GR 97204; (April, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97204 . April 25, 1996.
MICHAEL INC. AND JUANITO CAMBANGAY, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOSE P. NAVARRO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Jose P. Navarro was employed as a marine engineer by petitioner shipping company. On November 12, 1984, he was dismissed after failing to board the M/V Alexia before its departure, marking the fourth such incident over four years, with prior occurrences in 1980, 1982, and mid-1984. His excuses ranged from stomachaches to a jeepney strike. Navarro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissals illegal, finding the habitual absences not gross enough to warrant dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code and noting procedural defects in the termination process. The Arbiter awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, service incentive leave, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed but modified the computation of backwages and deleted the attorney’s fees award.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of Jose P. Navarro was a valid exercise of management prerogative or was too severe a penalty for his infractions.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was too severe a penalty. While acknowledging the critical importance of crew attendance in the shipping industry, where carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence, the Court emphasized the principle of proportionality in labor discipline. Citing precedent, the Court held that where a less punitive penalty suffices, severe consequences like dismissal are not justified, considering the worker’s right to security of tenure and the welfare of his family.
The Court noted Navarro’s eight years of service and the fact that his four absences, while habitual, were spread over four years and did not constitute gross neglect of duty or willful disobedience warranting termination. The absence of a clear intent to abandon his work was crucial. Following analogous cases where employees guilty of unauthorized absences were reinstated without backwages, the Court modified the NLRC decision. It set aside the award of backwages entirely, affirming only the grant of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service in lieu of reinstatement, achieving a balance between the employer’s right to discipline and the employee’s right to protection from unduly harsh penalties.