ARMANDO N. PUNCIA, Petitioner, v.
TOYOTA SHAW/PASIG, INC., Respondent
G.R. No. 214399, June 28, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Facts
Puncia alleged that since 2004, he worked as a messenger/collector for Toyota and was
later on appointed on March 2, 2011 as a Marketing Professional7 tasked to sell seven
(7) vehicles as monthly quota.8 However, Puncia failed to comply with the company’s
requirements on sales quota, prompting Toyota to send him a Notice to Explain.
Thereafter, a hearing was conducted but Puncia failed to appear despite notice. On
October 18, 2011, Toyota sent Puncia a Notice of Termination,14 dismissing him on the
ground of insubordination for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing and justify his
absence.15 This prompted Puncia to file a complaint16 for illegal dismissal claiming, inter
alia, that Toyota dismissed him after discovering that he was a director of the Toyota-
Shaw Pasig Workers Union-Automotive Industry Worker's Alliance; and that he was
terminated on the ground of insubordination and not due to his failure to meet his quota
as contained in the Notice to Explain.chanrobleslaw
In its defense, Toyota claimed that there was a valid cause to dismiss Puncia,
considering his failure to comply with the company's strict requirements on sales quota
and violation of the company rules on attendance and timekeeping as several
disciplinary actions were already issued against him. chanrobleslaw
The LA dismissed Puncia's complaint for lack of merit, but nevertheless, ordered Toyota
to pay Puncia his money claims. The NLRC reversed the LA ruling and, accordingly,
declared Puncia to have been illegally dismissed by Toyota, thus, entitling him to
reinstatement and backwages. The CA annulling and setting aside the NLRC ruling and
reinstating that of the LA. It held that Toyota was able to present substantial evidence in
support of its contention that there was just cause in Puncia's dismissal from
employment and that it was done in compliance with due process, considering that: (a)
Puncia's repeated failure to meet his sales quota constitutes gross inefficiency and gross
neglect of duties; and (b) Puncia was afforded due process as he was able to submit a
written explanation within the period given to him by Toyota.
ISSUE
Whether or not Puncia was dismissed from employment for just cause.
RULING
It is settled that "for a dismissal to be valid, the rule is that the employer must comply
with both substantive and procedural due process requirements.
In the instant case, records reveal that as a Marketing Professional for Toyota, Puncia
had a monthly sales quota of seven (7) vehicles from March 2011 to June 2011. As he
was having trouble complying with said quota, Toyota even extended him a modicum of
leniency by lowering his monthly sales quota to just three (3) vehicles for the months of
July and August 2011; but even then, he still failed to comply.67 In that six (6)-month
span, Puncia miserably failed in satisfying his monthly sales quota, only selling a measly
five (5) vehicles out of the 34 he was required to sell over the course of said period.
Verily, Puncia's repeated failure to perform his duties - i.e., reaching his monthly sales
quota - for such a period of time falls under the concept of gross inefficiency. In this
regard, case law instructs that "gross inefficiency" is analogous to "gross neglect of
duty," a just cause of dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, for both involve
specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the
employer or to his business.68 In Aliling v. Feliciano,69 the Court held that an employer is
entitled to impose productivity standards for its employees, and the latter's non-
compliance therewith can lead to his termination from
work, viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The practice of a company in laying off workers because they failed to make the work
quota has been recognized in this jurisdiction, x xx. In the case at bar, the petitioners'
failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them constitute a just cause
of their dismissal, regardless of the permanent or probationary status of their
employment.
Failure to
o observe prescribed standards of work, or
o to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may
constitute just cause for dismissal.
Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work
quotas, either by
1. failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or
2. by producing unsatisfactory results.
Indisputably, Toyota complied with the substantive due process requirement as there
was indeed just cause for Puncia's termination.
Anent the issue of procedural due process, a reading of the Notice of Termination shows
that Puncia was dismissed not for the ground stated in the Notice to Explain, but for
gross insubordination on account of his non-appearance at the hearing as scheduled
without justifiable reason. In other words, while Toyota afforded Puncia the opportunity
to refute the charge of gross inefficiency against him, the latter was completely deprived
of the same when he was dismissed for gross insubordination - a completely different
ground from what was stated in the Notice to Explain. As such, Puncia's right to
procedural due process was violated.
Hence, considering that Toyota had dismissed Puncia for a just cause, albeit failed to
comply with the proper procedural requirements, the former should pay the latter
nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence.
The petition is denied.
