Union Motors vs NLRC, 314 SCRA 531, 539

 

Facts:

Alejandro Etis was hired by Union Motors as an automotive mechanic at the service department in its Paco Branch. In 1994, he was transferred to Caloocan City branch, where his latest monthly salary was P6,330.00. During his employment, he was awarded the "Top Technician" for the month of May in 1995 and Technician of the Year (1995), and received several other awards that year. Etis made a phone call to Rosita de la Cruz, the company nurse, and informed her that he had to take a sick leave as he had a painful and unbearable toothache. The next day, he again phoned de la Cruz and told her that he could not report to work because he still had to consult a doctor. Finding that Etis' ailment was due to tooth inflammation, the doctor referred her to the dentist for further check-up. Because of several absences, Union Motors issued an Office Memorandum terminating the services of Etis for having incurred these absences without notification. To them, it was considered abandonment under Sec. 6.1.1. Article III of the Company Rules. Eventually his dentist successfully extracted Etis' tooth and as soon as he recovered, he reported back to work. Unfortunately he was denied entrance to the company premises; and was also informed that his employment had already been terminated. Soon he filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. Etis allege that he was dismissed from his employment without just and legal basis, while Union Motors averred that his dismissal was justified by his ten unauthorized absences. It posited that under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employee's gross and habitual neglect of his duties is a just cause for termination. It further alleged that the respondent's repetitive and habitual acts of being absent without notification constituted nothing less than abandonment, which is a form of neglect of duties. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint on the ground that Etis' failure to report to work for 10 days without approved leave of absence is a gross neglect of duty. On appeal to the NLRC, it reversed the LA's decision ordering reinstatement to Etis. In the CA, it agreed with the NLRC that medical certificates need not be notarized in order to be admitted as evidence.

 

 

Issue:

Is it a valid dismissal?

 

Ruling:

No. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Thus, it must be based on just cause and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there must be a just and valid cause for termination; it must likewise enjoin the employer to afford the employee the opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the termination of employment by the employer. Second, to warrant removal from the service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.