LAGATIC VS.

NLRC

G.R. NO. 121004 JANUARY 28, 1998 ROMERO, J.:

FACTS:

Cityland employed Petitioner, Romeo Lagatic, as a marketing specialist in May 1986. He was tasked with
with soliciting sales for the company as well as accepting call-ins, referrals, and making client calls and
cold calls. It was believed by Cityland that cold calls is an effective and cost-efficient method of finding

clients and required all marketing specialist to make the same but requires submissions of daily progress
reports on cold calls for assessment and to determine its results. Petitioner was suspended for 3 days on
November 1992, for his failure to submit cold call reports on different days of September and October
1992 despite a written reprimand for infractions of the same committed a year earlier and a warning
that if he continues to not comply with the requirement it will result in termination.

Petitioner failed again to submit cold call reports for 5 days of February 1993 despite the aforesaid
suspension and warning. He was then verbally reminded to submit the reports and was given an
extension up to Feb. 17, 1993. Petitioner still did not comply and instead wrote a note with the words,
“TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?”, and exhibiting it to his co-employees. He left the note lying
on top of his desk where everyone could see it to worsen the matter.

On Feb. 23, 1993, a memorandum was received by the Petitioner requiring him to explain why Cityland
should not implement their previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports, as well as, for the
written statement he exhibited. The petitioner replied through a letter that his not complying with the
submission of cold call reports must not be deemed as gross insubordination and he denied having
knowledge about the damaging statement that was being accused of him.

Cityland found the petitioner of guilty of gross insubordination and then served upon him a notice of
dismissal on Feb. 26, 1993. The petitioner then felt wronged by the dismissal and filed a complaint
against Cityland for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment, overtime and rest day pay,
damages and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter dismissed it but it was appealed and affirmed by the
NLRC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding the petitioner illegally
dismissed.
HELD:

The petition lacks merit.

To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the employee
must be afforded due process, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause.

Petitioner loses sight of the fact that except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an employer is
free to regulate, according to his discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. Employers may,
thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees, and when
employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule becomes a part of the
contract of employment. It is also generally recognized that company policies and regulations, unless
shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and
must be complied with.

Corollarily, an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or
regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. An employer cannot rationally be
expected to retain the employment of a person whose x x x lack of regard for his employers rules x x x
has so plainly and completely been bared. Petitioners continued infraction of company policy requiring
cold call reports, as evidenced by the 28 instances of non-submission of aforesaid reports, justifies his
dismissal. He cannot be allowed to arrogate unto himself the privilege of setting company policy on the
effectivity of solicitation methods. To do so would be to sanction oppression and the self-destruction of
the employer.

More than that, his written statement shows his open defiance and disobedience to lawful rules and
regulations of the company. Likewise, said company policy of requiring cold calls and the concomitant
reports thereon is clearly reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to petitioner, and in connection with
the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. There is, thus, just cause for his dismissal.