06 G.R. No. 117453 Autobus Vs NLRC Digest

AUTOBUS WORKERS' UNION vs.
NLRC
G.R. No. 117453 June 26, 1998
FACTS:
Petitioner Escanlar worked with Autobus as a Cutting Machine Operator and elected President
of the AWU, the union for the rank and file employees. A reassignment was made by Andres, a
supervisor, due to lack of manpower in the washer and painting section. Despite the same,
Escanlar questions his transfer using profane words in their several encounters. Thus, Andres
filed a report to Engr. Chavez, the production manager.
Chavez required Escanlar to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him
pursuant to the company's Code of Discipline, for addressing Andres, his supervisor, in profane
or obscene language and for threatening him. After Escanlar submitted an explanation, hearing
was made wherein after the administrative investigation, Escanlar was served a Notice of
Termination for gross misconduct.
Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, wherein the Labor Arbiter finds the
dismissal valid. As to the contention of Escanlar that his transfer has no legal and justifiable
basis constituting harassment, the Labor Arbiter ruled that it contradicts with the CBA headed
by him which provides that transfer is a management prerogative. The Labor Arbiter also added
that there was no showing that the transfer was permanent, it was merely done to meet the
exigencies on account of lack of manpower. As to the contention of illegal dismissal, the Labor
Arbiter finds evidence of record that the petitioner indeed violated the Code of Discipline of the
Company when he uttered bad words in several occasions to Andres. As there was a legal cause
and due process was accorded to the complainant, the dismissal was valid. On appeal to the
NLCR, the ruling was affirmed.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether NLRC acted with grave

abuse of discretion in affirming the decision
of
the labor arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in affirming the decision
of
the labor arbiter.
Whether NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the labor
arbiter.
RULING:
No. The termination of the petitioner is valid. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that factual
findings of the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are
accorded respect, even finality, and will not be disturbed for as long as such findings are
supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, we have no reason to deviate from this
policy as petitioner failed to convince us that the findings of the labor arbiter as affirmed by the
NLRC are devoid of basis or are otherwise capricious or arbitrary.
An employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation
adopted for the conduct of the company's business.
Here, petitioner was dismissed for violating Section 6 (B) of the company's Code of Discipline, to
wit:
24. Pag-insulto o panghihiya, pagbabanta ng pananakit o pagpapakita ng anumang

sinasadyang di-paggalang sa isang superbisor o sino mang opisyal ng kumpanya.
Takdang Parusa: Suspensiyon hangagang sa pagtitiwalag, ayon sa bigat ng

pagkakasala.
which is considered as an act of gross misconduct and is a valid ground for terminating an
employee pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor Code.
As to the contention of the petitioner that his dismissal is by reason of his being the union
president, thus Autobus is allegedly guilty of unfair labor practice – The SC finds no legal
foundation of this claim. There was also no showing in the records any substantial evidence
which would support the theory of the petitioner.
As to the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded due process – The court is not
convinced. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of
due process. Due process of law simply means giving opportunity to be heard before judgment
is rendered. In fact, there is no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted,
where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy. A formal trial-type
hearing is not even essential to due process.
Here, the records show that the petitioner was duly notified and was given a chance to defend
himself via a written explanation, and during the hearing, he was also represented by a counsel
of his own choice.

06 G.R. No. 117453 Autobus Vs NLRC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 G.R. No. 117453 Autobus Vs NLRC Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 G.R. No. 117453 Autobus Vs NLRC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTOBUS WORKERS' UNION vs.

ISSUE: Whether NLRC acted with grave

24. Pag-insulto o panghihiya, pagbabanta ng pananakit o pagpapakita ng anumang

Takdang Parusa: Suspensiyon hangagang sa pagtitiwalag, ayon sa bigat ng

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.