Rtg Construction v. Facto

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 21, 2003 and June 3, 2004, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73789. The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows: Petitioner RTG Construction, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business. Petitioner Rolito Go is its principal stockholder.

In March 1982, private respondent Roberto Facto was employed by RTG Construction as helper mechanic. In 1985, he was promoted to the position of junior mechanic. In the course of Facto's employment, RTG Construction changed its corporate name to Russet Construction and Development Corporation.1aшphi1 During Facto's employment, more particularly between April 1997 and May 1998, he was suspended on four occasions because of various infractions ranging from absenteeism to creating disturbance in the workplace.

Separate memoranda were issued on different dates apprising him of such suspensions.3 On June 7, 2000, Facto was again suspended on the ground that he went to work under the influence of alcohol. Pertinent portions of the Memorandum which was issued to Facto on the same date by reason of such offense read as follows: Last Saturday June 03, 2000 - you reported to work obviously under the influence of intoxicating liquor. As per report of your immediate supervisor, you have some arguments and confrontation with regards to the assigned works to you.

To avoid prolonged arguments, you were advised by your supervisor to go back home and return to work when you are on your normal condition, but you refused to do so. Your supervisor instructed our company guard to escort you out of the company premises. Under Article No. 6 of our company's rules and regulations "Any employee under the influence of liquor will not be permitted to work.

The mere fact that you have violated the above-mentioned rules and regulations, you are hereby suspended for fourteen (14) working days without pay and will take effect tomorrow June 08 to June 24, 2000. Repetition of same offense may cause your dismissal from the service. Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

(Sgd.) ELSA A. GO Officer-in-Charge4 On August 10, 2000, Facto again received a Memorandum of even date, this time informing him that he was terminated from his employment effective that same day. The Memorandum reads, thus: MEMORANDUM DATE : August 10, 2000 TO : Mr. ROBERTO FACTO Jr. Mechanic FROM : THE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT : "TERMINATION"