G.R. No. 240507 , April 28, 2021
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ETELIANO R. REYES, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Eteliano R. Reyes, Jr. was employed by petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) as a Supervisor III/Foreman on Board. On February 17, 2014, while supervising loading and lashing operations at Bay 30 on board a vessel, he was directed by an “EC Planner” to transfer to Bay 38 to supervise the commencement of loading operations. Reyes left four All Purpose Personnel (APPs) to complete the lashing at Bay 30 and proceeded to Bay 38. An accident subsequently occurred at Bay 30 where a lashing bar fell and hit a vessel security guard. ATI charged Reyes with negligence under its Company Table of Offenses and Penalties (CTOP). Initially charged under Section 2.4 (with graduated penalties), the charge was later changed to Section 2.2 (which provides for dismissal). After investigation, ATI terminated Reyes’ employment. Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring Reyes illegally dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision. ATI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC in denying petitioner’s assertion of valid dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that ATI’s arguments involved questions of fact not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. It found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, whose conclusion that Reyes was not guilty of gross and habitual negligence warranting dismissal was supported by substantial evidence. The Court noted that Reyes conducted a required safety orientation, personally supervised the initial lashing, and transferred to Bay 38 upon instruction and due to operational necessity. The injured guard was in a “No Walk Zone” without permission. Negligence justifying termination must be both gross and habitual, and this was Reyes’ first offense in three years. The Court also rejected ATI’s new argument for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as it was raised for the first time and no evidence showed the relationship was too strained for reinstatement. Reyes was ordered reinstated with full back wages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and legal interest.