Gan v. Total Net Research and Marketing, Inc.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in January 2018. The case involves petitioner Nio C. Gan, who was dismissed by his employer, Total Net Research and Marketing, Inc., for accessing pornographic websites in violation of the company's policy. The labor arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all found that Gan was dismissed for a just cause, and his petition for review was denied by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the unanimous finding of fact by the lower courts is binding and conclusive upon it, and Gan's violation of the company's policy constituted serious misconduct.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233151. January 19, 2018.]
NIÑO C. GAN, petitioner, vs.TOTAL NET RESEARCH AND MARKETING, INC., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233151 (Niño C. Gan v. Total Net Research and Marketing, Inc., et al.). — Petitioner's motion for an extension of 30 days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.
We deny the Petition. It must be noted that the Labor Arbiter (LA), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals (CA) unanimously found that petitioner was dismissed for a just cause. Their factual finding, therefore, is binding and conclusive upon this Court. 1 HTcADC
We see no reason to depart from the general rule that the unanimous finding of the LA, NLRC, and the CA is binding on this Court. As correctly held by the CA, petitioner's violation of Policy No. 2012-011 constituted a serious misconduct, as there was an obvious wrongful intent and willful transgression of the established rule of the company. 2 It must be stressed that petitioner never disputed the fact that he had violated Policy No. 2012-011 not only once, but several times. Petitioner likewise failed to dispute the fact that he had accessed the pornographic sites over a period stretching from May 2013 to January 2014. 3
Consequently, we do not find any error in the CA's dismissal of petitioners' Rule 65 Petition.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Petitioner is DIRECTED to SUBMIT in a compact disc or USB or via e-mail a soft copy of the PDF file of the signed motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7 SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Wenceslao v. Makati Development Corp., G.R. No. 230696, 30 August 2017; Aliw Broadcasting Corp. v. Ijan, G.R. No. 228209, 22 February 22, 2017; Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 181852, 9 October 2013, 719 Phil. 284-292.
2. See Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, [October 22, 2014]) Misconduct refers to an improper or wrong conduct. It is 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. To qualify as a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.
3.Id.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU