Almirante: Dismissal disproportionate to offense
On March 28, 2012 respondent Laurence C. Margin (Laurence) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against petitioner Verizontions Philippi Communicanes Inc. (Verizon). He alleged that sometime in January 2012 while under the employ of Verizon, he experienced constant nausea, difficulty in breathing, colds and cough with spots of blood. His chest x-ray showed that he was suffering from “PTB vs. Pneumonia” for which he was recommended to be in isolation and bed rest for 60 days. He informed his manager Joseph Benjamin Quintana of his medical condition and did not report for work from Feb. 3, 2012 to recuperate from his illness. He went to Guimaras Island to quarantine himself. On March 14, 2012, he received a notice to explain forwarded from his residence in Cavite. He then called Joseph why he was being made to explain who answered that his employment was already terminated on March 12, 2012.
Upon the other hand, Verizon contends that Laurence was validly dismissed because of his deliberate violation of company rules on unauthorized absences and excessive absenteeism. Under its company rules, five or more consecutive days of absence is tantamount to abandonment of work, absence without leave or voluntary resignation of the employee which warrant the penalty of dismissal. The dismissal of Laurence was a valid exercise of its management prerogative in applying its rules.
Does this defense justify Verizon’s dismissal?
Ruling: No.
Indeed, the power to dismiss is a formal prerogative of the employer, but this is not without limitations. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees and
dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be observed and employers should respect and protect the rights of their employees. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there be just and valid cause; it must also be supported by evidence. There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty. Dismissal, without doubt, is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Hence, where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to visited with a consequence so severe.
In the Cavite Apparel case, the respondent employee went on an absence without leave for three times in a span of a year, for each instance, she was suspended accordingly. On account of sickness, respondent again was not able to report for work, and was suspended for six days. When she went back to work, her employment was terminated. The Court held that, while respondent might have been guilty of violating company rules on leaves of absence and employee discipline, the penalty of dismissal imposed on her was unjustified. Respondent had been in the employ of Cavite Apparel for six years with no derogatory record other than the four absences without official leave. The respondent’s illness, which was the reason for absence, rendered her dismissal unreasonable as it is clearly disproportionate to the infraction she committed.
Similarly, since Verizon based their defense on violation of company rules, it is incumbent upon Verizon to prove that Laurence clearly, voluntarily and intentionally committed the infraction. Laurence’s absence from work was due to sickness. He gave proper notification of his absence, which reason should have been given kind consideration by Verizon. An employee cannot anticipate when an illness may happen, thus, he may not be able to give prior notice or seek prior approval of his absence, but could only do so after the occurrence of the incident.
Even assuming that there was deliberate violation of the company’s rules, the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and not proportionate to the wrongdoing committed. Knowledge of the company’s rules, its violation, and dismissal in accordance with said rules do not automatically bind this Court. It is settled that the law serves to equalize the unequal. The labor force is a special class that is constitutionally protected because of the inequality between capital and labor. This constitutional protection presupposes that the labor force is weak. However, the level of protection to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise, the State might appear to be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor. (Verizon Communications Philippines Inc. vs. Laurence C. Margin, G.R. 216599, Sept. 16, 2020).