Você está na página 1de 3

Press vs.

Galit
GR No. 153510 The Issues
February 13, 2008  Main contentions:
1. Cause of termination
Petitioners 2. Due process in termination
 R.B. Michael Press 3. Entitlement to backwages
 Annalene Reyes Escobia  October 29, 1999: labor arbiter
decided that Galit was illegally
Respondent dismissed and ordered Press and
 Nicasio G. Galit Escobia to reinstate Galit to his
former position without loss of
The Facts seniority rights and other benefits,
 May 1, 1997: Galit was employed by as well as be paid in full backwages
Press as an offset machine operator, computed from the time he was
with schedule 8 AM to 5 PM, illegally dismissed up to the time of
Mondays to Saturdays, and a salary his actual reimbursement
of PHP 230 per day  January 3, 2000: Galit and Escobia
 For the duration of his employment, appealed the case to the NLRC,
Galit was: which dismissed it for lack of merit;
o Tardy 190 times (6,117 minutes they then filed a Petition for
total) Certiorari with the Court of Appeals
o Absent without leave for 9 and  November 4, 2001: Court of Appeals
½ days decided to affirm the decision of the
 February 22, 1999: Galit was NLRC, with modification
ordered to render overtime service o Modification: backwages should
to comply with a job order deadline be computed from February 22,
but he refused to do so 1999 up to the finality of the
 February 23, 1999: Galit reported CA’s decision, plus the 13th
month and service incentive
for work but Escobia told him not to,
leave pay
and to instead return for a hearing
o CA found that the termination
that afternoon at 4 PM; upon his
return, he was given an Office was caused by Galit’s refusal to
Memorandum do overtime work on February
22, 1999, and not his tardiness
 Office Memorandum contained a
and absences
warning for dismissal and a list of
o CA also found that he could not
offenses, consisting of the following:
have afforded ample
o Habitual and excessive
opportunity to explain his side
tardiness
and to adduce evidence
o Committing acts of discourtesy
 December 3, 2001: Press and
o Failure to work overtime after
Escobia asked for reconsideration
having been instructed to do so
o Insubordination – willfully  May 7, 2002: Press and Escobia
disobeying, defying or were denied; but they instituted an
disregarding company authority instant petition regarding the
following issues:
 February 24, 1999: Galit was
o Whether there was just cause to
terminated, and was given his two-
terminate the employment of
day salary and a termination letter,
Galit and whether due process
containing the result of the hearing,
was observed in the dismissal
in which Galit admitted his offenses
process
 Galit filed a complaint for illegal
o Whether respondent is entitled
dismissal and money claims
to backwages and other benefits
before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC)
despite his refusal to be  Order violated must have
reinstated been reasonable, lawful,
made known to the
Held employee, and must pertain
1. Tardiness constituting neglect of to the duties which he had
duty been engaged to discharge
o Labor Arbiter: petitioners o Press’s request for Galit to
already deducted corresponding render overtime service to meet
amounts to salary and hence a production deadline complies
cannot punish him further for with the second requisite
tardiness; no admonition had (Article 89 of the Labor Code),
been given, which signifies the especially due to the nature of
petitioners’ condoning of his his business (a printing press)
offenses o Galit, according to Dennis
o Court of Appeals: no evidence Reyes, apparently had no
to show that he had been apparent reason for refusing to
warned or reprimanded for his render overtime work, while
tardiness Galit claims that he was not
o Supreme Court: disagrees, feeling well that day
says no admonition or sanctions  Reference: Lakpue Drug vs.
does not mean condonation; Belga (willfulness defined as a
wrongful and perverse mental
waiver only valid if clear and attitude rendering employees to
unequivocal; deduction from act inconsistent with proper
salary is not a penalty because subordination)
he is really only supposed to be o Excuse is believed to be an
paid on the days he worked afterthought, as proven by how
 Reference: Cando vs. NLRC he stayed for work the rest of
(employee absenteeism; burden the day, and even tried to go to
of proof is upon employee to
adduce evidence that work the next day, thus making
demonstrate condonation or his disobedience willful
waiver from the management) o Both requisites for willful
 Reference: Filipio vs. The disobedience are therefore
Honorable Minister Blas F. Ople fulfilled by Galit, who can be
(employees’ past infractions can
only be used as supporting reasonably believed to have
justification at most for a been a difficult employee
subsequent similar offense; since
Press did not impose prior 3. Due process
punishments, he can use Galit’s o Press claims they maintained
infractions as ground for
dismissal without it becoming due process by giving Galit two
double jeopardy) notices and scheduling a
hearing for him to explain and
2. Insubordination or willful defend himself
disobedience o Supreme Court: disagrees,
o Court of Appeals: serious believes Press’s two notices
misconduct not sustained, but were insufficient and that the
insubordination is meritorious hearing was unfair
(SC agrees)  Reference: Agabon vs.
o Elements of willful NLRC (two written notices
disobedience: and a hearing)
 Employees’ assailed o Twin notice requirement
conduct must have been  1st notice: apprise
willful or characterized by a employees of their fault
wrongful and perverse  2nd notice: communicate to
attitude the employees that their
employment is being evidence against them, as well as
terminated for them to have proper
representation; second notice
o Purpose of hearing: for must indicate all circumstances
employees to defend himself involving the charge against the
personally or by the counsel of employee have been considered
his choice and that grounds have been
 Reference: King of Kings established to justify severance)
Transport v. Mamac (first written o SC believes that respondent
notice must contain specific was not given a real opportunity
grounds or causes for to defend himself, as the
termination, a detailed narration
hearing was scheduled on the
of facts for the basis of
termination, a directive that the same day he received the first
employees are given the notice, thus not allowing him to
opportunity to submit a written consult an official or lawyer, or
explanation within a reasonable to prepare a defense
period of at least 5 days so they
can consult a union official or
o Serious breach of due process
lawyer and prepare, and a list of  SC declares Galit’s dismissal as
company rules violated; hearing valid and legal, but petitioners are
must allow employee to explain ordered to pay him nominal
and clarify their defenses,
present evidence, and rebut the
damages worth PHP 30,000 for
violation of his right to due process

Você também pode gostar