Lagatic V NLRC

Lagatic v NLRC
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE RULES
ROMEO LAGATIC, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CITYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN
ROXAS, JESUS GO, GRACE LIUSON, and ANDREW LIUSON, respondents
G.R. No. 121004

January 28, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner Romeo Lagatic was employed in May 1986 by Cityland, first as a probationary sales agent, and later on as
a marketing specialist. He was tasked with soliciting sales for the company, with the corresponding duties of
accepting call-ins, referrals, and making client calls and cold calls. Cold calls refer to the practice of prospecting for
clients through the telephone directory. Cityland, believing that the same is an effective and cost-efficient method of
finding clients, requires all its marketing specialists to make cold calls. The number of cold calls depends on the sales
generated by each: more sales mean less cold calls. Likewise, in order to assess cold calls made by the sales staff,
as well as to determine the results thereof, Cityland requires the submission of daily progress reports on the same.
On October 22, 1991, Cityland issued a written reprimand to petitioner for his failure to submit cold call reports for
September 10, October 1 and 10, 1991. This notwithstanding, petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports for
September 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 28, as well as for October 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14, 1992.
Petitioner was required to explain his inaction, with a warning that further non-compliance would result in his
termination from the company. In a reply dated October 18, 1992, petitioner claimed that the same was an honest
omission brought about by his concentration on other aspects of his job. Cityland found said excuse inadequate and,
on November 9, 1992, suspended him for three days, with a similar warning.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid suspension and warning, petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports for February
5, 6, 8, 10 and 12, 1993. He was verbally reminded to submit the same and was even given up to February 17, 1993
to do so. Instead of complying with said directive, petitioner, on February 16, 1993, wrote a note, "TO HELL WITH
COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?" and exhibited the same to his co-employees. To worsen matters, he left the same
lying on his desk where everyone could see it.
On February 23, 1993, petitioner received a memorandum requiring him to explain why Cityland should not make
good its previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports, as well as for issuing the written statement
aforementioned. On February 24, 1993, he sent a letter-reply alleging that his failure to submit cold call reports
should trot be deemed as gross insubordination. He denied any knowledge of the damaging statement, "TO HELL
WITH COLD CALLS!"
Finding petitioner guilty of gross insubordination, Cityland served a notice of dismissal upon him on February 26,
1993. Aggrieved by such dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction,
underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages and attorney's fees. The labor arbiter dismissed the petition for
lack of merit. On appeal, the same was affirmed by the NLRC; hence the present recourse.
Issue:
W/N NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed?
Held:
The petition lacks merit.
To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the employee must be
afforded due process, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause.
Employers may, thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees, and when
employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule becomes a part of the contract of
employment. It is also generally recognized that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly
oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with. Corollarily,
an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the
conduct of the company business. An employer cannot rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person
whose . . . lack of regard for his employer's rules . . . has so plainly and completely been bared." 5 Petitioner's
continued infraction of company policy requiring cold call reports, as evidenced by the 28 instances of non-
submission of aforesaid reports, justifies his dismissal.
With the finding that petitioner's dismissal was for a just and valid cause, his claims for moral and exemplary
damages, as well as attorney's fees, must fail.
Resolution is AFFIRMED and this petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Lagatic V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagatic V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Lagatic V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagatic v NLRC

RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE RULES

ROMEO LAGATIC, petitioner,

G.R. No. 121004

The petition lacks merit.

You might also like