Acesite Company vs . NLRC Facts: * Leo A. Gonzales (Gonzales) was a Primary of Protection of Acesite Corporation.
2. Gonzales got several leaves (sick leave, emergency leave, and holiday leave), therefore using up almost all leaves that he was eligible for the year. * Before the expiration of his 12-day vacation keep, Gonzales filed an application to get emergency keep for 10 days commencing on April 35 up to May well 13, 1998. The application had not been, however , authorized. * He received a telegram updating him with the disapproval and asking him to survey back for work on The spring 30, 1998.
However Gonzales did not survey for work with the explained date. 2. On May 5, 1998, Acesite sent him a final telegram in his comarcal address made up of in order for Gonzales to report back to work. * Gonzales, who statements to have received the Might 5, 1998 telegram simply in the evening of May possibly 7, 1998, immediately repaired back to Manila on May 8, 1998 simply to be “humiliatingly and ignominiously barred by guard (a subordinate of [Gonzales]) from entering the premises. 5. It appears that on May 7, 1998, the given notice of termination was thru a great inter-office memo. * Gonzales thus submitted on May twenty seven, 1998 a complaint against Acesite pertaining to illegal dismissal with plea for reinstatement and repayment of full backwages, and so forth * Acesite claims, Gonzales “showed zero respect intended for the legitimate orders to get him to report returning to work and repeatedly dismissed all telegrams sent to him, and it merely exercised their legal right to dismiss him under the Home Code of Discipline. LA , the complaint pertaining to lack of advantage, its having that Gonzales was ignored for just trigger and was not denied of due process. * NLRC , reversed that of the Labor Arbiter. * CALIFORNIA , discovering that Gonzales was illegally ignored, affirmed with modification the NLRC decision. Issue: 5. WON Gonzales was legally dismissed for only cause. Kept: * Number there appears to have been no merely cause to dismiss Gonzales from career.
As effectively ruled by Court of Appeals, Gonzales cannot be thought to have willfully disobeyed his employer. Willful disobedience comprises the guerre des assureurs of at least two (2) requisites: the employee’s assailed execute has been willful or intentional, the willfulness being seen as a a “wrongful and perverse attitude, and the buy violated must have been sensible, lawful, made known to automobile and must pertain for the duties which usually he had been engaged to release. In Gonzales’ case, his assailed execute has not been shown to have been seen as a a unhelpful ? awkward ? obstructive ? uncooperative attitude, consequently, the initial requisite is usually wanting. His receipt of the telegram disapproving his program for urgent leave beginning April 40, 1998 is not shown. And it may not be said that this individual disobeyed the May a few, 1998 telegram since he received this only on May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he immediately hied returning to Manila after receipt thereof negates a perverse frame of mind.
