10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

SECONDDIVISION

ALBERTONAVARRO,
Petitioner,

versus

COCACOLABOTTLERSPHILS.,

G.R.No.162583
Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,*Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,**

TINGA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.

INC., MANUEL GARCIA and

Promulgated:
RUSTUMALEJANDRINO,

Respondents.
June8,2007
xx

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
[1]
ThisisanappealtoreverseandsetasideboththeDecision datedAugust27,2003and
[2]
theResolution datedMarch8,2004oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.63379.The
[3]
appellate court had reversed the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC)andheldthatpetitionerAlbertoNavarrowasvalidlydismissedbytherespondents.
Thefactsareundisputed.
PetitionerwasanemployeeoftherespondentCocaColaBottlersPhils.,Inc.(CocaCola)
for more than a decade. Specifically, he worked as a forklift operator for CocaCola from
November1,1987toFebruary27,1998.
The respondent company has an Employees Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations,
whichincludesRule00285.Section4(i)oftheruleprovidedforthepenaltyofDISCHARGEfora

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

1/6

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

[4]
[5]
tenthAWOP /AWOL, whetherconsecutiveornot,followingotherAWOP/AWOLswithinone
calendaryear.
On August 11, 1997, petitioner did not report to work because of heavy rains which
floodedtheentirebarangaywhereheresided.InaMemorandumdatedOctober1,1997,hewas
requiredtoexplaininwritingwithin24hourswhynodisciplinaryactionshouldbeimposedon
him for his tenth absence without permission. In response, petitioner submitted a written
[6]
explanation accompanied by a Certification from his Barangay Captain, stating that his
absencewasduetoheavyrainsandsubsequentfloodingthathithisbarangay.Later, petitioner
[7]
filedaSupplementalWrittenExplanation, inlieuofanswerstoaquestionnaireprovidedby
thecompany.PetitionerstatedthatonAugust11,1997,hishousewasheavilyfloodedandthat
on the next day, he immediately filed an application for leave of absence. Despite his
complianceandexplanation,petitionerwasdismissedonFebruary27,1998andgivenanotice
[8]
oftermination whichenumeratedthedatesofhisabsenceswithoutpermission.
Thereafter,petitionerfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalwiththeLaborArbiter,which
wasdismissedforlackofmerit.
Onappeal,theNLRCreversedtheDecisionoftheLaborArbiter.Thedispositiveportion
oftheNLRCResolutionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainants appeal is GRANTED. The Labor
ArbitersdecisionintheaboveentitledcaseisherebyANNULLEDandSETASIDE.Anewone
isentereddeclaringthatComplainantNavarrosdismissalfromhisemploymentisillegal.
Respondent CocaCola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate
ComplainantNavarrotohisformerpositionwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges
andtopayhisfullbackwages,inclusiveofallowances,andhisotherbenefitsortheirmonetary
equivalent computed from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.
Respondent CocaCola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is likewise ordered to pay Complainant
Navarroattorneysfeesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)ofhistotalmonetaryaward.

[9]

SOORDERED.

RespondentelevatedthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.TheCourtofAppealsannulledthe
resolutionoftheNLRC.Itruledasfollows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

2/6

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theDecision(sic)aswellastheResolutionofthe
National Labor Relations Commission is hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Labor
ArbiterisreinstatedwiththeMODIFICATIONthatpetitionerCocaColaBottlersPhils.,Inc.is
ordered to pay private respondent Alberto Navarro separation pay equivalent to onehalf (1/2)
month salary for every year of service starting from November 1, 1987 until his dismissal on
February27,1998.

[10]

SOORDERED.

Theappellatecourtalsodeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Hencetheinstantpetitionbeforeus,raisingthefollowingissues:
A
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
REVERSIBLEERRORANDGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONINREVERSINGAND
SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE NLRC AND REINSTATING, WITH
MODIFICATION, THAT OF THE LABOR ARBITER WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, THE RULING
OF THE COMMISSION IS MORE IN ACCORD WITH THE EVIDENCE AND SETTLED
JURISPRUDENCE.
B
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT HEED THE INJUNCTION OF THIS
HONORABLECOURTTHAT:ASISWELLSETTLED,IFDOUBTSEXISTBETWEENTHE
EVIDENCEPRESENTEDBYTHEEMPLOYERANDTHEEMPLOYEE,THESCALESOF
JUSTICE MUST BE TILTED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE. SINCE IT IS A TIME
HONORED RULE THAT IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A LABORER AND HIS
MASTER, DOUBTS REASONABLY ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE, OR IN THE
INTERPRETATIONOFAGREEMENTSANDWRITINGSSHOULDBERESOLVEDINTHE

[11]

FORMERSFAVORINRENDERINGTHEDISPUTEDDECISIONANDRESOLUTION.

Raised also as the threshold issue in this petition is: WHETHER PETITIONERS
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE
COMPANY.
Respondents contend that the application for leave was correctly denied, and that petitioner
violatedtheEmployeesCodeofDisciplinaryRulesandRegulationswhenheincurredhistenth
absence. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that his absence was excusable under the
circumstances.
On this point, we are in agreement that petitioners application for leave should have been
approved by the company. His absence was due to a fortuitous event outside of petitioners
control.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

3/6

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

Inourview,petitionerhadnowrongful,perverseorevennegligentattitude,intendedtodefythe
orderofhisemployerwhenheabsentedhimself.He did so because heavy rains flooded their
[12]
residentialareawhichwasalongtherailroad.
In his favor, the Barangay Captain certified
thatindeedtherewasfloodingintheirplaceofresidence.
A worker cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate times of sickness nor emergency.
Hence, to require prior notice of such times would be absurd.He can only give proper notice
aftertheoccurrenceoftheeventwhichiswhatpetitionerdidinthiscase.
In earlier cases, we have expressed disapproval of dismissal of employees who have
absented themselves due to emergency circumstances. In Brew Master International, Inc. v.
[13]
NationalFederationofLaborUnions(NAFLU),
theemployeesabsencewasprecipitatedby
a grave family problem when his wife unexpectedly deserted him and abandoned the family.
Undersaidcircumstances,hisabsencewasdeemedjustified.Similarly,inthiscase,thereason
forpetitionersabsencewasnotofhisowndoingmuchlesstohisliking,thusweareoftheview
thathedidnotmerittheextremepenaltyofdismissalfromtheservice.
We reiterate that the State policy is to afford full protection to labor. When conflicting
interestsoflaborandcapitalareweighedonthescalesofsocialjustice,theheavierinfluenceof
capital should be counterbalanced by the compassion that the law accords the less privileged
[14]
[15]
workingman.
Under Article 279
of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly
dismissedisentitledtoreinstatement,withoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges,andto
the payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary
[16]
equivalent,computedfromthetimehiscompensationwaswithheldfromhim.
WHEREFORE, both the assailed Decision dated August 27, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals and its Resolution dated March 8, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration are
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.
RespondentCocaColaBottlersPhils.,Inc.isherebyORDERED:
(1) toimmediatelyreinstatepetitionerNavarrotohisformerpositionwithoutlossof
seniorityrightsandotherprivileges

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

4/6

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

(2) topayhisfullbackwages,inclusiveofallowances,andhisotherbenefitsortheir
monetary equivalent computed from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his
actualreinstatementand
(3) to pay petitioner Navarro attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of his total monetary
award.
Costsagainstrespondents.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

(Onofficialleave)
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

5/6

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162583

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

*ActingChiefJustice.
**Onofficialleave.
[1]
Rollo,pp.5157.Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Delilah VidallonMagtolis and
MercedesGozoDadoleconcurring.
[2]
Id.at59.
[3]
Id.at117127.
[4]
AbsenceWithoutPermission.
[5]
AbsenceWithoutLeave.
[6]
Rollo,p.68.
[7]
Id.at70.
[8]
Id.at88.
[9]
Id.at127.
[10]
Id.at56.
[11]
Id.at317318.
[12]
Id.at123.
[13]
G.R.No.119243,April17,1997,271SCRA275.
[14]
Fuentesv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.110017,January2,1997,266SCRA24,27.
[15]
AsamendedbyRep.ActNo.6715.
[16]
Bank of the Philippine IslandsEmployeesUnion v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 137863, March 31, 2005, 454
SCRA357,368.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162583.htm

6/6