Paduata v. MERALCO (G.R. No. 170098. February 29, 2012)
CASE DIGEST: DANIEL O. PADUATA, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), Respondent. Paduata v. MERALCO (G.R. No. 170098; February 29, 2012). Paduata v. MERALCO (G.R. No. 170098. February 29, 2012).
FACTS: Respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) hired petitioner Daniel O. Paduata as Bill Collector. Having done well in his job, MERALCO named him One Million Man Collector. Several years after, MERALCO transferred him to its Central Office in Manila District to do the work of Acting Stockman. After his new posting, Paduata started incurring several absences due to rheumatic arthritis. MERALCO averred that these absences were unauthorized and unexcused since he did not submit the required medical certificate after they were incurred.
On May 19, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a notice to attend on May 28 an investigation of his unauthorized absences from April 28 to May 21, 1999. Paduata appeared with counsel and presented his affidavit.
On September 8, 1999 MERALCO held an investigation of Paduatas unauthorized and unexcused absences in violation of Section 4(e) of the Company Code on Employee Discipline that penalizes more than five days of such kinds of absences with dismissal.
Two months later on November 11, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a memorandum, requiring him to explain in writing within 72 hours why he should not be penalized for incurring absences on November 5 and 8 to 11, 1999. Paduata did not submit the required explanation. He contends that MERALCO sent the memorandum after he refused to accede to its demand that he file an application for Special Separation Pay.
On November 15, 1999 MERALCO wrote Paduata a letter informing him of his dismissal from the service due to his absences from April 28 to May 21, July 5, 7, 13 to 14, August 2 to 3, and August 24 to 30, all in 1999, without any prior permission from his superiors. Paduata maintained, however, that he never got the notice of dismissal, the same having been sent to a certain Marcelino Paduata in Tondo, Manila. Paduata filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MERALCO with the NLRC.The Labor Arbiter found MERALCO guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered it to reinstate Paduata. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision. The same was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUES: Did the CA in rejecting Paduatas defense that he submitted to MERALCO the medical certificates required of him to justify his absences without prior leave?
Did the CA err in holding that MERALCO gave Paduata a notice that he had been dismissed?
HELD: As Paduata himself admitted, although he did not report for work beginning April 28, 1999, it was not until seven days later or on May 4 that he caused his wife, contrary to the 24-hour company rule, to call his office about his inability to come to work due to arthritis. And when he returned on May 24 after being away from work for more than three weeks, he did not bother to submit a medical certificate to justify his long absence. True, he had himself examined by company physicians on May 24 but that merely proves that he suffered from arthritis on that date. It does not prove that he had suffered from that illness from April 28 to May 21, the period in question when he was absent without permission. Parenthetically, Paduata was also absent on July 5 (Monday), 7 (Wednesday), 13 (Tuesday), and 14 (Wednesday), 1999 without prior leave yet he also did not submit the required medical certificates. These intermittent unexplained leaves were of course not subject to dismissal but they showed a pattern of disregard of company rules.
Paduata's second unexplained leaves were those he incurred from August 24 to 30, 1999, a period of five days excluding Saturday and Sunday.
As the CA found, Paduata presented no evidence other than his bare claim that MERALCO sent its notice of dismissal to someone else in Tondo. MERALCO had sent Paduata quite a number of memoranda and notices which, like the notice of dismissal, were correctly addressed to his house in Tanauan, Batangas. And he received these all. There was no reason for MERALCO to send the final notice of dismissal to some other address in Tondo, Manila.
FACTS: Respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) hired petitioner Daniel O. Paduata as Bill Collector. Having done well in his job, MERALCO named him One Million Man Collector. Several years after, MERALCO transferred him to its Central Office in Manila District to do the work of Acting Stockman. After his new posting, Paduata started incurring several absences due to rheumatic arthritis. MERALCO averred that these absences were unauthorized and unexcused since he did not submit the required medical certificate after they were incurred.
On May 19, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a notice to attend on May 28 an investigation of his unauthorized absences from April 28 to May 21, 1999. Paduata appeared with counsel and presented his affidavit.
On September 8, 1999 MERALCO held an investigation of Paduatas unauthorized and unexcused absences in violation of Section 4(e) of the Company Code on Employee Discipline that penalizes more than five days of such kinds of absences with dismissal.
Two months later on November 11, 1999 MERALCO sent Paduata a memorandum, requiring him to explain in writing within 72 hours why he should not be penalized for incurring absences on November 5 and 8 to 11, 1999. Paduata did not submit the required explanation. He contends that MERALCO sent the memorandum after he refused to accede to its demand that he file an application for Special Separation Pay.
On November 15, 1999 MERALCO wrote Paduata a letter informing him of his dismissal from the service due to his absences from April 28 to May 21, July 5, 7, 13 to 14, August 2 to 3, and August 24 to 30, all in 1999, without any prior permission from his superiors. Paduata maintained, however, that he never got the notice of dismissal, the same having been sent to a certain Marcelino Paduata in Tondo, Manila. Paduata filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MERALCO with the NLRC.The Labor Arbiter found MERALCO guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered it to reinstate Paduata. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision. The same was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUES: Did the CA in rejecting Paduatas defense that he submitted to MERALCO the medical certificates required of him to justify his absences without prior leave?
Did the CA err in holding that MERALCO gave Paduata a notice that he had been dismissed?
HELD: As Paduata himself admitted, although he did not report for work beginning April 28, 1999, it was not until seven days later or on May 4 that he caused his wife, contrary to the 24-hour company rule, to call his office about his inability to come to work due to arthritis. And when he returned on May 24 after being away from work for more than three weeks, he did not bother to submit a medical certificate to justify his long absence. True, he had himself examined by company physicians on May 24 but that merely proves that he suffered from arthritis on that date. It does not prove that he had suffered from that illness from April 28 to May 21, the period in question when he was absent without permission. Parenthetically, Paduata was also absent on July 5 (Monday), 7 (Wednesday), 13 (Tuesday), and 14 (Wednesday), 1999 without prior leave yet he also did not submit the required medical certificates. These intermittent unexplained leaves were of course not subject to dismissal but they showed a pattern of disregard of company rules.
Paduata's second unexplained leaves were those he incurred from August 24 to 30, 1999, a period of five days excluding Saturday and Sunday.
As the CA found, Paduata presented no evidence other than his bare claim that MERALCO sent its notice of dismissal to someone else in Tondo. MERALCO had sent Paduata quite a number of memoranda and notices which, like the notice of dismissal, were correctly addressed to his house in Tanauan, Batangas. And he received these all. There was no reason for MERALCO to send the final notice of dismissal to some other address in Tondo, Manila.