Arellano vs NLRC : 127896 : Augusst 21, 1997 : J. Padilla : First Division http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127896.htm the standards of good faith and reasonableness are met, an employer is given free reign on how to run his business. The vessels IDF system, where new members are implored to do an all-around job on board the ship, pressumes a situation wherein the vessels officers exercise their discretion to order a seaman, whether a deck hand or engine hand, to do a particular job when the situation so requires. In petitioners case, he was ordered to clean the vessels scavenge space in the engine room together with the mechanic. The Court cannot find anything so technical or so difficult in cleaning a scavenge space which could otherwise give a rational basis for petitioners intransigence. Petitioner is estopped from asserting his unawareness of the IDF system because the evidence show that he was sufficiently informed beforehand of said policy as attested by his signature therein. However, while his signature on the incident report to the captain can be viewed as sufficient notice that he was being charged with gross insubordination, we agree with the Solicitor Generals observation that petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain his side before he was notified of the captains decision to have him repartriated to the Philippines. The captains handwritten decision below the incident report to arrange petitioners repatriation violated the procedure in our labor laws on termination of employment which must be done in the natural sequence of notice of charges, hearing and notice of judgment. While there was just cause for petitioners repatriation, private respondents actions fell short of giving petitioner an ample opportunity to explain and defend himself. Accordingly, the Court applies the doctrine it laid down in WenPhil Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. 80597, February 8, 1989 which imposed a sanction on the employer who failed to give due process to his erring employee. We thus held that the sanction would depend on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission. In the case at bar, the Court deems it fair to impose a sanction on private respondents which should be made to pay the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to petitioner for failure to fully comply with the requirements of procedural due process before repatriating petitioner to the Philippines. WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. Private respondents are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners salary from 1-10 September 1993 and the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for failure to observe fully the requirements of due process of law in effecting petitioners repatriation. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr. JJ., concur. 4 of 4 [1] Rollo, p. 60. [2] Ibid. [3] Citing Fil Pride Shipping v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97068, March 5, 1993. [4] Rollo, pp. 73-76. [5] Rollo, pp. 85-98. [6] Annex J, Rollo, p. 68. [7] Rollo, p. 59. 1/24/2016 11:23 PM