GR 72129; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72129 February 7, 1990
FILIPRO, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINISTER BLAS F. OPLE, NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION OF FREE WORKERS and ROMEO PILI, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Filipro, Inc. sought to dismiss respondent Romeo Pili, a regular employee, for habitual absenteeism. The company’s collective bargaining agreement required employees to secure prior written certification from the company physician for sick leave whenever possible, or to immediately notify the company and present a medical certificate upon return. Pili frequently absented himself, often citing “mahalagang lakad” (important business elsewhere) without prior notice, and exceeded his annual 15-day sick leave entitlement, taking 21 days in 1976 and 20 days in 1978. The Regional Director granted Filipro clearance to terminate Pili, finding the dismissal justified.
The Minister of Labor reversed this decision, ordering Pili’s reinstatement with full back wages. The Minister noted that Pili had already been penalized with suspensions for his past absences in 1976, 1977, and 1979. The dismissal was based on an absence on May 10, 1979, for which Pili claimed stomach ache. While a company-hired doctor certified him as fit to work on May 15, this did not disprove his illness on May 10. Filipro filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Minister.
ISSUE
Whether the Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Pili’s dismissal was illegal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the prohibition against double jeopardy in labor discipline and the insufficiency of the final incident to justify dismissal. While Pili’s habitual absenteeism and failure to follow proper leave procedures constituted a valid cause for discipline, the company had already imposed specific penalties—suspensions—for those past infractions. Using those same past violations as collective justification for the ultimate penalty of dismissal in 1979 would constitute penalizing the employee twice for the same offenses, which is impermissible.
Regarding the immediate cause for dismissal—the May 10, 1979 absence—the Court agreed with the Minister and the Solicitor General that the medical certificate of fitness dated May 15 did not conclusively prove that Pili was not ill on May 10. Therefore, this single incident, standing alone, did not amount to a gross or habitual neglect of duty warranting termination. The Minister’s finding that the dismissal was disproportionate and illegal was thus a valid exercise of discretionary authority, not tainted by arbitrariness. Consequently, the order for reinstatement with two years’ back wages was upheld.