G.R. No. 147572 - TEODORICO ROSARIO, VS. VICTORY RICEMILL.

Ruling

Accordingly, the regional labor arbiter again dismissed, for lack of merit, petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the regional labor arbiter and declared that petitioners dismissal was valid. Petitioner then elevated the case to the CA which rendered the assailed decision. [6] The appellate court accorded respect to the findings of the NLRC. It declared that petitioners act of delivering the merchandise to Edgardo Interior, instead of Felix Hardware, without being authorized to do so by respondent was not only inimical to the latters business interests, but constitutive of insubordination or willful disobedience as well. The CA likewise held that petitioners act of fomenting a fight with a co-worker constituted serious misconduct. It further noted that petitioners contumacious refusal to obey the reasonable orders of respondent was not sufficiently explained. The CA thus found that respondent had justifiable cause to dismiss petitioner. Anent the procedural aspect, the CA observed that although there was no strict compliance with the two-notice rule, it could be gleaned from the records that petitioner was given ample opportunity to explain his side. Moreover, even granting that respondent fell short of the two-notice requirement, such irregularity, according to the CA, does not militate against the legality of the dismissal. [7] The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision, dated August 24, 1998, of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA 0008213-95 (NLRC RAB-II-CN-07-00262-93) is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. [8] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but the CA denied the same in the assailed resolution. Aggrieved, petitioner filed with this Court the instant petition on the ground that: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE QUESTIONED DECISION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING PETITIONERS STANCE THAT HIS DISMISSAL FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PETITIONERS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, HE IS ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY, OVERTIME PAY, INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY AND OTHER BENEFITS GRANTED BY LAW. IN SO DOING, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED A DECISION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE EVIDENCE, LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE. THESE MANIFEST AND GLARING ERRORS, IF NOT CORRECTED, WOULD INEVITABLY WORK INJUSTICE TO HEREIN PETITIONER AND MAKE HIM SUFFER IRREPARABLE DAMAGE. [9] Petitioner presented the following issues for the Courts resolution: I WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS TERMINATION WAS FOR A JUST AND LAWFUL CAUSE. II WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS DISM