NAVARRO v.

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
G.R. No. 162583

FACTS:

Petitioner was an employee of the respondent company for more than a decade. He worked as a
forklift operator from November 1, 1987 to February 27, 1998. Coca-cola has an Employee’s Code of
Disciplinary Rules and Regulation providing for the penalty of discharge for a tenth AWOL, whether
consecutive or not following other AWOLs within 1 calendar year.

On August 11, 1997, petitioner did not report to work because of heavy rains which flooded the
entire barangay where he resided. In a memorandum, petitioner was required to explain in writing
within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him for his 1oth absence without
permission. Petitioner submitted a written explanation from his Brgy. Captain stating that his absence
was due to heavy rains and subsequent flooding that hit his barangay. Later, petitioner filed a
Supplemental Written Explanation in lieu of answers to a questionnaire provided by the company.
Despite his compliance and explanation, petitioner was dismissed and given a notice of termination
which enumerated dates of his absences without permission. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter which was dismissed for lack of merit. On appeal, NLRC reversed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Coca-cola elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and the latter
annulled the resolution of NLRC and also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s application for leave of absence should have been allowed by the
company.

RULING:

YES. Petitioner’s application for leave of absence should have been approved by Coca-cola. His
absence was due to a fortuitous event outside petitioner’s control. The petitioner had no wrongful,
perverse, or even neglectful 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. A
worker cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate times of sickness nor emergency. Hence, to require
prior notice of such times would be absurd. He can only give proper notice after the occurrence of the
event which is what the petitioner did in this case.

Under 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
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him. Hence, Coca-cola is ordered by the Court to afford said
rights to the petitioner.