GR 213009; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213009 July 17, 2019
BOOKMEDIA PRESS, INC. and BENITO J. BRIZUELA, Petitioners vs. LEONARDO SINAJON and YANLY ABENIR, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners Bookmedia Press, Inc. and its President, Benito Brizuela, dismissed respondents Leonardo Sinajon and Yanly Abenir, who were hired as in-house security personnel in 1995 and 1996. The termination stemmed from an incident on July 20, 1997, where respondents punched their time cards but left work early. They submitted letters explaining their absences were due to family emergencies: Abenir needed to assist his brother, and Sinajon had to repair his storm-damaged roof and care for his sick wife. Sinajon returned later that evening to punch out both his and Abenir’s cards.
Petitioners contended the dismissal was for just causes, alleging the July 20 incident was part of a pattern of repeated infractions of company time policy constituting serious misconduct, willful disobedience, or fraud. However, before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners only presented the respondents’ own explanatory letters as evidence, which detailed only the single incident on July 20, 1997.
ISSUE
Whether the single act of leaving work early after punching in, as admitted by the respondents for July 20, 1997, constitutes a just cause for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of illegal dismissal. The Court upheld the factual finding of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, that only one instance of infraction was proven. The petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of repeated violations with evidence beyond the respondents’ letters concerning the solitary July 20 event.
Legally, for an employee’s act to constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal, it must be serious, of grave character, and must show a wrongful intent or perverse attitude. A single instance of leaving work early due to a family emergency, as explained by the respondents, does not meet this high threshold. The act was not habitual nor did it demonstrate a depraved disposition. The penalty of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the offense. The employer failed to establish that the act caused grave and irreparable damage to its business or reflected a willful and deliberate defiance of authority. Consequently, the dismissal was without just cause. The proper penalty should have been a written reprimand, not termination. The Court emphasized the constitutional policy of protecting labor and the requirement that dismissal, as the ultimate penalty, must be based on clear, lawful, and substantive grounds, which were absent here.