Press vs.

Galit
GR No. 153510
February 13, 2008
Petitioners
R.B. Michael Press
Annalene Reyes Escobia
Respondent
Nicasio G. Galit
The Facts
May 1, 1997: Galit was employed by
Press as an offset machine operator,
with schedule 8 AM to 5 PM,
Mondays to Saturdays, and a salary
of PHP 230 per day
For the duration of his employment,
Galit was:
o Tardy 190 times (6,117 minutes
total)
o Absent without leave for 9 and
days
February 22, 1999: Galit was
ordered to render overtime service
to comply with a job order deadline
but he refused to do so
February 23, 1999: Galit reported
for work but Escobia told him not to,
and to instead return for a hearing
that afternoon at 4 PM; upon his
return, he was given an Office
Memorandum
Office Memorandum contained a
warning for dismissal and a list of
offenses, consisting of the following:
o Habitual
and
excessive
tardiness
o Committing acts of discourtesy
o Failure to work overtime after
having been instructed to do so
o Insubordination

willfully
disobeying,
defying
or
disregarding company authority
February 24, 1999: Galit was
terminated, and was given his twoday salary and a termination letter,
containing the result of the hearing,
in which Galit admitted his offenses
Galit filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and money claims
before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC)

The Issues
Main contentions:
1. Cause of termination
2. Due process in termination
3. Entitlement to backwages
October 29, 1999: labor arbiter
decided that Galit was illegally
dismissed and ordered Press and
Escobia to reinstate Galit to his
former position without loss of
seniority rights and other benefits,
as well as be paid in full backwages
computed from the time he was
illegally dismissed up to the time of
his actual reimbursement
January 3, 2000: Galit and Escobia
appealed the case to the NLRC,
which dismissed it for lack of merit;
they then filed a Petition for
Certiorari with the Court of Appeals
November 4, 2001: Court of Appeals
decided to affirm the decision of the
NLRC, with modification
o Modification: backwages should
be computed from February 22,
1999 up to the finality of the
CAs decision, plus the 13th
month and service incentive
leave pay
o CA found that the termination
was caused by Galits refusal to
do overtime work on February
22, 1999, and not his tardiness
and absences
o CA also found that he could not
have
afforded
ample
opportunity to explain his side
and to adduce evidence
December 3, 2001: Press and
Escobia asked for reconsideration
May 7, 2002: Press and Escobia
were denied; but they instituted an
instant
petition
regarding
the
following issues:
o Whether there was just cause to
terminate the employment of
Galit and whether due process
was observed in the dismissal
process
o Whether respondent is entitled
to backwages and other benefits

despite his
reinstated

refusal

to

be

Held
1. Tardiness constituting neglect of
duty
o Labor
Arbiter:
petitioners
already deducted corresponding
amounts to salary and hence
cannot punish him further for
tardiness; no admonition had
been given, which signifies the
petitioners condoning of his
offenses
o Court of Appeals: no evidence
to show that he had been
warned or reprimanded for his
tardiness
o Supreme
Court:
disagrees,
says no admonition or sanctions
does not mean condonation;
waiver only valid if clear and
unequivocal; deduction from
salary is not a penalty because
he is really only supposed to be
paid on the days he worked

Reference: Cando vs. NLRC

(employee absenteeism; burden
of proof is upon employee to
adduce
evidence
that
demonstrate
condonation
or
waiver from the management)
Reference:
Filipio
vs.
The
Honorable Minister Blas F. Ople
(employees past infractions can
only be used as supporting
justification at most for a
subsequent similar offense; since
Press did not impose prior
punishments, he can use Galits
infractions
as
ground
for
dismissal without it becoming
double jeopardy)

2. Insubordination
or
willful
disobedience
o Court
of
Appeals:
serious
misconduct not sustained, but
insubordination is meritorious
(SC agrees)
o Elements
of
willful
disobedience:
Employees
assailed
conduct must have been
willful or characterized by a
wrongful
and
perverse
attitude

Order violated must have

been reasonable, lawful,
made
known
to
the
employee, and must pertain
to the duties which he had
been engaged to discharge
o Presss request for Galit to
render overtime service to meet
a production deadline complies
with
the
second
requisite
(Article 89 of the Labor Code),
especially due to the nature of
his business (a printing press)
o Galit, according to Dennis
Reyes,
apparently
had
no
apparent reason for refusing to
render overtime work, while
Galit claims that he was not
feeling well that day

Reference: Lakpue Drug vs.

Belga (willfulness defined as a
wrongful and perverse mental
attitude rendering employees to
act inconsistent with proper
subordination)

o Excuse is believed to be an
afterthought, as proven by how
he stayed for work the rest of
the day, and even tried to go to
work the next day, thus making
his disobedience willful
o Both
requisites
for
willful
disobedience
are
therefore
fulfilled by Galit, who can be
reasonably believed to have
been a difficult employee
3. Due process
o Press claims they maintained
due process by giving Galit two
notices
and
scheduling
a
hearing for him to explain and
defend himself
o Supreme
Court:
disagrees,
believes Presss two notices
were insufficient and that the
hearing was unfair
Reference:
Agabon
vs.
NLRC (two written notices
and a hearing)
o Twin notice requirement
1st
notice:
apprise
employees of their fault
2nd notice: communicate to
the employees that their

evidence against them, as well as

for
them
to
have
proper
representation; second notice
must indicate all circumstances
involving the charge against the
employee have been considered
and that grounds have been
established to justify severance)

employment
is
being
terminated
o Purpose
of
hearing:
for
employees to defend himself
personally or by the counsel of
his choice

Reference:
King
of
Kings
Transport v. Mamac (first written
notice must contain specific
grounds
or
causes
for
termination, a detailed narration
of facts for the basis of
termination, a directive that the
employees
are
given
the
opportunity to submit a written
explanation within a reasonable
period of at least 5 days so they
can consult a union official or
lawyer and prepare, and a list of
company rules violated; hearing
must allow employee to explain
and
clarify
their
defenses,
present evidence, and rebut the

o SC believes that respondent

was not given a real opportunity
to defend himself, as the
hearing was scheduled on the
same day he received the first
notice, thus not allowing him to
consult an official or lawyer, or
to prepare a defense
o Serious breach of due process
SC declares Galits dismissal as
valid and legal, but petitioners are
ordered to pay him nominal
damages worth PHP 30,000 for
violation of his right to due process