and Serge Bernabe, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Neren Villanueva was hired in 2002 by respondent Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc. (GRRI) for its La Luz Beach Resort and Spa. She became a regular employee and was promoted to head of the Housekeeping Department and later the Front Desk Department. In 2013, she was charged with abuse of authority (for rejecting walk-in guests without approval) and threat to a person in authority (threatening assistant resort manager Serge Bernabe). After investigation, she was found guilty. The penalty for the threat was initially termination but was reduced to a five-day suspension without pay, subject to a strict performance monitoring agreement where any further violation warranting suspension would lead to immediate dismissal. In early 2014, she was transferred to the Team Building Department. In March 2014, GRRI implemented a reorganization and issued a Notice of Employees’ Lateral Transfer to five employees, including Villanueva, transferring her from the Reception Department to the Storage Department without diminution in rank or benefits. Villanueva refused to sign the notice, remained at the reception area for two days, but reported to her new station on March 4, 2014. She also sent an email to management on March 9, 2014, asking questions about the transfer. On March 10, 2014, GRRI issued a memorandum directing her to explain within 24 hours why she should not be penalized for insubordination for refusing to sign the notice. In her handwritten reply dated March 11, 2014, she explained her refusal was pending answers to her email. On March 14, 2014, she was placed under preventive suspension until March 21, 2014. She failed to report back to work from March 22 to March 26, 2014. On March 26, 2014, the HR department issued a memorandum directing her to report and explain her absences. Upon reporting, she was handed a Termination Notice dated March 21, 2014, stating she was found guilty of “inhuman and unbearable treatment to person in authority; abuse of authority; serious misconduct – insubordination by not accepting her memorandum of re-assignment by the Executive Committee; and gross and habitual neglect of duties AWOL” and was terminated effective immediately. Villanueva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the National Labor Relations Commission ruling and upholding the validity of petitioner’s dismissal.

RULING

The Petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court found that the dismissal was not valid due to lack of substantive due process. The Court held that the charge of insubordination or willful disobedience was not substantiated. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, meaning characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertain to the duties which she had been engaged to discharge. The lateral transfer order was reasonable and lawful, and made known to Villanueva. However, her refusal to sign the Notice to Transfer was not willful disobedience. Her act of reporting to her new assignment, albeit after a two-day delay, and her email seeking clarification showed she did not refuse to obey but was seeking answers. Her explanation for not signing was not indicative of a perverse attitude. Furthermore, her past infractions from 2013 could not be used to justify her dismissal under the principle of totality of infractions, as she had already been penalized for them, and the agreement for stricter monitoring did not convert past offenses into present just causes. Regarding the charge of gross and habitual neglect of duties for being AWOL from March 22 to 26, 2014, the Court found this charge was not properly investigated and she was not given an opportunity to explain these specific absences before her termination, violating procedural due process. The termination notice was dated March 21, 2014, predating the period of alleged absences, showing the decision to dismiss was made prior to the occurrence of the absences used to justify it. Therefore, the dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause. However, the Court found the dismissal was effected without procedural due process; she was given notices but the investigation was not meaningful as the decision was made beforehand. Consequently, the Court ordered GRRI to pay Villanueva full backwages from dismissal until finality of the decision, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, nominal damages for procedural due process violation, and service incentive leave pay as uncontested by respondents. The CA decision was reversed and set aside.