Genuino Ice Company vs. Alfonso Magpantay G.R. 147790: June 27, 2006 Austria-Martinez J.

Respondent = employed as machine operator of petitioner March 1988-December 1995 November petitioner 1996 respondent filed against

damages

complaint for illegal dismissal w/

CA sustained respondents contention that since the service was not made to an authorized person, it was not legally effective, and the counting of the period should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt by counsel, which was on December 20, 1999 respondent illegally dismissed: respondents attitude has not been proved to be visited with any wrongdoing, and his four-day absence does not appear to be both gross and habitual denied MR Petitioner filed petition for review at SC under Rule 45 Issues: 1. WON CA erred in giving due course to respondents petition for certiorari. 2. WON respondent illegally dismissed. 3. WON separation pay and full backwages due to respondent. 4. WON due process was accorded to respondent. *note: under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised; however, since CA came up with different opinion from that of LA and NLRC, the Court is constrained to review evidence on record SC petition granted; CA decision set aside; NLRC affirmed 1. No. Sec. 4 of NLRC Rules of Procedure: service on the parties personally by bailiff or duly authorized public officer within 3 days from receipt thereof by registered mail and when represented, shall be made on such counsel or authorized representative. presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices (decision was delivered to a person in his office, who was duly authorized to receive papers for him, in the absence of proof to the contrary) Affidavit executed by Ellen dela Paz: she is the only person authorized to receive communications for and in behalf of the FEU Legal Aid Bureau and it was only on December 20, 1999, through respondent, that she learned of said Resolution service of a copy of a decision on a person who is neither a clerk nor one in charge of the attorneys office is invalidrecords show that Ducut is not an employee of the FEU Legal Aid Bureau therefore not authorized rep. CA was correct in ruling the reckoning period should be the date when respondents counsel actually received the NLRC Resolution, December 20, 1999 Court has consistently frowned upon the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to

dismissed effective immediately thru memorandum (no due process) Petitioner dismissal not illegal: - valid ground: illegal strike at sister co. (Genuino Agro Industrial Dev. Corp.) on Nov. 1822, 1995 respondent accorded due process Respondent assuming he led such illegal strike, he could not be liable therefore because it was done in petitioners sister company, separate and distinct entity from petitioner Petitioner respondents acts were tantamount to serious misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and breach of trust + insubordination (refusal to be transferred to GMA, Cavite Plant) LA no illegal dismissal petitioner had valid cause to dismiss NLRC affirmed LA on June 30, 1999; denied MR on Aug. 31 Oct. 29 entry of judgment made on NLRC Resolution of Aug. 31 Feb. 7, 2000 respondent filed special civil action for certiorari at CA alleging he only received NLRC Resolution on Dec. 20, 1999 Petitioner petition was filed out of time; Resolution actually received on Sept. 15, 1999 as shown by registry return card. Respondent person who received Resolution on Sept. 15 was Mirela G. Ducut of the Computer Services Dept. who was not a duly-authorized representative of the FEU Legal Aid Bureau, as it is only Ellen Dela Paz, who is authorized to receive all communications addressed to the office.

appeal, but rather, ensure amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of a cause, free from the constraints of technicalities

2. No. CAs finding that respondents four-day

absence does not amount to a habitual neglect of duty is affirmed, however finds respondent validly dismissed on ground of willful disobedience or insubordination Art. 282, LC: employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and, (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing. employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual Gross negligence = want of care in the performance of ones duties Habitual neglect = repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances fraud and willful neglect of duties = bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latters business single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee factual circumstances + evidence do not show respondents absences contributed to detriment of GICIs operations and caused irreparable damager as to respondents alleged leading of illegal strike at sister co.: no showing that strike held was illegal burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegation in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim ART. 221, LC: Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement.

Willful disobedience/insubordination -requisites: (1) employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to employee and pertains to duties he had been engaged to discharge petitioner informed respondent, through a Memorandum dated November 14, 1995, that he was being transferred to its GMA, Cavite operations effective November 20, 1995 due to refusal to comply, petitioner reiterated its order also warning that failure to comply will be considered as AWOL and insubordination respondent replied requesting he remain in Otis plant since a transfer to Cavite plant will entail additional expenditure and travel time on his part during investigation, management panel offered to provide monetary allowance to compensate for respondents expenses but was refused by the latter petitioner issued Memo informing respondent of its decision to terminate his services employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employees salary, benefits and other privileges 3. No. respondents refusal to abide by order of transfer = just cause for termination under Art. 282 (a), LC = no separation pay or reinstatement + backwages 4. Yes. Section 2 (d), Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing LC requires: (1) employer furnish the employee written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination (2) afford employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires (3) employee be notified in writing of the decision dismissing him, stating clearly the reasons Norkis Trading Co, Inc. vs. NLRC and Ma. Arlene Gnilo G.R. 168159; August 19, 2005 Chico-Nazario, J. Gnilo worked for petitioner initially trained as administration and finance officer assigned in Calamba branch

Gnilo subsequently Administrative

appointed

as

Acting