Bernardo vs. Dimaya

An employee dismissed for just cause but without procedural due process is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay, but the employer is liable for nominal damages of P30,000.00 for failure to comply with the twin-notice requirement. The employee's unjustified refusal to comply with a reasonable company policy after committing an infraction constitutes serious misconduct and willful disobedience warranting dismissal.

Virex Enterprises, a service center engaged in the installation of air-conditioning units, is owned and operated by petitioners Vicente A. Bernardo and Resurreccion Bernardo. For each installation job, the company dispatches a team consisting of a team leader and two helpers, with a Tools/Materials Request Form required before and after each job to account for all materials used and returned. Company policy mandates that any failure to account for materials is penalized by a fine equivalent to twice the cost of the missing items, deducted from the employee's salary. Dimaya was employed as a team leader and, in that capacity, was responsible for his team's undertakings during installation projects.

Virex Enterprises, a service center engaged in the installation of air-conditioning units, dispatches teams consisting of a team leader and two helpers for each installation job. A Tools/Materials Request Form is accomplished before and after each job to account for all materials used and returned. Sometime in July 2007, the company received an installation job request from a customer, and a surveyor visited the site and made an initial cost estimate. On July 13, 2007, Virex Enterprises sent a team composed of Marcial Dimaya as team leader, Emir Tiongson, and Randy Roxas to carry out the job. Dimaya requested the materials they needed, but during the installation, the team used a drain pipe not included in their request form. They also received an additional P300.00 from the client, which was not declared to management. The transaction was not entered in their service report, and the official receipt was left blank. After the installation, Dimaya did not endorse the unused or excess materials and instead requested Tiongson to turn them over.

The following day, the storekeeper noticed that the drain pipe and some excess materials such as copper tubes and wires were missing from the items Dimaya's team had turned over. An investigation revealed that the team had installed a drain pipe not in their request form and had received P300.00 from the client, which was distributed among the team members. Pursuant to company policy, each team member was fined P764.00, equivalent to twice the cost of the missing items, to be paid through salary deduction. Tiongson and Roxas complied with the penalty, but Dimaya refused to pay, claiming that Tiongson, not he, was responsible for accounting for the tools used. Petitioners alleged that after refusing to pay the fine, Dimaya stopped reporting to work.

Dimaya denied abandoning his job. He claimed that Vicente Bernardo had effectively dismissed him on two separate occasions — first when Bernardo told him, "Huwag ka muna magpakita sa akin, mainit ang dugo ko sayo!" and again when Bernardo uttered "Tapos na tayo!" Petitioners countered that the latter statement was not directed at Dimaya but was spoken during a phone call with a certain Aron Villanueva, and they submitted Villanueva's affidavit to that effect. Dimaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, who found that he was illegally dismissed, noting that no memorandum had been issued requiring him to explain the P300.00 incident and that the employer bore the burden of proving unjustified refusal to return to work, which it failed to discharge.

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Petitioners argued that the dismissal of their appeal due to the absence of a certificate of non-forum shopping hindered the rendition of just and equitable reliefs, warranting a liberal application of the rules of procedure.
• No Illegal Dismissal: Petitioners maintained that Dimaya was not terminated from employment but abandoned his job, his refusal to pay the penalty — unlike his co-workers — demonstrating grave misconduct and intransigence. They characterized Bernardo's statements as expressions of displeasure over Dimaya's violations and refusal to comply with company policy, not acts of dismissal.
• "Tapos na tayo" Not Directed at Dimaya: Petitioners alleged that the statement "Tapos na tayo" was uttered by Bernardo during a phone call with Aron Villanueva, not addressed to Dimaya, and submitted Villanueva's affidavit in support.
• Grave Misconduct: Petitioners asserted that Dimaya's grave misconduct consisted of: (a) installation of an additional drain pipe; (b) non-reporting of the additional job in the service report; (c) charging and collection of P300.00 from the client without management's knowledge; (d) non-issuance of an official receipt for the collection; and (e) apportionment of the collected amount among team members.
• Field Personnel Classification: Petitioners contended that since the LA held Dimaya to be a field personnel, he was not entitled to holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.
• Recomputation of Monetary Awards: Petitioners prayed that ECOLA, attorney's fees, and 13th month pay be recomputed for lack of clear basis.

• Accountability for Tools: Dimaya contended that it was Tiongson, not he, who had to account for the tools and items used for the project, as Tiongson requested and received the tools. Thus, Dimaya argued he could not be held guilty of negligence over the missing items.
• Good Faith Receipt of P300.00: Dimaya denied that the P300.00 was specifically for the drain pipe, explaining that he and his team received the amount in good faith as a tip for the installation of the air-conditioning unit.
• No Abandonment: Dimaya claimed that he did not abandon his work but was dismissed by Bernardo, who told him "Huwag ka muna magpakita sa akin, mainit ang dugo ko sayo!" and "Tapos na tayo!"

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Whether the circumstances of the case warrant a relaxation in the application of the rules of procedure, specifically the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping for perfecting an appeal before the NLRC.
• Illegal Dismissal: Whether Dimaya was illegally dismissed from employment, involving the questions of whether just cause existed for his dismissal, whether he abandoned his work, and whether he was accorded procedural due process.

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Yes. The Court relaxed the rules, finding justification to liberally apply procedural requirements given the substantive issues raised and the need to prevent a miscarriage of justice, since the NLRC and CA had not delved into the facts.
• Illegal Dismissal: Partly in the negative. Dimaya was dismissed for just cause — serious misconduct and willful disobedience — but was not accorded procedural due process, entitling him to nominal damages but not to backwages, separation pay, or reinstatement.

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Under the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, a certificate of non-forum shopping is a requisite for the perfection of an appeal. As a general rule, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies are accorded great respect and even finality. However, because the NLRC and CA did not delve into the facts and dwelled heavily on the absence of the certificate, the Court was constrained to review the facts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court invoked its power to suspend its own rules whenever the purposes of justice require, citing McBurnie vs. Ganzon, and noted that Section 10, Rule VII of the 2005 NLRC Rules provides that technical rules are not binding and the Commission shall use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities, all in the interest of due process.

• Illegal Dismissal: The Court found that Dimaya was dismissed from employment, and that just cause existed. While the initial failure to account for the drain pipe, copper tubes, and wires constituted misconduct, it was not initially serious enough to warrant dismissal; the company rightfully fined each team member P764.00. However, Dimaya's subsequent acts — his unjustified refusal to comply with company policy and his attempt to shift blame to his team members — implied wrongful intent and willful disobedience. As team leader, Dimaya was responsible for the team's undertakings. His obstinate refusal to pay the penalty, after admitting the installation of the two-meter pipe, warranted dismissal under Article 297 (formerly 282)(a) of the Labor Code for serious misconduct and willful disobedience. The Court applied the definition of serious misconduct from Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University, requiring that the conduct be grave, connected to the work, and performed with wrongful intent. Nevertheless, petitioners failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement for procedural due process, as explained in Santos vs. Integrated Pharmaceutical Inc.: the employer must give the employee two written notices and conduct a hearing. No memorandum or notice was ever issued to Dimaya. Petitioners also failed to prove abandonment, as they presented no evidence beyond bare allegations that Dimaya stopped reporting to work, and no letter requiring him to return was sent. Under Agabon vs. NLRC, the lack of statutory due process does not nullify a dismissal for just cause but entitles the employee to nominal damages of P30,000.00. On the field personnel issue, the Court applied Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs. Bautista, which requires that a field personnel's actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and that performance is unsupervised. Since no evidence supported the conclusion that Dimaya's hours could not be determined with reasonable certainty, the Court maintained the awards of holiday pay and service incentive leave pay. Attorney's fees were deleted pursuant to Stradcom Corporation vs. Orpilla, which deleted attorney's fees for an employee dismissed for just cause.

• Agabon Doctrine (Nominal Damages for Procedural Due Process Violation) — When an employee is dismissed for just cause but the employer fails to comply with the statutory twin-notice requirement, the dismissal is not nullified, but the employer must indemnify the employee with nominal damages fixed at P30,000.00. The Court applied this doctrine to hold petitioners liable for P30,000.00 in nominal damages while upholding the validity of the dismissal for just cause.
• Serious Misconduct — Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful in character, implying wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. To constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal under Article 297(a) of the Labor Code, the act must be of grave and aggravated character, connected to the employee's work, and performed with wrongful intent. The Court found that Dimaya's refusal to comply with company policy after committing an infraction, coupled with his attempt to conceal the matter from management, demonstrated the requisite wrongful intent.
• Abandonment of Work — Abandonment requires two concurring elements: (a) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The burden of proof rests on the employer, who must support the allegation with substantial evidence. The Court found that petitioners failed to present any evidence beyond bare allegations that Dimaya abandoned his work.
• Field Personnel Classification — A field personnel is not merely defined by the location where the employee performs duties but by whether the employee's performance is unsupervised and whether actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The Court found no basis to classify Dimaya as a field personnel, as no data showed his hours could not be determined with reasonable certainty.

• "It was his obstinate and unjustified refusal to comply with company policy after committing a violation that warrants his dismissal. Verily, had he only chosen to pay the penalty, as his co-workers did, this case would have ended with a different outcome." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for finding just cause: the employee's willful disobedience and wrongful intent, not the initial infraction alone, warranted dismissal.
• "The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages." — This quotation from Agabon vs. NLRC, as cited and applied by the Court, establishes the controlling rule that procedural due process violations in a just-cause dismissal result in nominal damages rather than nullification of the dismissal.
• "[I]t is necessary to stress that the definition of a 'field personnel' is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer." — This passage from Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs. Bautista defines the controlling test for field personnel classification, which the Court applied to maintain the holiday pay and service incentive leave awards.

• McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 719 Phil. 680 (2013) — Cited for the proposition that the Court may suspend its own rules or except a particular case from their operations whenever the purposes of justice require, supporting the liberal application of procedural rules in this case.
• Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University, G.R. No. 227070, March 09, 2020 — Cited (itself citing National Labor Relations Commission vs. Salgarino, 529 Phil. 355 (2006)) for the definition and elements of serious misconduct under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
• Santos vs. Integrated Pharmaceutical Inc., 789 Phil. 477 (2016) — Cited for the twin-notice requirement in dismissals for just cause: the first notice apprising the employee of the acts or omissions, and the second informing the employee of the decision to terminate.
• Demex Rattancraft, Inc. vs. Leron, 820 Phil. 693 (2017) — Cited for the two elements of abandonment of work: failure to report without valid reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship.
• Agabon vs. NLRC, 485 Phil. 248 (2004) — Controlling precedent for the rule that lack of statutory due process in a just-cause dismissal does not nullify the dismissal but entitles the employee to nominal damages of P30,000.00.
• Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs. Bautista, 497 Phil. 863 (2005) — Cited for the test in determining whether an employee is a field personnel, requiring that actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and that performance is unsupervised.
• Stradcom Corporation vs. Orpilla, 834 Phil. 749 (2018) — Cited for the rule that attorney's fees should be deleted when the employee is dismissed for just cause.

• Article 297 (formerly Article 282), Labor Code — Provides the just causes for termination by an employer, including (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience, (b) gross and habitual neglect of duties, (c) fraud or willful breach of trust, (d) commission of a crime or offense, and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing. The Court applied paragraph (a) to sustain Dimaya's dismissal for serious misconduct and willful disobedience.
• Section 4, 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC — Enumerates the requisites for perfection of an appeal, including the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court relaxed this requirement in the interest of justice.
• Section 10, Rule VII, 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC — Provides that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be controlling and that the Commission shall use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities, in the interest of due process. The Court invoked this provision to justify liberal application of the rules.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.