Union Motor Corporation vs. NLRC

An employee's absence due to illness, supported by unnotarized medical certificates and for which verbal notice was given, does not constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty or abandonment justifying dismissal, especially where company rules do not strictly require written notice and the employee possesses an unblemished record.

Respondent Alejandro A. Etis was hired by petitioner Union Motor Corporation on October 23, 1993, as an automotive mechanic. Over the course of his employment, he received multiple awards, including Top Technician (May 1995), Technician of the Year (1995), and Model Employee Award (1995). On September 22, 1997, Etis suffered a severe toothache and called the company nurse, Rosita dela Cruz, to inform her of his sick leave. He called again the following day to state he needed to consult a doctor. The doctor referred him to a dentist, Dr. Rodolfo Pamor, who scheduled a tooth extraction for September 27, 1997, pending the subsidence of the inflammation. On September 24, 1997, a company security guard visited Etis's home per management's instructions and confirmed his illness. Because the inflammation had not subsided, Dr. Pamor rescheduled the extraction to October 4, 1997, and advised rest. On October 2, 1997, the petitioner issued a memorandum terminating Etis for incurring more than five consecutive absences without proper notification, classifying it as abandonment under Section 6.1.1, Article III of the Company Rules. Upon reporting for work on October 4 after his tooth extraction, Etis was denied entry and informed of his termination.

• Employment and Awards: Respondent was hired as an automotive mechanic in 1993 and transferred to the Caloocan City Branch with a monthly salary of P6,330.00. He received the Top Technician award (May 1995), Technician of the Year (1995), Model Employee Award (1995), and became a member of the Exclusive P40,000.00 Club.
• The Illness and Absence: On September 22, 1997, respondent phoned the company nurse to report a painful toothache. The next day, he phoned again to say he needed to consult a doctor, who then referred him to a dentist due to inflammation. The dentist scheduled a tooth extraction for September 27. On September 24, a company security guard visited the respondent's home and confirmed his illness. On September 27, the dentist rescheduled the extraction to October 4 because the inflammation had not subsided, advising the respondent to rest.
• The Termination: On October 2, 1997, the petitioner issued an Inter Office Memorandum terminating the respondent for incurring more than five consecutive absences without proper notification, classifying it as abandonment under Section 6.1.1, Article III of the Company Rules. On October 4, the tooth was successfully extracted. When the respondent reported for work, he was denied entry and informed of his termination.
• Post-Termination Actions: The respondent sought help from the union, which included his grievance in an NCMB arbitration. Pending resolution, the respondent wrote to the petitioner asking for reconsideration, which was denied. The NCMB eventually dismissed the union's complaints. On May 18, 1999, the respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.

• Evidentiary Weight of Medical Certificates: Petitioner argued that the medical certificates submitted by the respondent should not be given evidentiary weight because they were not notarized and one was not on the dentist's letterhead, rendering them self-serving and barren of probative value.
• Just Cause for Dismissal: Petitioner contended that the respondent's ten unauthorized absences without written notification constituted gross and habitual neglect of duties under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code and abandonment under Section 6.1.1, Article III of the Company Rules. Petitioner averred that its security guard found the respondent fit to work and that the respondent failed to notify the company in writing of his absences and whereabouts.

• Justified Absence: Respondent countered that his absences were justified by a severe toothache requiring a delayed tooth extraction, as substantiated by medical certificates from his attending physician and dentist.
• Compliance with Notice Requirement: Respondent maintained that he notified the company nurse of his illness via telephone calls and that a company security guard even visited his home to confirm his condition, thereby fulfilling the notice requirement.
• No Gross Neglect or Abandonment: Respondent argued that his single instance of absence due to illness did not amount to gross and habitual neglect or abandonment, particularly given his unblemished employment record and multiple work awards.

• Evidentiary Weight of Medical Certificates: Whether unnotarized medical certificates are admissible and accorded probative weight to justify an employee's absences.
• Validity of Dismissal: Whether a ten-day absence due to illness, with verbal notice to the company nurse, constitutes gross and habitual neglect of duty or abandonment justifying dismissal under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code and company rules.

• Evidentiary Weight of Medical Certificates: Unnotarized medical certificates are admissible and entitled to full probative weight. Verification or notarization is not a jurisdictional requirement for documents to be considered substantial evidence. The certificates bore the names and license numbers of the attending physician and dentist, carrying the earmarks of regularity in their issuance. Common sense dictates that an ordinary worker should not be burdened with having medical certificates notarized to prove an ailment.
• Validity of Dismissal: The dismissal was illegal. The absences were justified by illness, and verbal notice to the company nurse sufficed because company rules did not explicitly require written notice to a specific office. A single, prolonged absence due to illness does not constitute gross and habitual neglect, which requires repeated or intermittent failures. Abandonment requires a deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume employment, which is belied by the employee's immediate attempt to return to work upon recovery and his unblemished record. Dismissal, being the ultimate penalty, must be based on just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case.

• Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty — To warrant dismissal under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, the negligence must not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care, evincing a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. Habitual neglect implies repeated or intermittent failures. A single instance of absence, even if prolonged, does not meet the standard of habitual neglect.
• Abandonment — The bare fact that an employee incurred excusable and unavoidable absences does not amount to abandonment. Abandonment requires a deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume employment, which is negated by the employee's immediate reporting for work upon recovery and the lack of intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
• Substantial Evidence in Labor Cases — Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Medical certificates need not be notarized to be admissible as substantial evidence; verification is not necessary for documents to be given evidentiary weight.

• "Nowhere in our jurisprudence requires that all medical certificates be notarized to be accepted as a valid evidence... Common sense dictates that an ordinary worker does not need to have these medical certificates to be notarized for proper presentation to his company to prove his ailment..."
• "To warrant removal from service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them."
• "Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Thus, it must be based on just cause and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence."

• Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. NLRC, 331 SCRA 237 (2000) — Followed for the definition of gross negligence, emphasizing that the negligence must not merely be gross but also habitual to warrant dismissal.
• Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 323 (1996) — Followed for the principle that requiring prior approval for an unforeseen illness would be unreasonable, as an employee cannot anticipate the cause of his illness.
• Bambalan v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 153 SCRA 166 (1987) — Followed for the rule that verification of documents is not necessary for them to be considered substantial evidence.
• Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408 (1997) — Distinguished and declared inapplicable. Petitioner attempted to invoke this case against the unnotarized medical certificates, but the Court found it inapplicable given the factual context and the presence of the attending physicians' license numbers on the certificates.

• Article 282, Labor Code of the Philippines — Enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer. Paragraph (b) was specifically addressed, providing that an employer may terminate employment due to gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. The provision was applied to clarify that the respondent's single absence did not meet the "habitual" requirement.
• Section 6.1.1, Article III, Company Rules — Provided that an employee with five consecutive unauthorized absences without notice shall be considered as having abandoned his job and shall be terminated. The provision was interpreted to allow verbal notice, as the rules did not explicitly require written notice to a specific office or employee.

Puno, C.J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.