Scribd
Upload
37 views2 pages

Digest 4

The document discusses the case of Frederick Abella who was dismissed from his job at PNOC-EDC for insubordination. Abella disregarded orders to transfer sites claiming he was not reinstated to his original position, despite records showing the transfers were due to security needs. The court ultimately ruled in favor of PNOC-EDC, finding Abella's dismissal to be valid.

Uploaded by

Arianne Grace Aberde
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
37 views2 pages

Digest 4

The document discusses the case of Frederick Abella who was dismissed from his job at PNOC-EDC for insubordination. Abella disregarded orders to transfer sites claiming he was not reinstated to his original position, despite records showing the transfers were due to security needs. The court ultimately ruled in favor of PNOC-EDC, finding Abella's dismissal to be valid.

Uploaded by

Arianne Grace Aberde
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

PNOC-EDC, et. Al., petitioners, vs. FREDERICK V.

ABELLA, respondent
G.R. no. 153904, January 17, 2005

FACTS:

Frederick V. Abella started working for Philippine National Oil Company-Energy


Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) on June 1, 1989. Less than one year later, or on
April 20, 1990, Abella was informed that his employment with PNOC-EDC would be
terminated effective May 21, 1990, due to a company-wide reorganization in regards to
its Manpower Reduction Program, wherein the position of Security Assistant, Abella’s
position, had been abolished.

Abella filed complaint and, when the results came, he was recalled to the company but
to another position since his old position was abolished. As time passes, he was
repositioned to the security department and then transferred to different sites.

However, the directives, such as reporting immediately to one site and then immediately
reporting back to the other, were disregarded or ignored by Abella stating that he was
not reinstated to his former position as Security Assistant per Writ of Execution issued by
the labor arbiter.

Abella continue disregarding directives for transferring another until he received notice
of termination on the ground of insubordination or willful disobedience.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is insubordination or willful disobedience on the part of Abella.

RATIONALE:

Insubordination or willful disobedience must have: (a.) reasonable and lawful orders,
regulations or instructions of the employer, (b.) sufficiently known to the employee, and
(c.) in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge.

In the case at bar, respondent Abella was well informed of the orders of transfer and said
orders were well in connection with the security functions of respondent.

The reasonableness and lawfulness of an order depend on the circumstances availing in


each case. Reasonableness pertains to the kind or character of directives and commands
and to the manner in which they are made. The petitioners claim that the orders were
well within their managerial prerogative to make.

Review of records shows that there is a valid reason behind the transfer of Abella: due to
the emergency need of the state of affairs in the geothermal plant/or other site of the
company. In addition, the job description of Abella states reassignment from one place to
another, depending on security needs and he also state that he’s willing to accept a
provincial assignment on his application for employment. Therefore, the dismissal is
valid.

HELD:

Wherefore, petition is Granted.

You might also like