SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237067. April 16, 2018.]
TITO RUALES ARGUILLES, petitioner, vs.MARKAP WEARSHOP AND KATHERINE ANG-TAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: HSCATc
"G.R. No. 237067 (Tito Ruales Arguilles v. Markap Wearshop and Katherine Ang-Tan)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the July 28, 2017 Decision 1 and January 22, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145081 for failure of petitioner Tito Ruales Arguilles (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed from work, and thus, not entitled to the award of backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's repeated violations of respondent Markap Wearshop's company policy against money-lending activities, despite being previously reprimanded, amounted to willful disobedience under Article 321 3 of the Labor Code, which is a just cause for his termination from employment. Case law states that for willful disobedience to be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal from work, there must be a concurrence of these two requisites, namely: (a) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (b) 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, 4 which requisites were present in this case.
Moreover, the CA correctly held that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, since they could not be awarded to employees who are not unlawfully dismissed from employment.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 36-45. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
2.Id. at 47-48. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
3. Article 321 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 321. Termination by Employer. — An 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 representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphases Supplied)
4.Sta. Isabel v. Perla Compañia De Seguros, Inc., G.R. No. 219430, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 162, 172; citation omitted.