G.R. No. 247428 , February 17, 2021
Jerry E. Almogera, Jr., Petitioner, vs. A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. and Augusto Tycangco, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. was hired by respondent A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. in October 2013 as an all-around harvester. On January 5, 2017, he verbally sought permission from his immediate supervisor, Manuel Cruzada, for an 11-day leave of absence from January 6 to 16, 2017, due to a family emergency. The supervisor allegedly approved and committed to relay the request to management. Upon reporting back on January 25, 2017, petitioner received a letter requiring him to explain his absences without official leave (AWOL) for that period pursuant to the company’s Code of Discipline. He was also placed under preventive suspension. Petitioner did not submit an explanation. He was subsequently terminated effective January 30, 2017, for violating the Code of Discipline. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding backwages, separation pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding the dismissal valid for just cause (violation of company rules on leave application) and with due process, and set aside the awards for backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner was validly dismissed and therefore not entitled to his monetary claims for backwages and separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the petitioner was validly dismissed for a just cause and with due process.
1. On Substantive Due Process (Just Cause): The employer, A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc., validly exercised its management prerogative to implement reasonable company rules. The company’s policy required personnel going on vacation leave to fill up a Vacation Leave Form at least five days before the leave, with supervisor approval. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this formal requirement rendered his 11-day absence an AWOL, constituting willful disobedience of lawful company rules—a just cause for termination under Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code. The Court found that the company rule was reasonable and known to the petitioner, as the policy was presented in evidence and the petitioner, having worked for the company for over three years, was presumed to be aware of it. His reliance on his supervisor’s alleged verbal approval did not excuse non-compliance with the clear written procedure.
2. On Procedural Due Process: The employer complied with the twin-notice requirement. The first notice (January 25, 2017) informed petitioner of the charge (AWOL) and gave him a reasonable opportunity to explain. The second notice (advice of termination) informed him of the decision to dismiss him. Petitioner’s failure to submit any explanation after receiving the first notice was deemed a waiver of his right to be heard.
3. On the Monetary Awards: Since the dismissal was for a just cause, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay. However, the award of service incentive leave pay by the Labor Arbiter, which was not appealed by the respondents and was affirmed by the NLRC, stands.
Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in sustaining the NLRC’s finding of valid dismissal.