bughaw v. treasure island industrial

2
7/21/2019 Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bughaw-v-treasure-island-industrial 1/2 EDUARDO BUGHAW V TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL FACTS: -Eduardo Bughaw (Bughaw) was employed as production worker by Treasure Island Industrial (TII), respondent. -Erlito oberanes (oberanes), an employee o! TII was caught in flagrante delicto by the police o!!icers while in possession o! shabu. -In the course o! police in"estigation, oberanes admitted the commission o! the crime and implicated petitioner, Bughaw, by stating that part o! the money used !or buying the illegal drugs  was gi"en by Bughaw, and the illegal drugs purchased were !or their consumption !or the rest o! the month. -TII sent a memo to Bughaw. The memo contains the !!: (#) notice o! the $%-day pre"enti"e suspension (&) 'n instruction reuiring him to eplain within #&% hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed against him !or his alleged in"ol"ement in illegal drug acti"ities. ($) 'n instruction reuiring him to appear at the o!!ice o! respondent*s legal counsel !or the hearing on the matter. -Bughaw !ailed to appear be!ore the TII*s legal counsel on the scheduled hearing date. -TII sent a second letter to petitioner directing him to attend another administrati"e hearing but petitioner once again !ailed to show up. -In a third letter  addressed to Bughaw, TII terminated the latter*s employment !or using illegal drugs within company premises during working hours, and !or re!usal to attend the administrati"e hearing and submit written eplanation on the charges hurled against him. -Therea!ter, Bughaw !iled a complaint !or illegal dismissal against TII and its +resident, Emmanuel ng, be!ore the abor 'rbiter. e argues that: -e had been working !or the respondent !or # years and he was "ery conscientious with his  /ob. -e was suspended !or $% days on the un!ounded allegation o! his co-worker that he used illegal drugs within company premises. -0hen he reported back to work a!ter the epiration o! his suspension, he was no longer allowed by respondent to enter the work premises and was told not to report back to work. -LA: 1endered a 2ecision in !a"or o! Bughaw based on the !!: (#) TII !ailed to present substantial e"idence to establish the charge le"eled against the Bughaw. 'part !rom oberanes*s statements on petitioner*s alleged illegal drug use, no other corroborating proo! was o!!ered by respondent to /usti!y petitioner*s dismissal. (&)TII !ailed to comply with due process when it immediately suspended petitioner and e"entually dismissed him !rom employment. Bughaw3s immediate suspension was not /usti!ied since no e"idence was submitted by the TII to establish that Bughaw3s continued employment pending in"estigation poses a serious and imminent threat to respondent*s li!e or property or to the li!e or property o! petitioner*s co-workers. ($)The notices o! hearing sent by TII to Bughaw were not duly recei"ed by the latter. -NLRC: '!!irmed the abor 'rbiter*s 2ecision. -CA: 1e"ersed the 2ecisions o! the abor 'rbiter and 415 on the grounds o! patent misappreciation o! e"idence and misapplication o! law. 5' !ound that Bughaw was a!!orded the opportunity to eplain and de!end himsel! !rom the accusations against him when TTI ga"e him notices o! hearing. The essence o! due process in administrati"e proceedings is simply an opportunity to eplain one*s side or to seek reconsideration o! the action or ruling complained o!. 2ue process is not "iolated where one is gi"en the opportunity to be heard but he chooses not to eplain his side ISSUE: 04 Bughaw was illegally dimissed. HELD: 4o, but Bughaw is entitled to nominal damages. RATIONALE: - '1T &6& pro"ides:  'n employer may terminate an employment !or any o! the !ollowing causes: (a) Serious misconduc or !i""#u" diso$edience $% &e em'"o%ee o# &e "(!#u" orders o# &is em'"o%er or re'resen(i)e in connecion !i& &is !or*+ (b) 7ross and habitual neglect by the employee o! his duties8

Upload: mae-palgan

Post on 09-Mar-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial

7/21/2019 Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bughaw-v-treasure-island-industrial 1/2

EDUARDO BUGHAW V TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL

FACTS:

-Eduardo Bughaw (Bughaw) was employed as production worker by Treasure Island Industrial (TII),respondent.-Erlito oberanes (oberanes), an employee o! TII was caught in flagrante delicto by the police o!!icerswhile in possession o! shabu.-In the course o! police in"estigation, oberanes admitted the commission o! the crime and implicatedpetitioner, Bughaw, by stating that part o! the money used !or buying the illegal drugs  was gi"en byBughaw, and the illegal drugs purchased were !or their consumption !or the rest o! the month.-TII sent a memo to Bughaw. The memo contains the !!: (#) notice o! the $%-day pre"enti"e suspension(&) 'n instruction reuiring him to eplain within #&% hours why no disciplinary action should be imposedagainst him !or his alleged in"ol"ement in illegal drug acti"ities. ($) 'n instruction reuiring him toappear at the o!!ice o! respondent*s legal counsel !or the hearing on the matter.-Bughaw !ailed to appear be!ore the TII*s legal counsel on the scheduled hearing date.-TII sent a second letter to petitioner directing him to attend another administrati"e hearing but petitioner once again !ailed to show up.-In a third letter   addressed to Bughaw, TII terminated the latter*s employment !or using illegal drugswithin company premises during working hours, and !or re!usal to attend the administrati"e hearing andsubmit written eplanation on the charges hurled against him.

-Therea!ter, Bughaw !iled a complaint !or illegal dismissal against TII and its +resident, Emmanuel ng,be!ore the abor 'rbiter. e argues that:

-e had been working !or the respondent !or # years and he was "ery conscientious with his /ob.-e was suspended !or $% days on the un!ounded allegation o! his co-worker that he usedillegal drugs within company premises.-0hen he reported back to work a!ter the epiration o! his suspension, he was no longer allowed by respondent to enter the work premises and was told not to report back to work.

-LA: 1endered a 2ecision in !a"or o! Bughaw based on the !!:(#) TII !ailed to present substantial e"idence to establish the charge le"eled against theBughaw. 'part !rom oberanes*s statements on petitioner*s alleged illegal drug use, no other corroborating proo! was o!!ered by respondent to /usti!y petitioner*s dismissal.(&)TII !ailed to comply with due process when it immediately suspended petitioner ande"entually dismissed him !rom employment. Bughaw3s immediate suspension was not /usti!ied

since no e"idence was submitted by the TII to establish that Bughaw3s continued employmentpending in"estigation poses a serious and imminent threat to respondent*s li!e or property or tothe li!e or property o! petitioner*s co-workers.($)The notices o! hearing sent by TII to Bughaw were not duly recei"ed by the latter.

-NLRC: '!!irmed the abor 'rbiter*s 2ecision.-CA: 1e"ersed the 2ecisions o! the abor 'rbiter and 415 on the grounds o! patent misappreciationo! e"idence and misapplication o! law. 5' !ound that Bughaw was a!!orded the opportunity to eplainand de!end himsel! !rom the accusations against him when TTI ga"e him notices o! hearing. Theessence o! due process in administrati"e proceedings is simply an opportunity to eplain one*s side or toseek reconsideration o! the action or ruling complained o!. 2ue process is not "iolated where one isgi"en the opportunity to be heard but he chooses not to eplain his side

ISSUE:

04 Bughaw was illegally dimissed.

HELD:

4o, but Bughaw is entitled to nominal damages.

RATIONALE:

- '1T &6& pro"ides: 'n employer may terminate an employment !or any o! the !ollowing causes:

(a) Serious misconduc or !i""#u" diso$edience $% &e em'"o%ee o# &e "(!#u" orders o#&is em'"o%er or re'resen(i)e in connecion !i& &is !or*+

(b) 7ross and habitual neglect by the employee o! his duties8

Page 2: Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial

7/21/2019 Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bughaw-v-treasure-island-industrial 2/2

(c) 9raud or will!ul breach by the employee o! the trust reposed in him by his employer or hisduly authoried representati"e8

(d) 5ommission o! a crime or o!!ense by the employee against the person o! his employer orany immediate member o! his !amily or his duly authoried representati"e8 and

(e) ther causes analogous to the !oregoing.

-T&e c&(r,e o# dru, ($use inside &e com'(n%s 'remises (nd durin, !or*in, &ours (,(insBu,&(! consiues serious misconduc. !&ic& is one o# &e /us c(uses #or ermin(ion0;isconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression o! some established and de!inite rule o! action. ( #or$idden (c. ( dere"icion o# du%. !i"#u" in c&(r(cer. (nd im'"ies !ron,#u" inen (ndno mere"% (n error in /ud,men. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning o! the 'ct must beo! such a gra"e and aggra"ated character and not merely tri"ial or unimportant. <uch misconduct,howe"er serious, must ne"ertheless, in connection with the work o! the employee, constitute /ust cause!or his separation. T&is Cour oo* /udici(" noice o# scieni#ic #indin,s &( dru, ($use c(nd(m(,e &e men(" #(cu"ies o# &e user0 I is $e%ond 1uesion &ere#ore &( (n% em'"o%ee under &e in#"uence o# dru,s c(nno 'ossi$"% coninue doin, &is duies !i&ou 'osin, ( serious &re(o &e "i)es (nd 'ro'er% o# &is co-!or*ers (nd e)en &is em'"o%er0- In administrati"e proceedings, technical rules o! procedure and e"idence are not strictly applied andadministrati"e due process cannot be !ully euated with due process in its strict /udicial sense. ence,

the s(emen o# Lo$er(nes &( Bu,&(! !(s ( s&($u user is su$s(ni(" e)idence !&ic& &e"(er #(i"ed o re#ue0 1ecords show that the !irst and second letters addressed to Bughaw were dulyrecei"ed by him.- owe"er, not only must the dismissal be !or a /ust or authoried cause, the rudimentary reuirementso! due process - notice and hearing - must, likewise, be obser"ed be!ore an employee may bedismissed. There must also be obser"ance o! the reuirements o! due process, otherwise known as thetwo-notice rule.-The !irst notice, which may be considered as the proper charge, ser"es to apprise the employee o! theparticular acts or omissions !or which his dismissal is sought. The second notice on the other handseeks to in!orm the employee o! the employer*s decision to dismiss him. This decision, howe"er, mustcome only a!ter the employee is gi"en a reasonable period !rom receipt o! the !irst notice within which toanswer the charge and ample opportunity to be heard and de!end himsel! with the assistance o! arepresentati"e i! he so desires. This is in consonance with the epress pro"ision o! the law on theprotection to labor and the broader dictates o! procedural due process. 4on-compliance therewith is!atal because these reuirements are conditions sine ua non be!ore dismissal may be "alidly e!!ected.-There is no dispute that TII !ully complied with the !irst-notice reuirement apprising Bughaw o! thecause o! his impending termination and gi"ing him the opportunity to eplain his side, howe"er, we !indthat it !ailed to satis!y the need !or a second notice in!orming petitioner that he was being dismissed!rom employment.- The law mandates that it is incumbent upon the employer to pro"e the "alidity o! the termination o! employment. The burden there!ore is on TII to present clear and unmistakable proo! that Bughaw wasduly ser"ed a copy o! the notice o! termination but he re!used receipt. There is nothing on record thatwould indicate that respondent e"en attempted to ser"e or tender the notice o! termination to Bughaw.-The "iolation o! the petitioners* right to statutory due process by the pri"ate respondent warrants thepayment o! indemnity in the !orm o! nominal damages. (cited 'gabon ". 415) The amount o! suchdamages is addressed to the sound discretion o! the court, taking into account the rele"antcircumstances. Tthis !orm o! damages would ser"e to deter employers !rom !uture "iolations o! thestatutory due process rights o! employees. 't the "ery least, it pro"ides a "indication or recognition o! this !undamental right granted to the latter under the abor 5ode and its Implementing 1ules.

-5on!ormably, the award o! backwages by the abor 'rbiter and the 415 should be deleted and,instead, Bughaw should be indemni!ied in the amount o! +$%,%%%.%% as nominal damages.

<ource: https:==www.google.com.ph=url>sa?t@rct?/@?@esrc?s@source?web@cd?#@cad?r/a@uact?6@"ed?%ahAEw/CibDuFG'hFGH%"'H'H9ggb;''@url?httpJ$'J&9J&9a.yimg.comJ&9kJ&9groupsJ&9&&$K#K&6J&9K%%#6L#LLJ&9nameJ&9EduardoJ&BBughawJ&B"J&BTreasureJ&BIslandJ&BIndustrial.doc@usg?'9H/549+TKDHECp+&Fak7'ceuLuaB-w@sig&?7e<wt1H%HG4bb$Ds$0Lg@b"m?b".#%6#MN%N%,d.d7o