Manila Electric Company v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 114129; October 24, 1996; Hermosisima Jr., J.
Digest prepared by Laurence A. Mopera

DOCTRINE:

I. FACTS
1. Private Respondent Jeremiah Cortez was employed on a probationary status by petitioner
Meralco as a lineman-driver. 6 months later, he became a third class lineman-driver. In 1977, he
was already a first class lineman-driver whose job included distribution of facilities to customers
and attend to power failures, interruption and the like.
2. However, throughout his employment, he was suspended quite a number of times:

SUMMARY OF SUSPENSION
DATE OF SUSPENSION PENALTY/CAUSE
May 25, 1977 Suspension of 5 working days for drinking
alcoholic beverages while working
March 28, 1984 Suspension of 3 working days for refusal to to
report to J.F. Cotton Hospital as instructed by
company physician while on sick leave
June 13, 1984 Suspension of 10 working days for unauthorized
extension of sick leave
June 5, 1987 Suspension of 3 working days for refusal to
report to J.F. Cotton Hospital as instructed by the
company physician while on sick leave
December 16, 1988 Preventive suspension for failure to submit
Medical Certificate within 48 hours after sick
leave
February 22, 1989 Suspension of 5 working days for unauthorized
absences
May 30, 1989 Suspension of 10 working days for unauthorized
absences with a warning that he will be
dismissed upon commission of similar offense in
the future.

On August 2 to September 19, 1989, he again absented himself. According to him, it was because he
went into hiding during that time as he had a problem with his neighbour, and that his family was
suffering from LBM due to the floods. After investigation, he was dismissed for violating Meralco’s
Code on Employee Discipline. He was thereafter notified by one Sapang of his dismissal.

LA ruled that there was no illegal dismissal but NLRC reversed it and ordered for reinstatement.

II.ISSUES
Was the dismissal valid?

III. HELD
Yes. The ruling of the NLRC is reversed.

IV. RATIO
Article 283 of the Labor Code enumerates the different just cause for termination. Among such causes
are the 1. Serious misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employers or representatives in connection with his work and 2. Gross and habitual neglect by the
employee of his duties.

These causes include gross inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. These just causes are part of
management prerogative which includes the hiring work assignment, working methods, time, place and
manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations,
transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of
workers. Management prerogatives are upheld as long as they are exercised in good faith and not for the
purpose of defeating the right of the workers.

The nature of his job requires his physical presence. His habitual absenteeism is inconsistent with the
nature of his job. While he might have a justification for the last absence, the totality of his action
warrants the dismissal.

However, there was no justification. It was just a self-serving alibi which remained unsubstantiated. On
the contrary, he was actually seen in his address at the time when he was supposed to be hiding
somewhere.

Other issues: Was there a need for an actual adversarial proceeding to comply with the due process
requirement?

The court ruled that there was no need for such. Due process can be complied with as long as the
employee was given the right to be heard. Because he was able to present his defense, there was
compliance with due process.