Emirates Airlines v. Bayani

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236511. May 5, 2021.]

EMIRATES AIRLINES AND INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, petitioners, vs.JUVIRAH DAWN BAYANI, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 236511 (Emirates Airlines and Industrial Personnel and Management Services,Petitioners,v. Juvirah Dawn Bayani,Respondent). — In this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Petition), 1 Emirates Airlines and Industrial Personnel and Management Services (collectively, petitioners) seek to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 31 March 2017 and Resolution 3 dated 07 December 2017 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133543, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when it ruled that Juvirah Dawn Bayani (respondent) was illegally dismissed.

Antecedents

The factual antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:

Emirates is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Dubai, United Arab Emirates and has a license to do business in the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of providing commercial air services.

[Industrial Personnel and Management Services (IPAMS)] is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. It is a global recruitment firm specializing in the career placement of Filipino professionals and workers.

On December 24, 2006, Emirates, through IPAMS, hired private respondent as a stewardess. Private respondent signed the "Emirates' Employment Contract" which embodied the terms and conditions of her employment with Emirates. Initially, private respondent's contract was for a period of three (3) years or until December 23, 2009. Subsequently, private respondent's contract was renewed for an additional period of three (3) years.

On September 12, 2011, private respondent was part of the cabin crew on board Emirates Flight No. EK046. Prior (sic) the aircraft's departure from Frankfurt, Germany, members of the German Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) boarded the same in order to conduct an audit of the pre-departure security checks being carried out by the plane's cabin crew. After two (2) rounds of security check, private respondent was not able to locate within her area of responsibility a replica handgun, which the members of the GCAA planted on board the aircraft. CAIHTE

Thus, on September 13, 2011, private respondent received from Emirates' Cabin Crew Manager, Damien Locke ("Locke," for brevity), a letter-notice of her suspension from duties on full pay (plus fixed allowances). It was stated in the letter that private respondent's suspension was necessary to allow an objective investigation of the incident that took place on board Flight No. EK046 on September 12, 2011.

The next day, private respondent was referred to the Group Security Training to assess her skills. In such training, it was determined that private respondent was fully aware of the proper security procedures.

Subsequently, private respondent received another letter dated September 15, 2011 from Locke requiring her to attend a Disciplinary Hearing at the Service Delivery, Cabin Crew Management Offices, Level 3, Emirates Group Headquarters on September 19, 2011.

During said hearing, private respondent was given an opportunity to explain her side and answer the allegation that she failed to effectively complete her pre-departure security checks prior to the flight.

On October 10, 2011, Emirates terminated private respondent's employment on the ground of gross misconduct. It was explained that private respondent's failure to carry out the pre-departure security checks in accordance with the company's procedures, which was witnessed by the members of the GCAA, brought the company's name in disrepute. According to Emirates, such actions of private respondent constituted gross misconduct in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure contained in the company's "Employment Regulations Manual." The termination of private respondent's employment was immediately effective.

Private respondent appealed from her dismissal to Emirates' Divisional Senior Vice President Service Delivery Terry Daly ("Daly"). However, Daly denied with finality private respondent's appeal.

On November 3, 2011, private respondent signed a "Final Statement" acknowledging her receipt of the amount of AED14,033.14 representing her "claims and entitlements arising out or in connection with" her employment with Emirates.

On June 12, 2012, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against petitioners. Private respondent alleged that the termination of her employment was invalid and unjustified because Emirates failed to present a valid ground for her dismissal. It was further contended that her dismissal lacked compliance with the requirement of "due process." Thus, private respondent prayed that she be reinstated to her previous position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. Private respondent likewise prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay for the remaining fifteen (15) months consisting of the unexpired portion of her contract with Emirates. Lastly, private respondent claimed that she is entitled to moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.

In their position paper, petitioners denied that Emirates illegally dismissed private respondent. It was argued that private respondent was dismissed due to the September 12, 2011 incident, specifically her failure to properly conduct the pre-departure security checks in accordance with regulatory requirements and Emirates' Standard Operating Procedures. The incident was even witnessed by the members of the GCAA, putting Emirates' name in disrepute. Such failure qualifies as serious misconduct and constitutes just cause for termination of private respondent's employment, petitioners added. It is further alleged that Emirates properly complied with the due process requirements in terminating an employee's services. Furthermore, petitioners contended that private respondent was already barred from questioning her dismissal because she voluntarily signed the "Final Statement" acknowledging her receipt of all her claims in connection with her employment with Emirates. Consequently, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of private respondent's complaint. 4

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On 29 October 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision 5 dismissing respondent's complaint for lack of merit. According to the Labor Arbiter, Emirates Airlines (Emirates) complied with the substantive and procedural process in dismissing respondent whose actions constitute serious misconduct. Security procedures for airlines is of utmost importance and should be strictly complied with to ensure the safety of passengers. 6

Ruling of the NLRC

In its Resolution 7 dated 31 May 2013, the NLRC dismissed respondent's appeal and affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent was charged with gross misconduct for failure to effectively complete her pre-departure security checks. She missed detecting the pistol replica twice thereby showing negligence in the performance of her duty. Her disregard of safety practices, procedures and rules constitute gross misconduct punishable by dismissal as provided in their employment regulations manual. Hence, respondent's dismissal was ruled as valid. 8

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC granted through its Resolution 9 dated 30 August 2013, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

The Decision of the Commission dated 31 May 2013 is RECONSIDERED.

ACCORDINGLY, respondents Industrial Personnel and Management Services and Emirates Airlines are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, complainant Juvirah Dawn Frondoso her salaries for the unexpired portion of her employment contract, that is, from October 11, 2011 to December 24, 2012, based on her basic monthly salary of Dhs4,740.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment in the total amount of (Dhs4,740 x 14.43) Dhs68,398.20. DETACa

SO ORDERED. 10

After a second look at the case, the NLRC concluded that respondent was illegally dismissed from her employment. The eight (8) to twelve (12) minutes given to her to make a thorough search of all stowage, containers and seat pockets was not sufficient. Respondent was trained to only make a visual search, not a thorough physical search. The toy gun replica was lodged deep in the seat pocket behind Seat 36E located at the center aisle. There was a kitchen wall behind Seat 36E and a floor stowage at the back of the said seat. From the established facts, respondent's offense was considered by the NLRC as merely simple misconduct which does not warrant the penalty of dismissal. 11

Petitioners immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied through the NLRC's Resolution dated 25 October 2013. 12

Decision of the CA

The CA, in the assailed Decision dated 31 March 2017, found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it reconsidered its earlier findings and ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed, hence:

IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions dated August 30, 2013 and October 25, 2013 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.13

According to the CA, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), including respondent, are guaranteed the right to security of tenure. Hence, respondent's services can only be terminated through just or authorized cause. Emirates, as respondent's employer, failed to satisfy the burden of proof in order to show that respondent's dismissal was for a just or valid cause. The CA agreed with the NLRC that respondent's failure to properly conduct the pre-departure security checks can be considered as simple misconduct as it was neither grave nor motivated by any wrongful intent. Hence, she is entitled to the payment of her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract. 14

Issues

The primordial issue for resolution of the Court is whether respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioners.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition lacks merit.

Petitioners insist on the propriety of respondent's dismissal since her failure to conduct the pre-departure security checks in accordance with the company rules and procedures, including Emirates' Cabin Crew Emergency Manual requiring the conduct of a thorough physical search of 100% seat pockets, is tantamount to serious misconduct and willful disobedience rendering her unfit to continue with her duties.

We disagree.

In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. 15 "A valid dismissal requires compliance with both substantive and procedural due process 16 — that is, the dismissal must be for any of the just or authorized causes enumerated in Article 297 [282] and Article 298 [283], respectively, of the Labor Code, and only after notice and hearing." 17

In the Termination of Employment Contract letter dated 10 October 2011, respondent was dismissed for the following reason:

Your actions constitute Gross Misconduct in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure contained within the Employment Regulations Manual, section C6-3(B) — "disregard of safety practices, procedures and rules" and "action or conduct which could potentially damage the Company's reputation." 18

Petitioners, however, failed to overcome their burden of proving that the dismissal of respondent was due to serious misconduct or willful negligence warranting her dismissal even on her first infraction.

Our jurisprudence defines misconduct as an improper wrong or conduct equivalent to a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. 19 For it be a just cause for dismissal, the concurrence of the following elements is required: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. 20

On the other hand, willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders, including those in its manual or rules, requires the concurrence of these two (2) requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being 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

As can be gleaned from the foregoing requisites, the just causes of serious misconduct or willful disobedience both imply the presence of "willfulness" or "wrongful intent" on the part of the employee. In short, these causes may only be appreciated when the employee's transgression of a rule, duty or directive has been the product of "wrongful intent" or of a "wrongful and perverse attitude" but not when the transgression results from simple negligence or "mere error in judgment." This requirement underscores the intent of the law to reserve only to the gravest infractions the ultimate penalty of dismissal. The infraction must be reflective of a certain degree of depravity or ineptitude on the employee's part, for the same to be a valid basis for the termination of his employment. 22 aDSIHc

Precisely in this case, petitioners failed to prove the element of willfulness or wrongful intent on the part of respondent when she failed to locate the handgun replica in her area of responsibility. As correctly ruled by the NLRC and the CA, the location of the handgun replica, which was lodged deep into the seat pocket of seat 36E where a kitchen wall stands behind, undeniably worked against respondent. Nonetheless, respondent performed the pre-departure check to the best of her knowledge and ability within the time allotted to her. Accordingly, her lapses, while unfortunate, cannot be considered as deliberate nor calculated.

It also does not escape the Court's attention that respondent was referred to the Group Security Training after the incident. In the said training, respondent was assessed as being fully aware of the proper security procedures. Hence, there is also no proof of petitioners' claim anent respondent's unfitness to continue her work.

It bears stressing that respondent's dismissal was a result of a singular incident. She had no prior infractions, and her performance was presumably satisfactory allowing for the renewal of her contract with petitioners. While Emirates' Employment Regulations Manual states that "a single act of gross misconduct can result in summary dismissal," 23 such prerogative to dismiss an employee must still be exercised within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play. "[E]ven when there exist some rules agreed upon between the employer and employee on the subject of dismissal, the same cannot preclude the State from inquiring on whether their rigid application would work too harshly on the employee." 24 The Court is not bound by the rules set by an employer and will not hesitate to disregard a penalty, which is manifestly disproportionate to the infraction committed. 25

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 31 March 2017 and Resolution dated 07 December 2017 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133543 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 6-23.

2.Id. at 34-47; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino of the Special Former Ninth (9th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3.Id. at 49-51.

4.Id. at 35-38.

5.Id. at 124-131; penned by Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez of the National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

6.Id. at 129-130.

7.Id. at 147-152; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Commissioners Alexa Lopez and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. of the Third (3rd) Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

8.Id. at 151.

9.Id. at 197-203; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Commissioners Alexa Lopez and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. of the Third (3rd) Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

10.Id. at 202-203.

11.Id. at 199-202.

12.Id. at 39.

13.Id. at 47.

14.Id. at 40-47.

15.Bishop Shinji Amari of Abiko Baptist Church v. Villaflor, Jr., G.R. No. 224521, 17 February 2020 [Per C.J. Gesmundo], citing Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 789 (2015); G.R. No. 189255, 17 June 2015 [Per C.J. Peralta].

16.Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, 08 January 2020 [Per J. Caguioa], citing Dagasdas v. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, 803 Phil. 463, 478 (2017); G.R. No. 205727, 18 January 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].

17.Id., citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 255 Phil. 302, 307 (1989); G.R. No. 78277, 12 May 1989 [Per J. Cortes].

18.Rollo, p. 2010.

19.See Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, Jr., 798 Phil. 195, 204 (2016); G.R. No. 222730, 07 November 2016 [J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, 746 Phil. 172, 181 (2014); G.R. No. 194884, 22 October 2014 [Per J. Brion].

20.Id., citing Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Ablay, 783 Phil. 512, 521 (2016); G.R. No. 218172, 16 March 2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

21.Bookmedia Press, Inc. v. Sinajon, G.R. No. 213009, 17 July 2019 [Per J. Peralta], citing Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 267 Phil. 863, 872 (1990); G.R. No. 86000, 21 September 1990 [Per J. Feliciano].

22.Id.

23.Rollo, p. 1559.

24.Verizon Communications Philippines, Inc. v. Margin, G.R. No. 216599, 16 September 2020, citing Cavite Apparel, Incorporated, et al. v. Marquez, 703 Phil. 46, 56 (2013); G.R. No. 102993, 14 July 1995 [Per J. Quiason].

25.Id.