Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

Navarro VS. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. Et. Al.

This case involves an employee, Navarro, who was terminated by Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. after his tenth absence without permission due to heavy rains flooding his home area. Navarro provided a written explanation and certification from his Barangay Chairman about the flooding. Despite this, he was terminated. The NLRC ruled his dismissal was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backpay. However, the Court of Appeals annulled this ruling. The Supreme Court then ruled that Navarro's absence should have been allowed by the company as the flooding was outside of his control, and he provided the proper documentation. Navarro was ordered reinstated with full backpay and benefits.

Uploaded by

Rochelle Mae De Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

Navarro VS. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. Et. Al.

This case involves an employee, Navarro, who was terminated by Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. after his tenth absence without permission due to heavy rains flooding his home area. Navarro provided a written explanation and certification from his Barangay Chairman about the flooding. Despite this, he was terminated. The NLRC ruled his dismissal was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backpay. However, the Court of Appeals annulled this ruling. The Supreme Court then ruled that Navarro's absence should have been allowed by the company as the flooding was outside of his control, and he provided the proper documentation. Navarro was ordered reinstated with full backpay and benefits.

Uploaded by

Rochelle Mae De Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE TITLE: Navarro VS. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. et. al.

G.R. NO.: 162583

Doctrine:

Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to the payment of full back
wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him.

Facts:

Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Coca-Cola)
for more than a decade. He worked as a forklift operator for Coca-cola from November 1, 1987
to February 27, 1998.

Respondent has an existing Employer’s Code of Disciplinary Rules and regulations


providing penalty for a 10th AWOP / AWOL. Petitioner did not report to work due to heavy rains
which flooded their area. He was then required to explain in writing within 24 hours why no
disciplinary action should be imposed on him for his tenth absence without permission.
Immediately after, he filed an application for leave. He was required by the respondent to explain
in writing why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him. He submitted a written
explanation accompanied with a Certification from their Barangay Chairman stating that his
absence was due to heavy rains and subsequent flooding that hit his barangay.

Despite his compliance, he was given a Notice of Termination. Petitioner filed a complaint
of illegal dismissal which was dismissed for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the
decision by the Labor Arbiter.

Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate


Complainant Navarro to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to pay his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is likewise ordered to pay Complainant
Navarro attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award.

Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals annulled the
resolution of the NLRC.

Issues:

Whether or not the leave of absence filed by the petitioner be allowed by the company.

Rulings:
Yes, the leave of absence filed by the petitioner shall be allowed by the company. His
absence was due to a fortuitous event outside of petitioner's control. Petitioner had no wrongful,
perverse or even negligent attitude, intended to defy the order of his employer when he absented
himself. He did so because heavy rains flooded their residential area which was along the
railroad. In his favor, the Barangay Captain certified that indeed there was flooding in their place
of residence.

It is unreasonable to expect a worker to plan ahead for emergencies or sick days. Therefore,
it would be irrational to demand advance warning of such periods. Only after the incident has taken
place may he give the required notice, which is what the petitioner did in this instance.

You might also like