SECOND
DIVISION
|
JEFFREY NACAGUE, Petitioner, - versus - SULPICIO LINES, INC.,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 172589 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA,JJ. Promulgated: August 8, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The
Case
This is a petition for
review of the 23 January 2006 Decision and
19 April 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01065. In its 23 January 2006 Decision, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Jeffrey Nacague (Nacague) and affirmed
the 21 March 2005 Decision and 31 May 2005 Resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. V-000481-04. In its 19 April 2006 Resolution, the Court of
Appeals denied Nacague’s motion for reconsideration.
The
Facts
On 15 June 1995, respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (Sulpicio
Lines) hired Nacague as “hepe
de viaje” or the representative of Sulpicio Lines on board its vessel M/V Princess of the
World (the ship).
On 25 January 2003, Sulpicio Lines received an anonymous letter reporting the use of illegal drugs on
board the ship. On 14 February 2003, Ceasar T. Chico, a housekeeper on the ship, submitted a
report regarding the drug paraphernalia found inside the Mopalla
Suite Room and the threat on his life made by Nacague
and Chief Mate Reynaldo Doroon after he found the
drug paraphernalia.
On 15 February 2003, Sulpicio Lines sent a notice of investigation to Nacague informing him of the charges against him for use of
illegal drugs and threatening a co-employee.
When the ship docked in the
port of Manila on 18 February 2003, some crew members of the ship, together
with Nacague, were subjected to a random drug
test. They were taken to S.M. Lazo Medical Clinic (S.M. Lazo
Clinic) and were required to submit urine samples. The result of the random drug test revealed
that Nacague was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
On 20 February 2003, Sulpicio Lines subjected Nacague
to a formal investigation. Nacague denied using illegal drugs.
On 23 February 2003, Nacague went to Chong Hua
Hospital in Cebu City to undergo a voluntary drug test. The drug test with Chong Hua
Hospital yielded a negative result. Nacague submitted this test result to Sulpicio
Lines.
However, on 7 March 2003, Sulpicio Lines sent a memorandum to Nacague
terminating him from the service. The
memorandum reads:
After a careful consideration
of your case with the evidence available, including your explanation, and with
the positive drug test result, management finds you culpable of grave
misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
In view thereof, the company is constrained to terminate
your employment effective today, March 7, 2003.
Feeling aggrieved, Nacague filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal
dismissal and for reinstatement with backwages.
On 12 November 2003, Labor
Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon rendered a decision in
favor of Nacague and declared that Sulpicio Lines illegally dismissed Nacague. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s 12 November 2003
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent Sulpicio
Lines, Inc. to pay complainant Jeffrey Nacague the following:
·Separation pay P75,600.00
·Backwages P77,415.00
Total P153,015.00
The other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
According to the Labor
Arbiter, the termination of employment of employees found positive for using
illegal drugs should not be exercised indiscriminately and thoughtlessly. The Labor Arbiter agreed with Nacague that the drug test result from S.M. Lazo Clinic was questionable because the clinic is not
accredited by the Dangerous Drug Board and not under its supervision. The Labor Arbiter gave more weight to the
drug test performed by Chong Hua Hospital because it
was accredited by the Dangerous Drug Board.
The Labor Arbiter said that doubts must be resolved in favor of the
employee. The Labor Arbiter also ruled
that reinstatement is no longer viable due to the strained relations between Nacague and Sulpicio Lines and,
thus, awarded separation pay to Nacague.
Dissatisfied with the Labor
Arbiter’s Decision, Sulpicio Lines appealed to the
NLRC. In its 21 March 2005 Decision, the
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed Nacague’s
complaint for lack of merit.
According to the NLRC, since
Nacague, who was performing a task involving trust
and confidence, was found positive for using illegal drugs, he was guilty of
serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. The NLRC added that Sulpicio
Lines’ Code of Conduct specified that the penalty for the use and illegal
possession of prohibited drugs is dismissal.
The NLRC also said that there is a presumption that S.M. Lazo Clinic is an accredited drug testing center and that
it was incumbent upon Nacague to show otherwise.
Nacague
filed a motion for reconsideration. In
its 31 May 2005 Resolution, the NLRC denied Nacague’s
motion.
Nacague
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Nacague
alleged that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it declared that Sulpicio Lines validly terminated his employment.
The
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
According to the Court of
Appeals, Sulpicio Lines complied with both the
procedural and substantive requirements of the law when it terminated the
employment of Nacague. The Court of Appeals said that the positive
result of the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test was the main
basis of Sulpicio Lines in terminating Nacague’s employment.
The Court of Appeals declared that the evidence presented by Sulpicio Lines was sufficient to justify the conclusion
that Nacague committed serious misconduct and a
breach of trust and confidence warranting his dismissal from employment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC
that Nacague failed to prove his allegation that S.M.
Lazo Clinic lacks accreditation. On the procedural requirements, the Court of
Appeals found that Sulpicio Lines complied with the
twin-notice requirements and conducted a formal hearing.
Nacague
filed a motion for reconsideration. In
its 19 April 2006 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Hence,
this petition.
The
Issue
Nacague
raises the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that his
termination from employment was valid.
The
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
Nacague
maintains that the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test was not
credible because Sulpicio Lines failed to show that
S.M. Lazo Clinic is an authorized drug testing
center. Nacague
also alleges that the urine samples were gathered carelessly without proper labels
to identify their owners and that S.M. Lazo Clinic
did not ask Nacague if he was taking any medication
that might alter the results of the drug test.
Nacague adds that Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A.
No. 9165) and the Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 53-03
(Department Order No. 53-03) require two
drug tests — a screening test and a confirmatory test. Nacague maintains
that, since only a screening test was conducted, he was illegally dismissed based on an
incomplete drug test. Nacague argues that Sulpicio
Lines failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination of his
employment was legal.
On the other hand, Sulpicio Lines questions the belated attempt of Nacague to question the credibility of S.M. Lazo Clinic. Sulpicio Lines also argues that since Nacague
knew that the residue of the drug would no longer be detectable in his body
after five days, Nacague underwent another drug test
with the Chong Hua Hospital. Sulpicio Lines
insists that the most accurate drug test is the random drug test conducted by
S.M. Lazo Clinic and that the test with Chong Hua Hospital was a “planned” test.
Under
Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the services of an
employee for just causes or for authorized causes. Furthermore, under Article
277(b) of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to
be terminated, a written notice stating the causes for termination and must
give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Thus, to
constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must 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.
Contrary to Sulpicio Lines’ allegation, Nacague
was already questioning the credibility of S.M. Lazo
Clinic as early as the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. In fact, the Labor Arbiter declared that the
S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test result was doubtful since
it is not under the supervision of the Dangerous Drug Board.
The NLRC and the Court of
Appeals ruled that Sulpicio Lines validly terminated Nacague’s employment because he was found guilty of using
illegal drugs which constitutes serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. However, we find that Sulpicio
Lines failed to clearly show that Nacague was guilty
of using illegal drugs. We agree with
the Labor Arbiter that the lack of accreditation of S.M. Lazo
Clinic made its drug test results doubtful.
Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165
provides that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing
centers. Moreover, Section 36 also
prescribes that drug testing shall consist of both the screening test and the
confirmatory test. Section 36 of R.A.
No. 9165 reads:
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any
government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories
accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price
of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the
cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2)
testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as
well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a
positive screening test. x x x
(Emphasis supplied)
Department Order No. 53-03
further provides:
Drug Testing Program for Officers and Employees
·
Drug testing shall
conform with the procedures as prescribed by the
Department of Health (DOH) (www.doh.gov.ph).
Only drug testing centers accredited by the DOH shall be utilized. A list of accredited centers may be accessed
through the OSHC website (www.oshc.dole.gov.ph).
·
Drug testing shall
consist of both the screening test and the confirmatory test; the latter to be
carried out should the screening test turn positive. The employee concerned must be
informed of the test results whether positive or negative. (Emphasis supplied)
In Social
Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, we explained:
As to the mechanics of the
test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods,
i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much
as possible the trustworthiness of the results.
But the more important consideration lies in the fact that the tests
shall be conducted by trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories
monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard against results
tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.
The law is
clear that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing
centers. In this case, Sulpicio Lines failed to prove that S.M. Lazo Clinic is an accredited drug testing center. Sulpicio Lines did
not even deny Nacague’s allegation that S.M. Lazo Clinic was not accredited. Also, only a screening test was conducted to
determine if Nacague was guilty of using illegal
drugs. Sulpicio
Lines did not confirm the positive result of the screening test with a
confirmatory test. Sulpicio
Lines failed to indubitably prove that Nacague was
guilty of using illegal drugs amounting to serious misconduct and loss of trust
and confidence. Sulpicio
Lines failed to clearly show that it had a valid and legal cause for
terminating Nacague’s employment. 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.
We agree
with the Labor Arbiter that Nacague’s reinstatement
is no longer feasible due to strained relations between Nacague
and Sulpicio Lines and that Nacague
should instead be granted separation pay.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT
the petition. We SET ASIDE
the 23 January 2006 Decision and
the 19 April 2006 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01065.
We REINSTATE the
12 November 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice