A Critique on a Labor Arbiters Ruling

By: Alfafara, Rosa Cecilia Florido, Chedelle Fatima Lagamia, Miko Padua, Marie Rojan

For: Atty. Doming T. Anonuevo DLSU-College of Law Labor Standards

The Case

MARK ANTHONY PEDRASITA -versusCOMPTEQ PHILIPPINES, INC.

Facts: Mark Anthony Pedrasita was hired as a delivery truck helper in January 2006 by Comteq Philippines, Inc., with a P160.00/day salary. In October 2011, he was appointed as driver and in November 2011, his salary was increased to P420/day. On 23 December 2011, the general manager Ong told him that he incurred excessive tardiness since September 2011, and after givin his 13th month pay, he was told to have rest from work and since then he was never called for and he learned that they had hired a new driver. Thus, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal by the respondents without affording him of due process. Respondents countered that complainant was repeatedly warned of his absences and attitude in tardiness. They allege that he incurred 23 days absences and 18 days tardiness from 1 June 2011 to 23 December 2011. And complainants absences in 12 and 13 December 2011 were of showing that he had no concern for the respondents business, knowing that it products to be delivered were in demand because of the Christmas Season.

The Case Issue: Whether or not Mark Anthony Pedrasita was illegally dismissed by Compteq Philippines, inc. Held: The Labor Arbiter held that he was illegally dismissed and must be awarded separation pay. The Labor Arbiter rationalized with the well settled rule that the burden of proof that the employee was not illegally dismissed lies on the employer and failing to comply with the two-notice rule. Although the Respondents contended that Complainant was dismissed for gross and habitual neglect of duty, Labor Arbiter found otherwise. Complainant only incurred 19 absences and 28 tardiness.

Our Critique

The Labor Arbiter found that the complainants absences are not habitual as claimed by the respondents and not sufficient ground to terminate his employment of almost six years. But to our mind, the continuous absence and tardiness from June to December were sufficient enough for him to be terminated. Complainant only explained why he was tardy during the start of the week or only on Mondays, and further explained only the two December absences. In the businessmans point of view, of course he wouldnt want any more delays. The complainants frequent, if not habitual, absences and tardiness is causing so much trouble and he knows that delivery is vital in the operation of the business. Hence, the delays caused by the complainant have an equivalent loss in income and profit. In considering the case, one can wonder what the standards are for habitual tardiness and absenteeism. 23 days of unauthorized absences and 18 times of tardiness, summed up within 6 months, made by Mark Anthony Pedrasita, is quite numerous. Even considering his reasons (Philhealth transaction and coming home from the province of Pampanga every start of the week), there were countless of ways where he could have given his employer a heads up with regards to his personal issues that would affect his work performance. In this case, procedurally, both the complainant and the respondent lacked the necessary actions that could have prevented this suit; Mark Anthony Pedrasita did not obtain authorization for his absences, and Compteq Phil., inc. did not issue the needed memos. But of course, the burden of proof belongs to the management on whether or not he was illegally or constructively dismissed. And as the Labor

Arbiter held, the employers did not follow the two-point rule (1. notice which apprise complainant of his absences and tardiness from which his dismissal would be based; and 2. the subsequent notice which informed complainant of the companys decision to dismiss him). No notices were given to the complainant, neither memoranda to inform him of his infringes; these gives a meaning of a clear violation of the two-point rule. Despite the foregoing, we agree with the Labor Arbiters ruling that reinstatement is not possible because of the strained relations that was brought about upon the filing of this case. But as we all know, although we criticize, the judgment has been handed down. The case is currently on appeal. Now, all we have to do is wait and hope for the best.