WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AS GROUND FOR DISMISSAL

Balais vs. Se’lon by Aimee
G.R. No. 196557, June 15, 2016

Facts:

Balais narrated that he was Salon de Orient’s senior hairstylist and make-up artist when respondent Amelita Revilla (Revilla) took over the business. Revilla, however, retained his services as senior hairstylist and make-up artist. Under the new management, Salon De Orient became Se’lon by Aimee and respondent Alma Belarmino (Belarmino) was appointed as its salon manager, who was in-charge of paying the employees’ wages, dismissing erring employees, and exercising control over them. Balais, on the other hand, being the senior hairstylist and make-up artist, allegedly had the discretion to choose from among the junior hairstylist who should assist him in servicing his clients, as customarily observed in beauty salons. He worked during the 10am-7pm shift or 11 am-8pm shift, six ( 6) days a week with Sunday as his regular rest day for a monthly salary of Php 18,500.00 paid every two (2) weeks. In June 2008, his salary was reduced to Php15,000.00. Balais claimed that his working relationship with respondents had been harmonious until the evening of July 1, 2008 when Belarmino dismissed him without due process when he was told “”You gel out of this Company! I do not need you here at Se ‘Ion by Aimee!” He asked for his 13^th month pay arguing that even Jollibee workers have the benefit. He was allegedly told to work at Jollibee as workers get 13^th month pay.

Balais felt humiliated as he was berated in front of his co-workers. The next day, he did not report for work anymore and instead filed the complaint before the NLRC.

For their part, respondents alleged that it was known to all their employees that one of the salon’s policies was for junior stylists to take turns in assisting any of the senior stylists for purposes of equalizing commissions. However, Belarmino was told that Balais failed to comply with this policy as the latter allegedly gave preference to only two (2) junior stylists, disregarding the other two (2) junior stylists. When Belarmino asked Balais for explanation, the latter allegedly snapped and retorted that he would do whatever he wanted. Belarmino reminded him of the salon’s policy and his duty to comply with it but petitioner allegedly insisted he would do as he pleased and if they can no longer take it, they would have to dismiss him. After the incident, Balais sued them and never reported back to work. Respondents denied terminating Balais and that even assuming that he was indeed dismissed, there was a valid ground therefor as his acts amounted to serious misconduct against a superior and willful disobedience to reasonable policy related to his work.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding respondents liable for illegal dismissal. It gave credence and weight to Balais’ version that he was dismissed without cause and notice for merely defending his decision to avail of the services of some selected junior stylist of his choice. Aggrieved, respondents appealed the decision before the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC affirmed in toto the findings of the Labor Arbiter, declaring petitioner to be illegally dismissed. It ratiocinated that Se’lon by Aimee failed to prove that the act of petitioner amounted to gross insubordination. Other than respondents’ bare denial of illegal dismissal, the same was unsubstantiated by a clear and convincing evidence. The NLRC further pointed out that respondents failed to produce a copy of the supposed salon policy on the rule of rotation of junior stylists, thus, the veracity of the allegation of insubordination against Balais failed to convmce. Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari.

CA Ruling:

The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the NLRC Decision and rendered a Decision sustaining petitioner’s dismissal as valid. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but was denied. Thus, the instant petition.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the dismissal was valid

SC Ruling:

The SC found merit in the petition.

The onus of proving that the employee was dismissed for a just cause rests on the employer, and the latter’s failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. Without admitting that he violated the salon policy of rotation of the junior stylists, Balais maintained that said policy runs counter with customary salon practice which allows senior hairstylists to choose their preferred junior stylist to assist them.

For their part, supplemental to their claim of abandonment, respondents averred that assuming that Balais was dismissed, they insisted that there was a valid ground therefor as he was disrespectful and insubordinate due to his failure to comply with the salon’s policy. Noteworthy is the fact that respondents never denied that the incident narrated by Balais actually happened.

In Solas vs. Power & Telephone Supply Phils., Inc., this silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the truth of the employee’s narration. While respondents were evasive on the complete details of how the reported incident of termination transpired, they never categorically denied that said incident happened or the fact that Belarmino uttered: “get out of this company! I do not need you here.” Belarmino attempted to sidestep the fact that she actually said it, yet, raised the defense that assuming she had indeed verbally terminated Balais, she was justified in doing so because of the disrespect shown to her.

Under the rules of evidence, if an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed admitted. In fine, the fact that respondents are even raising their own justification for the alleged verbal dismissal means that the said verbal dismissal actually transpired. If in the first place, said incident of verbal dismissal truly never happened, there is nothing to assume anymore or to justify. The fact that Belarmino was offering justification for her action, it follows that indeed said incident of verbally dismissing Salais on-the-spot actually happened.

Putting two versions of the story together, considering that none of the parties categorically deny that an altercation erupted between them which resulted in the dismissal of Balais, and the tenor of Belarmino’s statements leaving no room for interpreting it other than a verbal dismissal, we are inclined to believe that there was indeed a dismissal.

As to the alleged disobedience of Balais, the burden of proving the insubordination as a just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so shall result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.

Willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a “wrongful and perverse attitude;” and (2) the 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. In this case, the salon policy of rotating the junior stylists who will assist the senior stylist appears to be reasonable, lawful, made known to petitioner and pertained to his duty as senior hairstylist of respondent.

However, a look at Balais’ explanation for his alleged disobedience thereto, it likewise appears to be reasonable and lawful. He explained that the duty of the Senior Stylist has the overall function in seeing to it that the service accorded to the client is excellent, thus, he has the right to refuse service of a junior stylist whom he thinks that such junior stylist cannot give equal or over and above the service that he can give to the client, thus his refusal to obey the respondent does not constitute a just cause for the treatment given by respondent to herein respondent.

The fact alone that Balais failed to comply with the salon policy docs not establish that his conduct in failing to comply with the salon’s policy had been willful, or characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. Balais’ justification maybe adverse to that of the salon’s policy but it was neither willful nor characterized by a perverse attitude. No prior warning of non-compliance. Suspension would have sufficed to caution him and other employees who may be wont to violate the same policy.

Belarmino’s manner of verbally dismissing Balais on-the-spot fell short of the two-notice requirement. There was no showing of prior warnings on Balais’ alleged non-compliance with the salon policy. There was no written notice in forming him of his dismissal as in fact the dismissal was done verbally and on-the-spot. Respondents failed to furnish Balais the written notice apprising him of the charges against him, as prescribed by the Labor Code. There was no attempt to serve a notice of dismissal on Balais. Consequently, he was denied due process of law accorded in dismissals.