SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222913. June 3, 2019.]
JOHN EMMANUEL P. BARGAS, petitioner, vs.GENPACT SERVICES LLC, * respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222913 (John Emmanuel P. Bargas v. Genpact Services LLC)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 3, 2015 Decision 2 and the February 2, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132978 for failure of petitioner John Emmanuel P. Bargas (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA erred in dismissing his complaint 4 for lack of merit.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that petitioner committed willful disobedience which warranted his termination from work. 5 Case law states that for willful disobedience to be a valid ground for termination from employment, it must be shown that: (a) the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge. 6 In this case, respondent Genpact LLC Services Phils. constantly reminded petitioner to submit his transcript of records, which the latter deliberately failed to provide in order to conceal his educational attainment. 7 Accordingly, his dismissal from work was only proper. HTcADC
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Genpact LLC Services Phils." and "Genpact LLC Services Philippines" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 27-40.
2.Id. at 44-51. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
3.Id. at 53-55.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See rollo, pp. 49-50.
6.Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc., 716 Phil. 533, 543 (2013).
7.Rollo, pp. 13, 29, and 32.