Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

An employee's dismissal based on a positive drug test is illegal if the employer fails to prove that the testing clinic is accredited by the Department of Health and that both screening and confirmatory tests were conducted as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165 and Department Order No. 53-03.

Jeffrey Nacague was employed by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. as "hepe de viaje" aboard M/V Princess of the World. The dispute arises from the employer's internal policies on illegal drug use among crew members, specifically the procedural requirements for drug testing imposed by Republic Act No. 9165 and Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 53-03, which mandate that drug tests be conducted by accredited centers using both screening and confirmatory methods.

On 15 June 1995, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. hired Jeffrey Nacague as "hepe de viaje" on board its vessel M/V Princess of the World. On 25 January 2003, Sulpicio Lines received an anonymous letter reporting illegal drug use on the ship. Shortly after, on 14 February 2003, housekeeper Ceasar T. Chico reported finding drug paraphernalia in the Mopalla Suite Room and claimed that Nacague and Chief Mate Reynaldo Doroon threatened his life after the discovery. Sulpicio Lines sent Nacague a notice of investigation on 15 February 2003, charging him with illegal drug use and threatening a co-employee.

When the ship docked in Manila on 18 February 2003, Nacague and other crew members underwent a random drug test at S.M. Lazo Clinic. The test yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Sulpicio Lines subjected Nacague to a formal investigation on 20 February 2003, which Nacague denied using illegal drugs. On 23 February 2003, Nacague voluntarily underwent a drug test at Chong Hua Hospital in Cebu City, which yielded a negative result, and he submitted this to Sulpicio Lines. Nevertheless, on 7 March 2003, Sulpicio Lines terminated Nacague's employment on the ground of grave misconduct and loss of trust and confidence based on the positive S.M. Lazo Clinic result.

Nacague filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and reinstatement with backwages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nacague, finding the S.M. Lazo Clinic test doubtful because it was not accredited by the Dangerous Drug Board, giving more weight to the accredited Chong Hua Hospital test. The Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay and backwages, finding reinstatement unviable due to strained relations. Sulpicio Lines appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring the dismissal valid for serious misconduct and loss of trust, and noting a presumption that S.M. Lazo Clinic was accredited. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, holding that Sulpicio Lines complied with procedural and substantive requirements and that Nacague failed to prove the clinic lacked accreditation.

• Credibility of Drug Test: Petitioner argued that the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test was not credible because Sulpicio Lines failed to show that the clinic was an authorized drug testing center, and that urine samples were gathered carelessly without proper labels.
• Incomplete Drug Test: Petitioner maintained that under R.A. No. 9165 and Department Order No. 53-03, two drug tests—a screening test and a confirmatory test—are required, and since only a screening test was conducted, his dismissal was based on an incomplete drug test.
• Burden of Proof: Petitioner argued that Sulpicio Lines failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination of his employment was legal.

• Timeliness of Objection: Respondent questioned the belated attempt of Nacague to question the credibility of S.M. Lazo Clinic.
• Validity of Random Test: Respondent argued that the most accurate drug test was the random test conducted by S.M. Lazo Clinic, and that Nacague's subsequent test at Chong Hua Hospital was a "planned" test done because he knew the drug residue would no longer be detectable after five days.

• Validity of Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Nacague's termination from employment was valid.

• Validity of Dismissal: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred; the dismissal was illegal because Sulpicio Lines failed to prove that S.M. Lazo Clinic was an accredited drug testing center and failed to conduct a confirmatory test as required by law.

• Validity of Dismissal: For a dismissal to be valid, two requisites must concur: a just or authorized cause and the opportunity to be heard. While Sulpicio Lines complied with procedural requirements, it failed to substantively prove a just cause. Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 and Department Order No. 53-03 mandate that drug tests be performed only by authorized or DOH-accredited drug testing centers and must consist of both a screening test and a confirmatory test. Sulpicio Lines did not prove S.M. Lazo Clinic's accreditation and did not even deny Nacague's allegation that it was unaccredited. Furthermore, only a screening test was conducted, without a confirmatory test to verify the positive result. Because the employer failed to indubitably prove that Nacague used illegal drugs, it failed to establish serious misconduct or loss of trust and confidence. When the alleged valid cause for termination is not clearly proven, the dismissal is considered illegal.

• Two Requisites for Valid Dismissal — The dismissal of an employee is valid only if two requisites concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. The Court applied this by finding that while procedural due process was observed, the lack of a valid cause—due to an invalid drug test—rendered the dismissal illegal.
• Mandatory Drug Testing Procedures — Under Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 and Department Order No. 53-03, drug testing must be conducted by government forensic laboratories or DOH-accredited centers, and must employ two testing methods: a screening test and a confirmatory test. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the employer's failure to use an accredited clinic and to conduct a confirmatory test rendered the positive drug test result doubtful and insufficient to justify dismissal.

• "The law is clear that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing centers." — This passage emphasizes the mandatory requirement for accreditation in drug testing, which is central to the Court's finding that the employer failed to prove just cause for dismissal.
• "When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal." — This articulates the ratio decidendi that the employer's failure to strictly comply with statutory drug testing procedures negates the existence of a valid cause, rendering the dismissal illegal.

• Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board — Cited to explain the mechanics of drug testing under R.A. No. 9165, emphasizing that the two testing methods (screening and confirmatory) are required to ensure trustworthiness and that tests must be conducted by trained professionals in DOH-monitored laboratories.

• Article 279, Labor Code — Allows termination of an employee for just or authorized causes.
• Article 277(b), Labor Code — Requires employers to send a written notice stating the causes for termination and to give the employee an opportunity to be heard.
• Section 36, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates that authorized drug testing shall be done by accredited and monitored laboratories and shall employ both a screening test and a confirmatory test.
• Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 53-03 — Provides that only DOH-accredited drug testing centers shall be utilized and that drug testing shall consist of both screening and confirmatory tests.

Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, Jose C. Mendoza