REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MANILA

EIGHTH DIVISION

RENE S. BENITO, CA-G.R. SP No. 160962

Petitioner,

Members:
-versus-
GARCIA, R. R.,
Chairperson
PAREDES, V. I. A., and
NATIONAL LABOR
PAYOYO-VILLORDON, T. M. B., JJ.
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(FOURTH DIVISION), Promulgated:
E.S. TRANSPORT INC.,
and ELENA SAN November 7, 2019
PEDRO, ______________
Respondents.
x---------------------------------- -x

DECISION

GARCIA, R. R., J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 65 of the Rules

of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated November
28, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Fourth Division, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated March 12, 2018
of the Labor Arbiter dismissing herein petitioner's complaint for
illegal dismissal; and, the Resolution 4 dated February 28, 2019
denying the Motion for Reconsideration 5 thereof.

1
Rollo, pp. 2-18.
2
Rollo, pp. 24-43.
3
Rollo, pp. 117-130.
4
Rollo, pp. 45-52.
5
Rollo, pp. 162-165.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 2 of 9
Decision

THE FACTS

The instant petition stemmed from a complaint6 for illegal

dismissal filed before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC by
petitioner Rene S. Benito against private respondents E.S. Transport
and Elena San Pedro. Petitioner essentially alleged that he started
working as a bus mechanic for private respondent company on June
10, 2010. Sometime in January 2017, his family was ejected from the
house they were renting and since his only son was just eight (8)
years old, he had to absent himself from work to assist his family in
relocating. He informed his chief mechanic about his predicament.
Thereafter, he suffered from varicella zoster, a skin disease wherein
he was advised by a physician to stay home and take medications. He
claimed to have informed his chief mechanic, as well as the company
secretary about his situation.7

On May 27, 2017, petitioner received from private respondent

company a letter entitled Paguutos ng Pagbalik sa Trabaho. On June
4, 2017, he received another letter entitled Abiso ng Pagpapaliwanag
Kung Bakit Hindi Dapat Parusahan ng Pagkakatanggal sa Trabaho
sa Ginawang Pagliban ng Walang Paalam sa Trabaho. On June 8,
2017, petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. On June 15, 2017,
he was terminated from employment. He went to private respondent
company's office to seek a reconsideration but he was advised to re-
apply as a new employee. Hence, the filing of the complaint for illegal
dismissal claiming that he was dismissed without just and valid
cause.8

In their traverse9, private respondents claimed that beginning

January 12, 2017, petitioner absented himself from work without any
notice or permission from private respondent company. Sometime in
March 2017, petitioner went to private respondent company to
inform them that he was diagnosed with a skin disease known as
varicella zoster and that he was advised by the doctor to rest for a
period of two (2) weeks. Petitioner has not returned to work since
then such that on May 27, 2017, private respondent company served
on petitioner a return to work order or Paguutos ng Pagbalik sa
Trabaho. Petitioner did not heed the order and still failed to report
back to work. On June 4, 2017, private respondent company served
upon petitioner a Notice to Explain or Abiso ng Pagpapaliwanag

6
Rollo, pp. 53-54.
7
Vide: Position Paper for the Complainant, Rollo, pp. 56-61.
8
Ibid.
9
Position Paper for the Respondents, Rollo, pp. 70-88.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 3 of 9
Decision

giving him five (5) days to explain why he should not be meted with a
penalty of suspension or termination due to his prolonged and
unauthorized absences. Petitioner submitted a letter of explanation
dated June 8, 2017 wherein he admitted that he had absented himself
beginning January 12, 2017 due to personal problems and his skin
condition. He attached a medical certificate dated March 1, 2017
which showed that he was advised to take a leave from work for a
period of fourteen (14) days only.10

Private respondent company consulted a doctor regarding

petitioner's supposed skin condition and the latter informed them
that it usually takes a period of one (1) month or less for a patient to
recover from varicella zoster. Private respondent company was thus
unconvinced of petitioner's explanation as to why he was absent from
work for a period of more than five (5) months without notice or
permission. Accordingly, private respondent company served upon
petitioner a second notice to explain or Abiso ng Pagpapaliwanag
dated June 22, 2017. Petitioner failed to submit an explanation nor
report back to work. Thereafter, private respondent company served
upon petitioner a notice of termination or Abiso ng Pagkatanggal sa
Trabaho dated July 8, 2017. In the said notice, private respondent
company informed petitioner that he was found guilty of being absent
without official leave for a continuous period of five (5) months,
abandonment of work and willful disobedience to a lawful order for
failure to report to work after being served a notice to return. After
failing to receive any reconsideration from petitioner, private
respondent company served a final notice of termination or Huling
Abiso ng Pagtanggal sa Trabaho dated July 19, 2017.11

In a Decision12 dated March 12, 2018, the Labor Arbiter

dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal ratiocinating that
petitioner was validly dismissed for gross and habitual neglect of
duties. He was absent from work beginning January 12, 2017 or for a
period of more than five (5) months until the time of his dismissal.
He failed to substantiate his claim that he had informed private
respondent company about his medical condition. Even if private
respondent company was legally bound to allow petitioner to go on
leave because of his medical condition, his medical certificate showed
that he was advised to take a leave from work for a period of fourteen
(14) days only. Petitioner's leave from work obviously went beyond
the period as stated in the certificate without any justifiable reason.

10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Supra at Note 3.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 4 of 9
Decision

The pertinent portions of the Decision read:

xxx

The dispute arises on whether or not complainant

was allowed by respondent Company to take a prolonged
leave of absence. Complainant claims that he had
religiously informed his chief mechanic and Respondents'
secretary about his medical condition and his intention to
take a leave so as not to transmit his condition to his co-
employees. Complainant stopped there however.
Complainant failed to present any evidence that he was
actually allowed by respondent Company to take such leave.
Proof that an employee was granted leave by the employer
is required x x x. x x x

Even assuming that despite the lack of approval,

respondent Company was legally bound to allow
complainant to go on leave because of his medical
condition, the Discharge Abstract Abstract & Aftercare
Instructions presented by the complainant only stated that
he was “[a]dvised bed rest/leave from work for 14 days
more.” Complainant, however, started not reporting for
work on January 12, 2017 and never returned even up to the
time of his dismissal on July 08, 2017. Complainant was
therefore absent from work for a period of more than five
(5) months, without any hint that he was already
considering going back to work.

xxx

Insofar as complainant's problem regarding housing

situation, this Office notes that the same is not fully
substantiated as would have warranted to be a valid excuse
to be absent from work without official leave for a period of
5 months. x x x

Complainant was given by respondent Company

with at least 4 notices to give him opportunity to fully
explain his side and justify his prolonged absence, but
unfortunately, complainant failed to give a satisfactory
explanation to respondent Company. Complainant's gross
and habitual neglect of his duties is, therefore, evident.

Given the foregoing, this Office holds that

complainant was not illegally dismissed from his
employment. Consequently, he is not entitled to
reinstatement, fully backwages, damages and attorney's
fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant

Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 5 of 9
Decision

SO ORDERED.13

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which in the assailed

Decision14 dated November 28, 2018, affirmed the findings of the
Labor Arbiter that there is just and valid cause for petitioner's
dismissal from employment. The NLRC held that petitioner is indeed
guilty of neglect of duty and willful disobedience on account of his
prolonged absences without justifiable reason. There was also
compliance with due process in effecting his dismissal. The pertinent
portions of the Decision are quoted:

xxx

After a review of Our Records, and based on the facts

established and arguments submitted by the parties, We are
persuaded that complainant-appellant is indeed guilty of
neglect of duty and willful disobedience. Consequently,
since his dismissal is with just cause, his claim for
Reinstatement with Full Backwages and his monetary
claims cannot be awarded. (Emphasis not ours)

We agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter a

quo, and affirm his ruling that the requisites of willful
disobedience and neglect of duty as grounds for termination
of employment were fully satisfied in this case. x x x

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal

dated 18 May 2018 is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
12 March 2018 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.15

A Motion for Reconsideration 16 was forthwith filed by petitioner

but the same was denied in a Resolution17 dated February 28, 2019.

Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari in which petitioner

advanced the following grounds for its allowance, to wit:

13
Rollo, pp. 124-130.
14
Supra at Note 2.
15
Rollo, pp. 34-42.
16
Supra at Note 5.
17
Supra at Note 4.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 6 of 9
Decision

WHETHER THE NLRC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT
PETITIONER'S DISMISSAL WAS VALID.

II

WHETHER THE NLRC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FAILED TO AWARD
BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO
PETITIONER.18

THE ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether or not public respondent NLRC

gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's
dismissal of petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal.

THE COURT'S RULING

The petition lacks merit.

Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial

agencies, like the NLRC, are accorded not only respect but at times
even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence
and devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness. 19

Here, We find no reversible error in the NLRC's affirmance of

the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter. In the adjudication of the
issues, the labor fora have examined the pleadings and the records of
the case to determine whether petitioner was validly dismissed from

18
Rollo, p. 10.
19
Rosario v. Victory Ricemill, G.R. No. 147572, February 19, 2003; Security and Credit
Investigation, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114316, January 26, 2001; Pepsi-Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121324, September 30, 1999; Pono v. NLRC, G.R. No.
118860, July 17, 1997.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 7 of 9
Decision

employment. Verily, they found private respondent company's

evidence to have clearly and convincingly established the existence of
a just and valid cause to dismiss petitioner from his employment for
gross and habitual neglect of duties and willful disobedience to a
lawful order of his employer.

Gross negligence implies a want or absence of, or failure to

exercise even a slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care.
It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting
any effort to avoid them. There is habitual neglect if based on the
circumstances, there is a repeated failure to perform one's duties for a
period of time.20 Meanwhile, for willful disobedience to be a valid
cause for dismissal, these two elements must concur: (1) the
employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is,
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order
violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged
to discharge.21

Here, it is undisputed that petitioner failed to report for work

beginning January 12, 2017 until the date of his dismissal on July 8,
2017, or for a period of more than five (5) months. There is no
substantial evidence on record to show that petitioner has duly
notified private respondent company of his leave of absence or that
his absence was with prior permission from private respondent
company. In fact, due to his prolonged absence, private respondent
company served upon him a return to work order dated May 27, 2017.
Petitioner, however, did not heed the same and still failed to report
back for work. On June 4, 2017, private respondent company served
petitioner a notice to explain giving him five (5) days to explain why
he should not be meted with a penalty of suspension or termination
due to his unauthorized absences. It was only at this point when
petitioner submitted a letter of explanation dated June 8, 2017
wherein he admitted that he had absented himself beginning January
12, 2017 due to personal problems and his skin condition known as
varicella zoster. He attached a medical certificate dated March 1,
2017 which showed that he was advised by the doctor to take a leave
from work for a period of fourteen (14) days. Assuming that he indeed
suffered from such skin condition, the same failed to justify his
absence beginning January 12, 2017. Also, petitioner failed to report
back to work even after the lapse of fourteen (14) days from the time
20
Nissan Motors, Phil. v. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181, September 14, 2011.
21
Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc., Mirasol, Jr., G.R. No. 192190, April 25, 2012.
CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 8 of 9
Decision

he was advised by his doctor to rest and stay home while he recovers
from his skin condition.

As regards petitioner's claim that his family was evicted from

their home, the same is not a valid reason to absent himself from
work for more than five (5) months. Having been employed with
private respondent company for six (6) years, he should be fully
aware of the company rules regarding leave of absence, that the same
should be with proper notice and authorization from his employer.
Verily, petitioner's intentional and willful violation of company rules
showed his utter disregard of his work and his employer's interest.
There can be no good faith in intentionally and habitually incurring
unauthorized prolonged absences. Thus, the NLRC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in affirming the Labor Arbiter's ruling that there is just and valid
cause to dismiss petitioner from his employment for gross and
habitual neglect of duties and willful disobedience to a lawful order of
his employer.

Verily, certiorari lies only where it is clearly shown that there is

a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility.22 Clearly, the office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly
extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-
judicial body is wholly void.23 We do not find such justification,
reason or cause for its issuance in the present case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

22
Cadalin et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. G.R. No.168923, November 28, 2008, citing
Machica vs. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc., G.R. No. 168664, May 4, 2006; Security Bank
Corp. vs. Victorio, G.R. No. 155099, August 31, 2005; Johnson Lee and Sonny Moreno vs.
People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137914, December 4, 2002.
23
J.L. Bernardo Construction v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105827, January 31, 2000.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 160962 Page 9 of 9
Decision

WE CONCUR:

VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]).

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Eighth Division