G.R. No. 139847 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDGARDO BONDESTO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissing the complaint. Considering, however, the respondents length of service to the company, the arbiter awarded separation pay at the rate equivalent to one-half (1/2) months salary for every year of service. The respondent appealed to the NLRC which, on April 23, 1998, reversed the labor arbiters decision and found the respondents dismissal illegal. [13] Finding the respondents absences to be justified, the NLRC ruled that his absences from work were actually spent in following-up reimbursement of the expenses he incurred during the provincial assignment. The absences could have been caused by the petitioners delay in processing the reimbursement, the NLRC pointed out. It also took into consideration the fact that the children of the respondent were in and out of the hospital during the months of February and March of 1994. With respect, however, to the absences incurred during the months of May and June, the NLRC ruled that the respondent failed to show that he exerted any effort in trying to locate his physician. Nevertheless, the NLRC considered the penalty of termination too harsh, and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with limited back wages equivalent to one (1) year. The petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC Decision , but its motion was denied in a Resolution [14] dated July 29, 1998. Undaunted, the petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, [15] arguing that (1) the respondents dismissal is justified because he deliberately disregarded the company rules and regulations on leaves and absences; (2) the respondents absences were not only unauthorized but also unjustified, and; (3) the reinstatement of the respondent is no longer feasible in view of the strained relations between the parties. In the meantime, the respondent filed a Motion for Execution [16] of the NLRC Decision . On January 18, 1999, the labor arbiter issued a Writ of Execution directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his former position, without loss of seniority rights and other employee benefits. In compliance with the writ, the petitioner reinstated the respondent in its payroll, effective February 25, 1999. On June 16, 1999, the appellate court rendered a Decision [17] affirming the NLRC judgment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ordered the respondents reinstatement with limited back wages equivalent to one (1) year. Its Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals per the latters Resolution [18] dated August 26, 1999, the petitioner now seeks relief from this Court. Relying once more on its defense of just cause for termination, the petitioner insists that the respondents violation of the company rules and regulations on absences constitutes serious misconduct and/or willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his superiors. The pivotal issue is whether the respondent was terminated from service for a just cause or whether he was ill