Nuez vs. NLRC

G.R. No.
107574 December 28, 1994
FEDERICO NUEZ, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER MANUEL ASUNCION, PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), HONORIO POBLADOR, RAMON
NIETO, FRED AUJERO and ROMEO VALENCIA, respondents.
Facts:
Federico Nuez was a driver for PHILCOMSAT for 19 years since May 1, 1970. He was assigned to its station
in Baras Antipolo Rizal from 7:30am to 3:30pm. At 1:30pm, Engr. Jeremias Sevilla, the OIC and the highest
ranking official of the station, asked Nuez to drive the employees to the Makati head office to collect their profit
shares. Nuez declined twice, saying that he had an important personal appointment right after office hours.
On 28 November 1988, Station Manager Ramon Bisuna required Nuez to explain 72 hours why he should not
be administratively dealt with for disobeying an order of their most senior officer. In his reply dated 1 December
1988, Nuez mentioned a personal appointment in justification for his refusal to render overtime service and the
ferrying employees was not a kind of emergency that warrants the charge of disobedience.
Taking into consideration the reports of Engr. Sevilla and Supervisor Sibal as well as the letter of petitioner
Nuez, AVP for Transport and Maintenance Fredelino Aujero referred the matter to VP for Administration for
appropriate action and invited his attention to the Code of Disciplinary Action of the company providing that
“refusal to obey any lawful order or instruction of a superior is classified as insubordination, an extreme serious
offense and its first infraction call for dismissal of the erring employee. Thus, VP then issued a memorandum
terminating Nuez termination his employment effective 26 Dcember 1988 for insubordination.
On 6 March 1989, Nuez filed this suit for illegal dismissal, indemnity pay, moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.
LA Ruling
Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but awarded Nuez a monetary consideration in an amount equivalent
to his ½ month salary for every year of service.
NLRC Ruling
Affirmed the LA decision but limited the financial assistance to Nuez in amount equivalent to 3 months basic
pay only.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Nuez was illegally dismissed?

2. Whether or not Nuez was not given due process?
RULING:
The Court ruled against petitioner.
1.
It is undisputed that Nuez deliberately refused to obey the directive of officer-in-charge Engr. Sevilla and his
supervisor Sibal. The argument that Engr. Sevilla is not the immediate superior of Nuez is not an excuse not
only because Sibal, the other officer who reiterated the same directive, was his own supervisor but more
importantly because it is not required that the officer giving the order must be the immediate superior of the
employee, it being sufficient that the officer is the alter ego of the employer with regard to the order and the
order relates to the duty of the employee
The deliberate disregard or disobedience of the company rules cannot be countenanced and any justification
for the violation is deemed inconsequential. In fact, this is one ground the Labor Code provides for termination
of employment since an employer cannot be compelled to continue retaining a worker found guilty of
maliciously committing acts detrimental to its interests. A contrary rule would render a mockery of the
regulations the employees are required to observe.
The length of service rendered by the employee is also inconsequential for it does not lessen a bit the
rebellious temper of the employee object of the charge.
2.
In the case at bar, petitioner was given adequate opportunity under the circumstances to answer the charge.
His written explanation was taken into consideration in arriving at the decision to dismiss him. His demand for a
hearing before his employer is now too late. First, he should have insisted on a hearing in the initial
proceedings conducted by the company, and second, his written explanation admitted the complained inaction
thereby rendering unnecessary any hearing thereon. Since the defense Nuez interposed was in the nature of a
justifying circumstance, the burden shifted to him to prove that his inaction was warranted. Thus, Nuez failed to
overthrow not only before the company but also before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.
We held in Aguilar v. NLRC 11 that —
Willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee,
envisages the concurrence of at least two (2) requisites: the employee's assailed conduct must have been
willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude." The order
violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which
he had been engaged.

Nuez vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuez vs. NLRC

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

Nuez vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

107574 December 28, 1994

1. Whether or not Nuez was illegally dismissed?

The Court ruled against petitioner.

We held in Aguilar v. NLRC 11 that —

You might also like