GR L 48235 36; (July, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48235-36 July 30, 1979
FAUSTINO M. MERACAP, petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL CERAMICS MFG. CO., INC. (SECURITY INDUSTRIAL CO., INC.) and HONORABLE RONALDO ZAMORA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Faustino Meracap, an employee for eighteen years, was dismissed by respondent International Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Inc. for alleged abandonment of work due to unauthorized absences. Meracap contended that his dismissal was actually motivated by his union activities, a claim rejected by the Acting Secretary of Labor and, on appeal, by respondent Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs Ronaldo Zamora, who affirmed the dismissal. The factual findings established that after being transferred between company sections—a move management attributed to his absenteeism—Meracap filed a complaint against the transfer. The company subsequently filed an application for clearance to dismiss him for abandonment when he failed to report for work despite written and verbal directives.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner, after eighteen years of service, is proportionate to his offense of unauthorized absences, considering the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, modifying the penalty. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the labor authorities that the dismissal was not due to union activity, as such findings are generally binding. However, the Court scrutinized the proportionality of the penalty under the security of tenure mandate. While the petitioner’s absences warranted disciplinary action, dismissal was deemed excessively severe given his lengthy, otherwise unblemished service of eighteen years. The Court emphasized that labor law determinations must be both secundum rationem (according to reason) and secundum caritatem (according to charity), considering the severe impact of job loss on the worker and his family. The indecent haste with which the company sought dismissal after the petitioner filed a complaint further militated against the ultimate penalty. Consequently, the dismissal was commuted to a one-year suspension from August 30, 1974, with an entitlement to three years’ back wages thereafter. The decision underscored that security of tenure requires penalties to be commensurate with the offense, with dismissal reserved for the most serious cases.