View full case

WILFREDO T. MARIANO v. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT

FACTS:

Wilfredo T. Mariano filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages against G.V. Florida Transport and its owner, Virgilio Florida, Jr. Mariano alleged that he was a bus driver for the company and was dismissed without just cause. In December 2015, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mariano and ordered respondents to pay him his money claims. Respondents appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that they had filed their position paper but it was not received by the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC admitted respondents' position paper and reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Mariano's dismissal was valid due to alleged misconduct. Mariano appealed the NLRC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC's ruling. Mariano then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that respondents failed to justify the belated submission of their position paper and that he was not given due process.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was proper service of the position paper.

  2. Whether or not the dismissal of the employee was valid on the ground of serious misconduct.

  3. Whether or not the employer complied with the procedural requirements of due process.

  4. Whether the employer complied with the notice requirement in terminating the employee's employment.

  5. Whether the employee is entitled to unpaid wages and proportionate 13th month pay despite the just cause for dismissal.

  6. Whether the owner and manager of the company can be held solidarily liable for the termination of the employee's employment.

RULING:

  1. The Court emphasized that the registry receipt alone does not constitute proof of receipt. The respondents should have submitted an affidavit proving that they mailed the position paper together with the registry receipt issued by the post office and filed the registry return card. Because they failed to do so, there is no proof of proper service.

  2. The Court held that the employee was validly dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct. The repeated and numerous infractions committed by the employee in driving the passenger bus assigned to him cannot be considered minor. Considering the nature of his job and the seriousness of the infractions, they may already be subsumed as serious misconduct.

  3. The Court ruled that the employer did not comply with the procedural requirements of due process. The employer did not provide the employee with a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that served as the basis for the charges against him. The notice should have also specifically mentioned which company rules were violated or which ground under Art. 282 of the Labor Code was being charged against the employee. Therefore, the dismissal was not in accordance with procedural due process.

  4. The employer failed to comply with the notice requirement in terminating the employee's employment, as they did not provide him with a written notice containing the specific causes or grounds for termination.

  5. Despite the just cause for dismissal, the employee is entitled to nominal damages, unpaid wages, and proportionate 13th month pay. The lack of statutory due process does not nullify the dismissal but requires the employer to indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages. The employee is also entitled to unpaid wages and proportionate 13th month pay.

  6. The owner and manager of the company cannot be held solidarily liable for the termination of the employee's employment in the absence of any showing of malice or bad faith.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Registry receipt alone does not constitute proof of receipt; an affidavit proving mailing and the registry return card must be submitted.

  • Technical rules of procedure may be relaxed if the ends of substantial justice would be better served.

  • The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid.

  • In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is required, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • For serious misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the misconduct must be serious, relate to the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer, and must have been performed with wrongful intent.

  • The procedural requirements of due process in employee terminations include: (1) a first written notice containing specific causes or grounds for termination and an opportunity for the employee to submit a written explanation; (2) a hearing or conference wherein the employee can explain and clarify their defenses, present evidence, and rebut evidence presented against them; and (3) a written notice of termination indicating the just causes or grounds for termination.

  • An employer must comply with the notice requirement in terminating an employee's employment.

  • Lack of statutory due process will not nullify the dismissal if there is a just cause, but the employer must indemnify the employee with nominal damages.

  • The burden of proving payment rests on the employer when the employee alleges non-payment.

  • Company officials are not solidarily liable with the corporation for termination of employment without showing malice or bad faith.