You are on page 1of 5

A Critique on a Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

By: Alfafara, Rosa Cecilia Florido, Chedelle Fatima Lagamia, Miko Padua, Marie Rojan

For: Atty. Doming T. Anonuevo DLSU-College of Law Labor Standards

he was appointed as driver and in November 2011. They allege that he incurred 23 days absences and 18 days tardiness from 1 June 2011 to 23 December 2011. he was told to have rest from work and since then he was never called for and he learned that they had hired a new driver.00/day salary. Inc. the general manager Ong told him that he incurred excessive tardiness since September 2011. Respondents countered that complainant was repeatedly warned of his absences and attitude in tardiness. with a P160. knowing that it products to be delivered were in demand because of the Christmas Season. And complainant’s absences in 12 and 13 December 2011 were of showing that he had no concern for the respondent’s business. On 23 December 2011. he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal by the respondents without affording him of due process. Facts: Mark Anthony Pedrasita was hired as a delivery truck helper in January 2006 by Comteq Philippines. and after givin his 13th month pay. INC. Thus. . In October 2011..The Case MARK ANTHONY PEDRASITA -versusCOMPTEQ PHILIPPINES. his salary was increased to P420/day.

Complainant only incurred 19 absences and 28 tardiness. The Labor Arbiter rationalized with the well settled rule that the burden of proof that the employee was not illegally dismissed lies on the employer and failing to comply with the two-notice rule. Labor Arbiter found otherwise.The Case Issue: Whether or not Mark Anthony Pedrasita was illegally dismissed by Compteq Philippines. Although the Respondents contended that Complainant was dismissed for gross and habitual neglect of duty. inc. Held: The Labor Arbiter held that he was illegally dismissed and must be awarded separation pay. .

Even considering his reasons (Philhealth transaction and coming home from the province of Pampanga every start of the week). made by Mark Anthony Pedrasita. is quite numerous. Hence. there were countless of ways where he could have given his employer a heads up with regards to his personal issues that would affect his work performance. absences and tardiness is causing so much trouble and he knows that delivery is vital in the operation of the business. In the businessman’s point of view. both the complainant and the respondent lacked the necessary actions that could have prevented this suit. and further explained only the two December absences. But of course. the burden of proof belongs to the management on whether or not he was illegally or constructively dismissed. and Compteq Phil. summed up within 6 months. if not habitual.Our Critique The Labor Arbiter found that the complainant’s absences are not habitual as claimed by the respondents and not sufficient ground to terminate his employment of almost six years. the delays caused by the complainant have an equivalent loss in income and profit.” 23 days of unauthorized absences and 18 times of tardiness. Mark Anthony Pedrasita did not obtain authorization for his absences. The complainant’s frequent. the continuous absence and tardiness from June to December were sufficient enough for him to be terminated. procedurally. Complainant only explained why he was tardy during the start of the week or only on Mondays. In this case. And as the Labor .. of course he wouldn’t want any more delays. In considering the case. But to our mind. did not issue the needed memos. inc. one can wonder what the standards are for “habitual tardiness and absenteeism.

No notices were given to the complainant. the subsequent notice which informed complainant of the company’s decision to dismiss him). neither memoranda to inform him of his infringes. and 2. notice which apprise complainant of his absences and tardiness from which his dismissal would be based. . although we criticize. all we have to do is wait and hope for the best. But as we all know.Arbiter held. we agree with the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that reinstatement is not possible because of the strained relations that was brought about upon the filing of this case. Despite the foregoing. The case is currently on appeal. the judgment has been handed down. Now. the employers did not follow the two-point rule (1. these gives a meaning of a clear violation of the two-point rule.