Gutierrez v. Singer Sewing Machine Company
MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY and LEONARDO CONSUNJI, G.R. No. 140982, September 23, 2003
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Labor Law
- illegal dismissal
- procedural due process
- two-notice requirement
- labor discipline
- company code of discipline
- minor vs. serious offense
- burden of proof
- NLRC reinstatement
- Court of Appeals reversal
I. Facts of the Case
Mario Gutierrez was employed by Singer Sewing Machine Company and, after becoming a regular Asset Auditor, was dismissed effective September 9, 1996. Singer premised his termination on incidents of misusing company time/equipment and for placing and refusing to remove a posted sign inside the Asset/Legal Department office, which the company treated as 4th degree offenses punishable by dismissal; the Labor Arbiter dismissed his illegal-dismissal complaint, but the NLRC found the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages, a ruling later reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Mario Gutierrez was initially hired by Singer Sewing Machine Company as Audit Assistant on a contractual basis.
February 8, 1994
Gutierrez became an Accounts Checker on probationary status.
March 1, 1995
Gutierrez acquired regular status as Asset Auditor, receiving a monthly salary of P4,455, until his dismissal on September 9, 1996.
August 1, 1996
Singer personnel supervisor Emelita Garcia caught Gutierrez and three other Asset Auditors watching a video tape inside the Asset/Legal Department Office despite being told it was no longer break time.
August 2, 1996
Singer administration manager Evangeline Que-Ilagan found and asked about a posted sign at the Asset/Legal Department office door; Gutierrez admitted placing it, but refused to remove it even after admonition.
August 2, 1996
Gutierrez personally explained his side to Asset Manager Leonardo Consunji, claiming he admitted authorship to take blame for a co-employee and that their use of video equipment was upon orders of their supervisor.
August 6, 1996
Romeo C. Ninada issued a memo requiring Gutierrez to explain the matter.
August 21, 1996
Ninada opined that the matter was a minor offense and did not deserve too much time and effort.
August 28, 1996
Consunji issued a memo charging Gutierrez with violations of company rules, classifying them as 4th degree offenses (including use of company time/materials/equipment for personal use/business and acts of vandalism such as defacing/destroying records and posting/altering/removing printed matters/signs without authorization) and directing him to explain in writing why dismissal should not be imposed.
August 30, 1996
Gutierrez did not submit the written explanation required by the August 28, 1996 memo.
September 9, 1996
Consunji issued a memo imposing dismissal effective immediately for willful defiance or disregard of company authority due to unsatisfactory explanation and refusal to comply with the August 28, 1996 memo.
Gutierrez filed a motion/request for reconsideration with Singer and, when the company denied it, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-06201-96).
August 13, 1997
The Labor Arbiter Renato A. Bugarin dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding valid and just cause for the dismissal and finding no basis for damages under Article 2217 and Article 2229 of the Civil Code and Article 111 of the Labor Code.
On appeal, the NLRC 2nd Division reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter decision, holding respondents liable for illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages from September 9, 1996 up to actual reinstatement, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement plus backwages if reinstatement was no longer feasible.
Singer’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.
Singer filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal; Gutierrez then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
September 23, 2003
The Supreme Court granted Gutierrez’s petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the NLRC’s finding that the dismissal was unjustified and illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages in accordance with the NLRC disposition.
II. Issues
Whether the Court of Appeals violated procedural due process in reversing the NLRC by alleged reliance on mere affidavits and by allegedly shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner.
Whether the dismissal of the employee was unjustified and therefore constituted illegal dismissal under the Labor Code.
III. Ruling
Whether the Court of Appeals violated procedural due process in reversing the NLRC by alleged reliance on mere affidavits and by allegedly shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner.
The Court found that procedural due process was not violated because the employer complied with the two-notice requirement and the employee was given an opportunity to explain in writing.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court generally does not review findings of fact, but it examined the record and evidence because there was divergence among the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals.
- On the procedural-due-process complaint, the Court focused on whether the employer complied with the two-notice requirement for dismissal and whether the employee was afforded a meaningful opportunity to explain.
- The Court held that the employer’s notices (including the memo requiring a written explanation) satisfied the procedural requirements; thus, there was no deprivation of due process.
- The alleged procedural defects raised against the Court of Appeals were not sustained because the procedural safeguards for termination were shown to have been met.
Rule applied
Article 282 of the Labor Code (requirements of notice and hearing/two-notice rule in termination cases), as referenced in the decision’s discussions on dismissal procedure.
Whether the dismissal of the employee was unjustified and therefore constituted illegal dismissal under the Labor Code.
The Court ruled that the employee’s dismissal was unjustified and illegal and that the Court of Appeals erred in overturning the NLRC’s illegal-dismissal ruling.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court agreed with the NLRC that the grounds relied upon by the employer did not sufficiently justify the dismissal imposed.
- It treated the company’s disciplinary measures and classification of the infractions as insufficient to support the penalty of dismissal under the circumstances found in the labor dispute.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the NLRC, emphasizing that the dismissal was not supported in a manner consistent with the requirements for a lawful termination for cause.
- Because the NLRC correctly found illegal dismissal, the Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC disposition ordering reinstatement with backwages (or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement plus backwages if reinstatement was no longer feasible).
“We agree with the NLRC that petitioner's dismissal from employment was unjustified and illegal.”
Rule applied
Article 282(a) and Article 282(e) of the Labor Code (just causes and procedural framework for disciplinary dismissal), and Article 111 of the Labor Code and Articles 2217 and 2229 of the Civil Code as discussed in relation to damages in the labor dispute.
Doctrines
In termination due to alleged misconduct, compliance with procedural due process—particularly the two-notice requirement (notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard/explain)—is required before dismissal may be imposed.
When the NLRC correctly finds that the employee’s dismissal is unjustified and illegal, the Supreme Court may reinstate the NLRC ruling and reject an appellate reversal when there is no sufficient basis to overturn the NLRC’s determination of illegal dismissal.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50498 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the NLRC, 2nd Division, is hereby REINSTATED.
Notes
The case involved disciplinary dismissal based on (a) watching a video tape during time considered improper by company rules and (b) posting and refusing to remove a sign inside the office, which Singer treated as 4th degree offenses punishable by dismissal.