FACTS:

Laurence C. Margin, the respondent, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Verizon Communications Philippines, Inc., the petitioner. Laurence claimed that he was hired by Verizon as a network engineer and went on medical leave due to his illness, but he was terminated without just cause. On the other hand, Verizon argued that Laurence failed to notify the company of the duration of his leave and did not provide a medical certificate or test results. They also stated that Laurence admitted his mistake and apologized for his unauthorized absence. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, citing the company's rule against absenteeism and Laurence's failure to notify the company of his extended absences.

Laurence, the petitioner, was employed by Verizon as a service delivery engineer responsible for monitoring network anomalies and troubleshooting problems. Without informing his supervisor or the company, Laurence went on unauthorized absences for 38 consecutive days. The company implemented its rule on absenteeism due to the negative impact of Laurence's prolonged absence on its operations. Laurence appealed to the NLRC, asserting that there was no just cause for his dismissal and that Verizon did not follow due process. The NLRC reversed the initial ruling and ordered Verizon to pay backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. Verizon filed a petition for certiorari to the CA, but the CA upheld the NLRC's decision, finding that Laurence's absence was justified due to his serious health condition and that Verizon failed to provide him an opportunity to be heard. Verizon now brings the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Laurence was validly dismissed for violating company rules on unauthorized absences and excessive absenteeism, and that due process was observed. Laurence maintains that his dismissal was illegal as there was no just cause and he was deprived of an opportunity to explain his absence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court can review the factual determination of administrative bodies and the findings of fact by the CA.

2. Whether Laurence violated Verizon's rules on authorized and unauthorized absences.

3. Whether Laurence's absence from work can be considered excessive absenteeism warranting dismissal.

4. Whether Verizon complied with procedural due process in terminating Laurence's employment.

5. Whether Verizon failed to observe the standards set forth in case law regarding the termination of employment.

6. Whether Laurence's right to procedural due process was violated.

7. Whether the employee's right to procedural due process was violated by the employer.

8. Whether the employee is entitled to reinstatement, separation pay, and backwages.

9. Whether the employer is excused from paying backwages.

RULING:

1. The Court can review the factual determination of administrative bodies and the findings of fact by the CA if the findings are contradictory. In this case, the factual findings of the LA, NLRC, and CA are contrasted, giving the Court sufficient basis to review the facts.

2. Laurence did not violate Verizon's rules on authorized and unauthorized absences. He properly informed his immediate supervisor of his illness and the nature of his absence.

3. The dismissal of Laurence based on excessive absenteeism is not valid. While the employer has the power to discipline employees, this power is not without limitations. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious, and there must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty. The ultimate penalty of dismissal should only be imposed when a less punitive penalty would not suffice. In this case, Laurence's absence from work was due to sickness, and he notified Verizon accordingly. Even if there was a violation of company rules, the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and not proportionate to the wrongdoing committed.

4. Verizon failed to comply with procedural due process in terminating Laurence's employment. To affect a valid dismissal based on just cause, the employer is required to observe procedural due process, which includes notice and hearing. The employer must provide the employee with two written notices: the first should specify the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought, and the second should inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss them. In this case, it is not specified whether Verizon provided Laurence with these two written notices, but it is implied that they did not adhere to the requirements of procedural due process.

5. The Supreme Court held that Verizon failed to observe the standards set forth in case law regarding the termination of employment. The notice to explain should have given the employees a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges against them, which includes at least five (5) calendar days to prepare their defense. The notice should also contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as the basis for the charge. The notice should also specifically mention the company rules violated or the grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code being charged against the employee.

6. The Supreme Court ruled that Laurence's right to procedural due process was violated. Although Verizon provided him an opportunity to refute the charge, they did not give him ample time to prepare his defense and later disregarded his explanation because it was submitted beyond the 48-hour period. Therefore, Laurence's right to procedural due process was violated.

7. The employee's right to procedural due process was violated as the employer denied him the opportunity to be heard and did not consider his explanation to the charges against him.

8. The employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full backwages, and separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible.

9. The employer is excused from paying backwages as the penalty of dismissal was deemed too harsh and the employer was in good faith in terminating the employment.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court can review the factual findings in labor cases if the findings are contradictory.

• In an illegal dismissal case, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.

• An employee's absence may be considered authorized if he/she informs the immediate manager/supervisor of the reason for the absence and provides a reasonable description of the illness or emergency.

• The Constitution protects the rights of the working class, and an employee's employment is considered property in a constitutional sense. Employers must exercise caution in terminating the services of their employees and dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Dismissal must be supported by just and valid cause and proportionate to the infraction committed.

• Employers are required to comply with procedural due process in terminating an employee based on just cause. This includes providing the employee with two written notices: the first specifying the grounds for termination and the second informing them of the decision to dismiss.

• The penalty of dismissal should only be imposed when a less punitive penalty would not suffice. Dismissals must be within the parameters of the law and in accordance with equity and fair play. The State may inquire whether the strict application of company rules would result in a consequence too severe for the employee.

• Employers must observe the standards set forth in case law regarding the termination of employment, including giving the employees a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges against them and providing them with at least five (5) calendar days to prepare their defense. The notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as the basis for the charge and should specifically mention the company rules violated or the grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code being charged against the employee.

• Employees have the right to procedural due process in termination cases, which includes the opportunity to explain and clarify their defenses, present evidence in support of their defenses, and rebut the evidence presented against them. Employees also have the right to defend themselves personally or with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice.

• An employee's right to be heard is an indispensable part of procedural due process, which can be satisfied by any meaningful opportunity to controvert the charges and submit evidence.

• In cases where reinstatement is not feasible, separation pay is awarded as an alternative remedy in addition to backwages.

• The payment of separation pay and reinstatement are exclusive remedies for an employee who was illegally dismissed.

• In some instances, the Court has carved out exceptions where reinstatement is ordered without an award of backwages, particularly when dismissal is deemed too harsh and the employer is in good faith.

• Only employees discriminatorily dismissed are entitled to backpay.