Dongon v. Rapid Movers

Management prerogative will be upheld as long as it is not wielded as an
[15] Nathaniel M. Dongon v. Rapid Movers implement to circumvent the laws and oppress labor.
G.R No. 163431; Aug. 28, 2013; Bersamin, J.:
FACTS:
SUMMARY: - Rapid is a hauling and trucking business while private respondent

Nathaniel T. Dongon is a former truck helper leadman. Job was to
Dongon lent his I.D to Villaruz because the latter did not have his I.D to enter facilitate, loading and unloading of trucks, in Tanduay Otis Warehouse.
the Warehouse. Security saw the misrepresentation and reported it to
management. Dongon was dismissed for dishonesty. Labor Arbiter - Security guard called the attention of Private respondent, because
dismissed complaint for dismissal because it was right and he admitted to his driver, Mr. Villaruz, was not wearing an I.D. He assured security that
the act and such act was dishonest and prejudicial. NLRC reversed the he will secure special permission form management.
decision because Rapid Movers did not sustain pecuniary damage and could
not prove validity of dismissal. CA reinstated the decision of the NLRC, - Instead he lent his I.D to Villaruz, and by reason of such
because the act constituted a breach in the rules and regulations of the misrepresentation, they got clearance from Tanduay. The security guard
company. SC reinstated NLRC decision [see doctrine] who saw them commit such act reported the matter to management.
- Private respondent was dismissed (May 23 2001), filed complaint for

illegal dismissal.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
- Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. Held it was right to dismiss
Art 282 “Termination by Employer — An employer may terminate an employment for since:
any of the following causes: o He admitted to the act
o Act constituted dishonesty
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of o Companies relationship jeopardized by act
his employer or representative in connection with his work;
o Tanduay banned him from all warehouses. Hence, Rapid
Movers had no available job for him.
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
- On appeal, NLRC, reversed the Labor Arbiter. Opined that Rapid
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative; Movers had not discharged its burden to prove the validity of dismissal
because it did not suffer any pecuniary damage.
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized - CA, reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and uphold right of
representatives; and Rapid Movers to discipline its workers.
o “Considering that this amounts to dishonesty and is provided for
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. in the petitioning Company’s Manual of Discipline, its
imposition is but proper and appropriate”
o “It is basic in any enterprise that an employee has the obligation
of following the rules and regulations of its employer.”
o “It should be noted that honesty is one of the foremost criteria of
DOCTRINE:
an employer when hiring a prospective employee.”
The exercise of a management prerogative like this is not limitless, but
hemmed in by good faith and a due consideration of the rights of the worker.
o “The act of uttering or the making of a falsehood does not need - Conduct of employee should constitutes harmful behavior against
any pecuniary estimate for the act to gestate to one punishable the business interest or person of his employer.
under the labor laws”
o Constitutional protection afforded to labor does not condone
- The disobedience attributed to petitioner could not be justly
wrongdoings. Employers power to discipline its workers is
characterized as willful within the contemplation of Article 296 of the
inherent.
o The Constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is Labor
not intended to oppress or destroy management (Capili vs.
NLRC)” - Code. He neither benefitted from it, nor thereby prejudiced the
business interest of Rapid Movers.
- CA denied motion. Hence appeal to SC.
- His explanation that his deed had been intended to benefit Rapid
Movers was credible.
ISSUE/RATIO: - Rapid Movers agrues, that the strict implementation of company

rules and regulations should be accorded respect as a valid exercise of
1. Was the petition improper and dismissible? NO its management prerogative.
- Contentions on whether Rule 45 or Rule 65 should be used, and - Court cannot sustain the argument because the exercise of a
what kind of certiorari. management prerogative like this is not limitless, but hemmed in by
good faith and a due consideration of the rights of the worker.
- Court deems it proper to allow due course to the petition in the Management prerogative will be upheld as long as it is not wielded as an
broader interest of substantial justice. Given the spirit and intention of implement to circumvent the laws and oppress labor.
labor laws of resolving a doubtful situation in favor of the working man.
- Dismissal should be last resort.
- Focus to put at rest the doubt that the CA, in so doing, exercised its
judicial authority oppressively. Rather than if petition was proper or not. - Employer should exercise the prerogative to discipline humanely
and considerately. Should consider the employee’s length of service and
the number of infractions during employment.
2. If the petition could prosper was the dismissal of petitioner on the - Considered that petitioner’s motive was to benefit Rapid Movers to
ground of willful disobedience to the company regulation lawful? NO facilitate loading of goods. And worked 7 years for Rapid Movers.
- Willful disobedience to the lawful orders is a valid ground under the

labor code, Art. 196 (Formerly 282) of the Labor Code.
RULING:
- For willful disobedience to be a ground:
o 1. The conduct of the employee must be willful or Wherefore, the Court GRANTS the petition; Reverses and Sets Aside the
intentional; decision promulgated by the CA; Reinstates the decision of the NLRC.
o 2. The order the employee violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and
must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to
discharge.

Dongon v. Rapid Movers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dongon v. Rapid Movers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dongon v. Rapid Movers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management prerogative will be upheld as long as it is not wielded as an

G.R No. 163431; Aug. 28, 2013; Bersamin, J.:

SUMMARY: - Rapid is a hauling and trucking business while private respondent

- Private respondent was dismissed (May 23 2001), filed complaint for

ISSUE/RATIO: - Rapid Movers agrues, that the strict implementation of company

- Willful disobedience to the lawful orders is a valid ground under the

You might also like