64 cavite apparel, incorporated vs michelle marquez

8/19/2019 64 Cavite Apparel, Incorporated vs Michelle Marquez

1/4

BAYONA, MICHAEL KEVIN P.

2AA

CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED and ADRIANO TIMOTEO vs MICHELLE MARQUEZ

FACTS:

Cavite Apparel is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of garments for

export. On August 22, 1994, it hired Michelle as a regular employee in its inishing

!epartment. Michelle en"oyed, among other #enefits, vacation and sic$ leaves of seven %&'

days each per annum. (rior to her dismissal on )une *, 2+++, Michelle committed the

folloing infractions %ith their corresponding penalties'- irst Offense A#sence ithout

leave %A/O0' on !ecem#er , 1999 ritten arning, 3econd Offense A/O0 on )anuary

12, 2+++ stern arning ith three %' days suspension, and 5hird Offense A/O0 on April

2&, 2+++ suspension for six %' days. On May *, 2+++, Michelle got sic$ and did not

report for or$. /hen she returned, she su#mitted a medical certificate. Cavite Apparel,

hoever, denied receipt of the certificate.& Michelle did not report for or$ on May 1672&,

2+++ due to illness. /hen she reported #ac$ to or$, she su#mitted the necessary medical

certificates. 8onetheless, Cavite Apparel suspended Michelle for six %' days %)une 17&,

2+++'. /hen Michelle returned on )une *, 2+++, Cavite Apparel terminated her employment

for ha#itual a#senteeism. 5hereafter, Michelle filed a complaint for illegal dismissal ith

prayer for reinstatement, #ac$ages and attorneys fees ith the 80:C.

;n a decision, 0A :amos dismissed the complaint. 0A :amos considered Michelles four

a#sences ithout official leave as ha#itual and constitutive of gross neglect of duty, a "ust

ground for termination of employment. 0A :amos also declared that due process had #een

o#served in Michelles dismissal, noting that in each of her a#sences, Cavite Apparel

afforded Michelle an opportunity to explain her side and dismissed her only after her fourth

a#sence.

On appeal #y Michelle, the 80:C rendered a decision reversing 0A :amos decision. 5he

80:C noted that for Michelles first three a#sences, she had already #een penali


2/4

/O8, the CA failed to consider Michelles four %4' A/O0s over a period of six months, from

!ecem#er 1999 to May 2+++, as a ha#itual a#senteeism ma$ing it tena#le to dismiss its

employee, Michelle.

HELD:

8O. 5he court finds that CA did not commit grave a#use of discretion in ruling that Michelle

had #een illegally dismissed.

Michelle’s four absences were not habitual; "totality of infractions" doctrine not

applicable

Cavite Apparel argues that Michelles penchant for incurring unauthori


3/4

hesitate to disregard a penalty that is manifestly disproportionate to the infraction

committed.

Michelle might have #een guilty of violating company rules on leaves of a#sence and

employee discipline, still e find the penalty of dismissal imposed on her un"ustified under

the circumstances. As earlier mentioned, Michelle had #een in Cavite Apparels employ forsix years, ith no derogatory record other than the four a#sences ithout official leave in

@uestion, not to mention that she had already #een penali


4/4

at sta$e is not merely the employees position #ut his very livelihood and perhaps the life

and su#sistence of his family.

/>D:DO:D, premises considered, the petition is !D8;D!. 5he assailed )anuary 2, 2++

decision and March 2, 2++ resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA7=.:. 3( 8o. *9*19 are

A;:MD!. Costs against Cavite Apparel, ;ncorporated.

64 cavite apparel, incorporated vs michelle marquez

Documents