GR 99390; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 99390. July 5, 1993
LYSANDER P. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. MANILA TIMES/LA VANGUARDIA PUBLISHING INC. & NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lysander P. Garcia was hired as Special Editor, later Assistant News Editor, by respondent Manila Times/La Vanguardia Publishing Inc. From September 1 to 13, 1987, he was tardy on twelve consecutive days. On September 15, 1987, Editor Manuel Benitez issued a memorandum requiring him to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken. Petitioner requested a one-week extension, which was denied on September 16, 1987. On September 17, 1987, Benitez issued another memorandum reassigning petitioner from editing to monitoring wire services due to his refusal to follow the prescribed writing style. On September 19, 1987, petitioner submitted a memorandum describing Benitez’s September 17 memorandum as “baseless, presumptuous, arbitrary, abusive, unprofessional, and illegal.” On September 21, 1987, Benitez terminated petitioner’s services for insubordination. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal but awarded separation pay, back wages, damages, and attorney’s fees instead of reinstatement. Both parties appealed to the NLRC, which held the dismissal was for just cause and deleted the awards except for proportionate 13th-month pay. Only petitioner challenged the NLRC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the legality of petitioner’s dismissal based on insubordination and serious misconduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court held that petitioner’s acts constituted willful disobedience and serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code, justifying dismissal. Petitioner’s tardiness for twelve consecutive days without excuse, refusal to follow the editor’s prescribed writing style, and submission of a disrespectful memorandum on September 19, 1987, demonstrated insubordination. The company rules, which reserved management’s right to modify penalties depending on the violation’s gravity, supported the dismissal. Petitioner was not denied due process, as he was notified of the charges via memoranda and given an opportunity to explain. The discipline was exercised in good faith for the employer’s legitimate interests. Thus, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion.