FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236239. March 3, 2021.]
SUBIC SHIPBUILDER CORPORATION, INC., petitioner,vs. RICARDO R. RAMOS, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236239 — SUBIC SHIPBUILDER CORPORATION, INC.,petitioner, versus RICARDO R. RAMOS, JR., respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated May 15, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated October 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141161.
After an evaluation of the arguments of the parties, the Court resolves to deny the Petition for lack of merit.
The CA did not commit reversible error in denying the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before it and ordering the award of backwages in favor of respondent Ricardo R. Ramos, Jr. (Ramos) as a consequence of the finding that he was illegally dismissed.
At the outset, in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the employee's dismissal was for a valid cause. 4
The Labor Code states the grounds under which an employer may terminate employment, as follows:
ART. 297. 5 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.
Here, petitioner Subic Ship Builder Corporation, Inc. (SUSHICOR) issued three notices of termination to Ramos on March 24, 2014, for the following violations: (1) on December 17, 2013, discourtesy towards his superior; (2) on February 22, 2014, for disobedience/refusal to follow job order when Ramos failed to accomplish his assigned daily task; and (3) February 25, 2014, also for disobedience/refusal to follow job order when Ramos failed to accomplish his assigned daily task.
The grounds for Ramos's termination may be characterized as falling under serious misconduct and willful disobedience. However, based on the standards laid down in jurisprudence, Ramos's violations, alone or taken together, are neither just nor authorized causes to terminate Ramos's employment.
In Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. v. Alpuerto6(Coca-Cola), the Court discussed what constitutes misconduct, thus:
Misconduct is defined as "the 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." For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious[;] (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer." x x x 7 (Emphasis supplied)
As correctly stated by the CA, Ramos's act of discourtesy on December 17, 2013 towards his superior does not qualify as serious misconduct. In fact, this alleged act was committed by Ramos in a meeting discussing SUSHICOR's mechanism for employees in reporting their grievances to the management. Even assuming that the act was serious, there is no proof or allegation that Ramos had become unfit to continue working for SUSHICOR. Thus, Ramos's act of discourtesy did not warrant his dismissal. 8
The alleged disobedient acts of Ramos on February 22, 2014 and February 25, 2014 also did not qualify as willful disobedience warranting his termination from employment. 9
Insubordination or willful disobedience requires the concurrence of the following 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. 10
As the CA correctly held, apart from SUSHICOR's general statement that Ramos failed to complete the required task, SUSHICOR failed to specify what the targets were, if such targets were made known to Ramos, and how Ramos underperformed in relation to the supposed targets. 11 Applying the jurisprudential standards in assessing the presence of willful disobedience, SUSHICOR failed to prove that Ramos's conduct was willful, intentional, or characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude" and that the order violated was reasonable, lawful, and made known to Ramos.
Considering that Ramos had no derogatory record prior to December 2013 after working for SUSHICOR for 6 years, 12 it is clear that the above infractions did not warrant his dismissal. In Coca-Cola, the Court found that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh for the infractions committed by the employee, therefore, it ruled that the dismissal was invalid. 13 In the same way, the penalty of dismissal imposed on Ramos was too harsh; therefore, the CA was correct in ruling that Ramos's dismissal was illegal.
Despite the finding that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and ordering reinstatement, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not award backwages. The CA, however, modified the NLRC decision and awarded backwages. The Court agrees with the CA's award because Article 294 14 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to the payment of his full backwages, among others.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, 15 all the monetary awards in favor of Ramos shall be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 15, 2017 and Resolution dated October 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141161 are AFFIRMED. All the monetary awards in favor of respondent Ricardo R. Ramos, Jr. shall be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
The manifestation and compliance of Atty. Danilo G. De Guzman, counsel for petitioner, with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 16, 2019, with notice of change of address from Greenbeach I, Redondo Peninsula, Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay Freeport Zone to Block 12, Lot 19, Padil Pitogo Residences, Bambangni Peles St., Barangay Calzada, Taguig City; and the respondent's reply to the comment on the petition for review on certiorari, are all NOTED.
The Motion of Atty. Danilo G. De Guzman for reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 14, 2020 which imposed upon him a fine of P1,000.00 for failure to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 16, 2019, is GRANTED, and the payment of said fine is DISPENSED WITH.
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. 25-48, excluding the Annexes.
2.Id. at 50-61. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Renato C. Francisco.
3.Id. at 62-63.
4.Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, January 8, 2020, p. 6, accessed at <https://sc. judiciary.gov.ph/11733/>.
5. Previously Article 282 of the Labor Code.
6. G.R. No. 226089, March 4, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11733/>.
7.Id. at 10.
8. See rollo, p. 56.
9. See id. at 57.
10.Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., supra note 4, at 7.
11. See rollo, p. 57.
12.Id. at 168.
13.Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. v. Alpuerto, supra note 6, at 9.
14. Previously Article 279 of the Labor Code.
15.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439.