Michael Inc. vs. NLRC : 97204 : April 25, 1996 : Mendoza, J. : Secon...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/97204.htm
On March 21, 1989 the Labor Arbiter gave judgment for private respondent, holding that the
failure of private respondent to board petitioners vessel on the four (4) occasions, although
habitual, was not so gross as to merit dismissal under Art. 282 of the Labor Code. He thought
that suspension would have sufficed as punishment, considering that private respondent had
already been with the company for eight (8) years.
In addition, the Labor Arbiter found that private respondent had not been given written notice
of the act or omission constituting the ground for his dismissal and heard. He was merely told to
submit his written explanation, and later he was served a notice of dismissal.
Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner 1. To pay complainant backwages for three (3) years counted back from November 15, 1984 without
qualifications and deductions;
2. To pay complainant separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service from
February 10, 1977 to November 15, 1984 in lieu of reinstatement considering that antagonism between the
parties has been brought about by the filing of this case;
3. To pay complainant his service incentive leave for three (3) years counted back from November 15,
1984; and
4. To pay attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10) percent of all the above monetary awards.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission modified the decision of the Labor
Arbiter (1) by ordering that the award of backwages be computed by taking private respondents
monthly salary at the time of his dismissal in December, 1984 and multiplying it by 36 months
and (2) by deleting the award of attorneys fees on the ground that private respondent was
represented by the Public Attorneys Office.
Hence this petition. It is contended that private respondents absences without excuse
cannot be taken lightly in the shipping industry, because vessels have to be provided with a full
complement to assure safety of the ship when it sails.
The contention is correct. Private respondent, as a marine engineer, was an important
member of the crew of a vessel. On no other employer is a greater duty imposed of minimizing
absences among crew members than on common carriers. The law requires them to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the transportation of passengers and vigilance over goods.[1] The
question in this case, however, is whether, considering the fact that the absences of private
respondent occurred on four different occasions over a period of four years from 1980 to 1984
and that he had been with the company for eight years, dismissal would not be too drastic a
penalty to impose. We think the NLRC rightly invoked the words of Justice, later Chief Justice,
Fernando inAlmira v. B.F. Goodrich Phils. Inc.[2] that where a penalty less punitive would suffice,
whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so
severe. It is not only the laws concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his family to
consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the
wage-earner.[3]
Our cases after Goodrich have been faithful to the spirit of that decision, by paying tribute to
the right of employees to security of tenure while recognizing the right of employers to impose
discipline. In Pepsi Cola v. NLRC,[4] an employee filed a leave of absence for one day after he
suffered stomachache. Upon the advice of the doctor he took a rest for 25 days without prior
leave. When he reported for work, he was told he had been dismissed for being absent without
leave. It was held that while he was at fault, the employee could not be dismissed. He was
ordered reinstated but he was denied backwages.
2 of 3
1/20/2016 9:44 PM