G.R. No. 162583 CASE DIGEST

ALBERTO NAVARRO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. INC., et al.
G.R. No. 162583, 8 June 8 2007, SECOND DIVISION (Quisimbing, J.)
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
Fortuitous events are outside of a man’s control and no one can anticipate when
or where an event like this occur. Therefore, it is absurd for an employer to ask their
employee to file a prior notice of leave of absence in the company due to fortuitous events.
Moreover, it is wrongful for the employer to terminate or dismissed the employee who
absented him/herself to work due to occurrence of fortuitous events even though he
unintentionally violated the disciplinary and regulation of the company.
Navarro, absented himself from work without a prior notice due to heavy rain that
cause floods in their residential area, a kind of fortuitous events. Despite of the completion
of written explanation and application of leave of absence in the succeeding days, the
company still dismissed him. In the presence of fortuitous events in the case, the
dismissal of Navarro from his work is deemed illegal.
FACTS
Alberto Navarro (Navarro) was an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.

(Coca-Cola) from more than a decade. He work as a forklifter operator since November
1, 11987 to February 27, 1998. On August 11, 1997, Navarro did not report from work
due to heavy rain and floods in his area.
The Coca-Cola has a Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations, which includes
Rule 002-85. Section 4(i) of the rule provided for the penalty of DISCHARGE for a tenth
AWOP/AWOL, whether consecutive or not, following other AWOP/AWOLs within one
calendar year. In a memorandum issued by Coca-Cola in October 1, 1987, Navarro was
required to explain in a writing within 24 hours why no punishment should be imposed
upon him for his tenth absence without permission.
Navarro explained the reason of his absence in his written explanation
accompanied by the certification of his Barangay Captain, was due to heavy rain and
subsequent flooding in their Barangay. Then Navarro, filled a supplemental written
explanation, in lieu of answers to questionnaire provided by the company. He stated that
his house is heavily flooded and that on the next day, he immediately filled and application
of leave of absence.
However, despite of his compliance to the company’s requirements and
explanation he was still dismissed from his work on February 27, 1998 and given notice
of termination.
This led to Navarro filling a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal
dismissal, which was dismissed by the LA for lack of merit. He then appeal to National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC ruled in favor of Navarro, revising the
LA decision. The NLRC annulled and set aside the LA decision, in a resolution.
The Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. elevated the case to Court of Appeals (CA). The
CA annulled the NLRC resolution and the LA decision was reinstated with modification.
Coca-Cola was ordered to pay Navarro a separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2)
month for every year of his service from November 1, 1987 until his dismissal on February
27, 1998.
ISSUE
Should the company allowed Navarro’s application for leave of absence?
RULING
YES. Rains and floods are kinds of fortuitous events that is outside of a man’s
control. Thus, it is a must for any employer to approve the employees’ application for
leave of absence. The Supreme Court view that Navarro had no wrongful, perverse or
even negligent attitude, intended to defy the company when he absented himself. He also
had a certification from his Barangay Captain to justify and prove his excuse of absent.
In the case of Brew Master International Inc. v. National Federation of Labor
Unions (NFLU), the employee’s absence was precipitated by the grave of his family
problem was deemed justified. Similarly in this case, the reason for Navarro’s absence
was not his own doing much less his liking. Thus the Supreme Court view that he did not
merit the extreme penalty of dismissal form the service.
Under the Article 279 of the Presidential Decree 442 or also known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines, an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to the payment of
full backwages, inclusive of allowance and other benefits or their monetary equivalent,
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him.
The Supreme Court reiterate that the State policy is to afford full protection to labor.
When conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice,
the heavier influence of capital should be counterbalanced by the compassion that the
law accords the less privileged workingman. A worker cannot reasonably expected to
anticipate times of sickness nor emergency, hence to require prior notice of such times
would be absurd.

G.R. No. 162583 CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 162583 CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 162583 CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALBERTO NAVARRO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. INC., et al.

G.R. No. 162583, 8 June 8 2007, SECOND DIVISION (Quisimbing, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Alberto Navarro (Navarro) was an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.

You might also like