DANIEL
O. PADUATA, G.R. No. 170098
Petitioner,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
ABAD,
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY
(MERALCO), Promulgated:
Respondent.
February
29, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need under
company rules for an employee who claims absence due to illness to submit a
medical certificate when he reports for work, showing the reason for his
absence.
The Facts and the Case
As
the Court of Appeals (CA) summarized it, on April 24, 1986 respondent Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) hired petitioner Daniel O. Paduata as Bill Collector.
Having done well in his job, MERALCO
named him One Million Man Collector. Four
years later in 1990 he testified against certain company officials in an
administrative case filed against a co-employee. He claimed harassment afterwards, including
the filing of several administrative cases against him for which he was
exonerated.[1]
MERALCO
suspended Paduata on October 1, 1992 and ultimately dismissed him on December
10, 1992 for collecting a daily average of only 33 bills instead of the
required 100 and for late remittance of collections in violation of MERALCOs Code
on Employee Discipline.[2] On December 14, 1992 he filed a complaint for
illegal suspension and underpayment against MERALCO which the Labor Arbiter decided
in his favor on October 8, 1993. MERALCO
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on August 14,
1995 affirmed the Labor Arbiters ruling. Based on this, MERALCO reinstated Paduata on its
payroll on October 10, 1993 and eventually reinstated him to do actual work at
its Tutuban Branch on May 21, 1997. After
three months or in August 1997, MERALCO transferred him to its Pasay Branch as Bill
Collector and Bill Executioner. Subsequently,
MERALCO promoted him for excellent work to the position of Junior Branch Lineman
with a corresponding salary increase.[3]
After
a year, MERALCO transferred him to its Central Office in Manila District to do
the work of Acting Stockman. He claimed that
this transfer violated the provision of the companys collective bargaining
agreement with the union that an employee may only be transferred for promotion
on the employees written request. After
his new posting, Paduata started incurring several absences due to rheumatic
arthritis.[4] MERALCO averred that these absences were
unauthorized and unexcused since he did not submit the required medical
certificate after they were incurred.[5]
On
May 19, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a notice to attend on May 28 an investigation
of his unauthorized absences from April 28 to May 21, 1999. Paduata appeared with
counsel and presented his affidavit. He
said in it that his absence on April 28, 1999 was due to swollen muscles and
inflamed joints caused by arthritis. On
May 4 his wife called his office to inform it of his illness. On May 11 he submitted a medical certificate to
his office to prove that illness. On May
22 his condition worsened due to fever and flu. On May 24 he went to MERALCOs Satellite
Clinic in
About
a month later, the company doctor, Dr. Rene Sicangco, submitted a report to Mike
De Chavez, Jr., Paduatas supervisor, that Paduata went on self-quartered leave
on July 5, 7, 13 and 14, 1999 but did not present a medical certificate covering
those absences. In turn, De Chavez reported
the matter to MERALCOs Investigation-Legal Department on July 19, 1999.[7]
On
August 11, 1999 De Chavez wrote MERALCOs Investigation-Legal Department again
regarding another report from Dr. Sicangco that Paduata went on a
self-quartered leave on August 2 and 3 and like before did not present the required
medical certificate when he again reported for work on August 4. Later, Paduata did not report for work as well
from August 24 to 30 allegedly due to rheumatic arthritis.[8]
On
September 8, 1999 MERALCO held an investigation of Paduatas unauthorized and
unexcused absences in violation of Section 4(e) of the Company Code on Employee
Discipline that penalizes more than five days of such kinds of absences with
dismissal.[9]
Paduata
submitted a sworn statement in his defense, denying the charges against him and
declaring that on August 23, 1999, the day before his absence from work, his
immediate supervisor, Paquito De Guzman, advised him to stay at home
considering a swollen ankle and difficulty in walking. On August 24 he called De Guzman on the phone
and said that he could not come to work because of his arthritis. He consulted a certain Dr. Saavedra who
advised a 5-day rest and issued him a medical certificate for it. Paduata claimed that a friend named Romy gave the
certificate to De Guzman. Romy told him
that he handed the certificate to the guard who handed it to De Guzman.
Paduata
further said that he reported for work on August 30, prepared a sick report,
and submitted it to De Guzman for approval. After signing it, De Guzman gave the sick report
and the medical certificate back to him with the advice that he instead report
for duty the following day since it was already late in the day. Paduata opted to go to the
Two
months later on November 11, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a memorandum, requiring
him to explain in writing within 72 hours why he should not be penalized for
incurring absences on November 5 and 8 to 11, 1999. Paduata did not submit the required
explanation. He contends that MERALCO sent
the memorandum after he refused to accede to its demand that he file an
application for Special Separation Pay.[11]
On
November 15, 1999 MERALCO wrote Paduata a letter informing him of his dismissal
from the service due to his absences from April 28 to May 21, July 5, 7, 13 to
14, August 2 to 3, and August 24 to 30, all in 1999, without any prior
permission from his superiors. Paduata
maintained, however, that he never got the notice of dismissal, the same having
been sent to a certain Marcelino Paduata in Tondo,
Nine
months after his dismissal or on August 14, 2000, Paduata filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against MERALCO with the NLRC.[13] On April 30, 2001 the Labor Arbiter found MERALCO
guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered it to reinstate Paduata to his former
position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and other benefits
due him and attorneys fees.
The Labor Arbiter held that Paduatas
absences were reasonable, valid and legally justified, as the same were not
intentional but brought about by a recurring illness of rheumatic arthritis
resulting in swollen ankle preventing him to walk.[14] Acknowledging Paduatas recurring illness,
the Labor Arbiter gave MERALCO the option to pay him P255,000.00 as
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.[15]
MERALCO
appealed to the NLRC.[16] On September 30, 2002 the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiters Decision. The NLRC found it unlikely
that Paduata would call his company supervisor but not his doctor for
consultation and a medical certificate. It
was also not likely for that supervisor to recommend disciplinary action against
him for going on leave without notice if he had indeed given such notice. It did not help Paduata that his supervisor
denied advising him not to report for work because he had a swollen ankle or on
another occasion because it was late in the day. The supervisor also denied instructing Paduata
to prepare a sick report in lieu of a medical certificate or having received a
phone call regarding his subordinates absence from work. The NLRC also noted Paduatas
failure to produce a copy of the medical certificate that Dr. Saavedra
supposedly issued to him.[17] Paduata moved for reconsideration, but the
NLRC denied it on June 18, 2003.
Not dissuaded, Paduata filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA,
which affirmed the NLRC Decision on July 29, 2004. The CA held that MERALCO presented evidence
that it complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of dismissal,
supported by documents and memoranda and that, consequently, the burden was on Paduata
to prove that his absences were authorized and excused. The CA found, however, that Paduata failed to
submit credible proof that he gave prior notice of his absences or that he
submitted the medical certificates needed to justify them. He relied solely on his own affidavit. He did not submit the affidavits of the private
physician he allegedly consulted, his wife, or Romy. The CA said that it cannot but conclude that Paduatas
absences were not due to illness or that MERALCO had authorized them. Undeterred, Paduata filed a petition for
review on certiorari before the
Court.
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether
or not the CA erred in rejecting Paduatas defense that he submitted to MERALCO
the medical certificates required of him to justify his absences without prior
leave; and
2. Whether
or not the CA erred in holding that MERALCO gave Paduata a notice that he had
been dismissed.
The Courts Rulings
The
Court finds no viable reason for overturning the decision of the CA.
One. Paduata points out that he submitted the
medical certificates required of him for the absences he incurred from April 28
to May 21, 1999. In fact, MERALCO
doctors from
The following acts shall constitute
violation of this section:
1) Going
on sick leave, including house confinement under the following cases:
a. Without having first personally secured
previous authorization from a Company doctor or Company retained physician and
failing to notify his supervisor or his absence due to illness within 24 hours
from the date of such leave.
b. In the absence of prior authorization,
where the circumstances involving the time of onset of the illness and the
nature thereof directly causes physical inability of the employee to comply
with subsection (1a) above, failing to submit through his relative or any
representative the required medical certification from his private physician
either to his supervisor or to the J. F. Cotton Hospital within 48 hours from
the first date of such leave.
2) Without
prior authorization or justifiable reason, extending the original period of
sick leave previously authorized.
As
Paduata himself admitted, although he did not report for work beginning April
28, 1999, it was not until seven days later or on May 4 that he caused his
wife, contrary to the 24-hour rule above, to call his office about his
inability to come to work due to arthritis.
And when he returned on May 24 after being away from work for more than
three weeks, he did not bother to submit a medical certificate to justify his
long absence. True, he had himself
examined by company physicians on May 24 but that merely proves that he suffered
from arthritis on that date. It does not
prove that he had suffered from that illness from April 28 to May 21, the
period in question when he was absent without permission.
Parenthetically,
Paduata was also absent on July 5 (Monday), 7 (Wednesday), 13 (Tuesday), and 14
(Wednesday), 1999 without prior leave yet he also did not submit the required
medical certificates. These intermittent
unexplained leaves were of course not subject to dismissal but they showed a
pattern of disregard of company rules.
Paduatas
second unexplained leaves were those he incurred from August 24 to 30, 1999, a
period of five days excluding Saturday and Sunday. His defense is that his own supervisor
advised him not to report for work because of swelling on one of his ankles. He consulted a private doctor, Dr. Saavedra,
who issued him a medical certificate which he sent to his supervisor through a
friend. Paduata also claimed that after
getting himself examined by
Two.
Paduata claims that he never received MERALCOs
notice to him of dismissal from the service.
He said that MERALCO sent that notice to a certain Marcelino Paduata in
Tondo,
But
as the CA found, Paduata presented no evidence other than his bare claim that MERALCO
sent its notice of dismissal to someone else in Tondo. MERALCO had sent Paduata quite a number of
memoranda and notices which, like the notice of dismissal, were correctly
addressed to his house in Tanauan, Batangas.
And he received these all. There
was no reason for MERALCO to send the final notice of dismissal to some other
address in Tondo,
Paduata
claims that shortly before MERALCO issued its notice of dismissal, it offered
him separation pay, apparently to avoid a dispute with him. Considering what the Court said in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sedan,[20] that
financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice and
exceptional circumstances, such may be extended to Paduata who apparently
suffered from recurring illness that prevented him from doing his work.[21]
WHEREFORE,
the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the
July 29, 2004 decision and August 30, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP 78573, which affirmed the September 30, 2002 decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CN. 30-08-03230-00 CA
029785-01. The Court ORDERS MERALCO to pay petitioner Daniel
O. Paduata separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of
service from the date of his employment on April 24, 1986.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
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
Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 156-157.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] 521 Phil. 61, 70 (2006).
[21]