GR 96685; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96685 February 15, 1999
CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND ADOLFO LAURON, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Adolfo Lauron was employed as a watchman by petitioner Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. On April 4, 1987, a fire occurred in his cabin and the Chief Engineer’s cabin aboard the M/V Don Benjamin. He was ordered to disembark on April 6, 1987, purportedly for an investigation. However, no investigation was held until mid-May 1987, after which he was informed of his dismissal. Lauron filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding backwages, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the illegal dismissal finding but modified the award, granting backwages for three years and separation pay computed from 1962 to the date of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of illegal dismissal and in granting the corresponding monetary awards to private respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. For a valid dismissal based on willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code, two requisites must concur: the employee’s conduct must be willful and characterized by a perverse attitude, and the employer’s order must be reasonable, lawful, known to the employee, and related to his duties. The Court found these requisites absent. Lauron obeyed the order to disembark and waited for an investigation, demonstrating no perverse attitude. The memorandum from management was merely a directive for a fact-finding inquiry, not a lawful order pertaining to his duties which he defied. Furthermore, petitioner failed to comply with procedural due process by not furnishing Lauron with a written notice stating the grounds for dismissal and affording him a genuine opportunity to be heard. The grant of three years’ backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, due to the strained relations, was in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The NLRC’s decision was thus upheld as a valid application of labor law principles.