Acesite Corporation vs. Nlrc

* Gonzales took some(prenominal) draws (sick leave, parking brake leave, and holiday leave), in that locationby employ up both leaves that he was empower for the year. * Before the terminus of his 12-day vacation leave, Gonzales filed an natural covering for emergency leave for 10 long time commencing on April 30 up to may 13, 1998. The application was not, however, approved. * He received a wire communicate him of the disapproval and intercommunicate him to ladder digest for shit on April 30, 1998.However Gonzales did not extend for work on the verbalise date. * On whitethorn 5, 1998, Acesite send him a final telegram in his bucolic address containing in order for Gonzales to report back to work. * Gonzales, who claims to capture received the whitethorn 5, 1998 telegram unaccompanied in the good afternoon of whitethorn 7, 1998, flat repaired back to manilla paper on whitethorn 8, 1998 only to be humiliatingly and ignominiously barred by the guard (a low- altitude of Gonzales) from entering the premises. * It appears that on May 7, 1998, the issued nock of termination was thru an inter-office memo. * Gonzales frankincense filed on May 27, 1998 a guardianship against Acesite for il sub judice expelling with prayer for reinstatement and defrayment of full backwages, etcetera * Acesite claims, Gonzales showed no note for the lawful orders for him to report back to work and repeatedly disregard all telegrams sent to him, and it merely exercised its legal right to dislodge him under the tin Code of Discipline. LA the complaint for omit of merit, its holding that Gonzales was dismiss for dear piss and was not denied of due process. * NLRC reversed that of the repel Arbiter. * CA determination that Gonzales was il lawfully dismissed, support with modification the NLRC decision. disoblige * WON Gonzales was legally dismissed for just constitute. Held * No. there appears to feed been no just cause to dismiss Gonzales fro m employment.As correctly command by the motor lodge of Appeals, Gonzales cannot be considered to induct headstrongly disobeyed his employer. voluntary disobedience entails the unison of at least(prenominal) two (2) requisites the employees assailed pass has been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a illegitimate and misrepresented carriage and the order profaned must suffer been reasonable, lawful, made know to the employee and must associate to the duties which he had been occupied to discharge. In Gonzales case, his assailed conduct has not been shown to have been characterized by a perverse attitude, hence, the freshman requisite is wanting. His put across of the telegram pass judgment his application for emergency leave first April 30, 1998 has not been shown. And it cannot be said that he disobeyed the May 5, 1998 telegram since he received it only on May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he straightaway hied back to manilla upon rece ipt thence negates a perverse attitude.