G.R. No. 163270 ; September 11, 2009
EDUARDO M. TOMADA, SR., Petitioner, vs. RFM CORPORATION-BAKERY FLOUR DIVISION and JOSE MARIA CONCEPCION III, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo M. Tomada, Sr. was employed by respondent RFM Corporation since March 9, 1979, and was a head spoutman assigned to the second floor of the flour mill. On November 22, 1997, a fire broke out at the bran grinder machine on the second floor. The company’s investigation, based on a report by Shift Miller Virgilio F. Ignacio, found that Tomada was not at his post during the fire. Ignacio claimed he found Tomada sound asleep inside the air-conditioned screen room, an area outside his assigned station, and had to wake him up. The company charged Tomada with violating company rules, specifically sleeping on company time outside the work area with adverse effect or damage. After being required to explain and given an administrative hearing, Tomada was dismissed on January 26, 1998. Tomada filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging he was not sleeping but had gone to the third and fourth floors to attend to a machine trouble due to lack of personnel and was on his way to the comfort room when the fire was discovered. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding the dismissal justified due to gross negligence and dereliction of duty. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but awarded separation pay, reasoning the cause was not reflective of his moral character. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding of a valid dismissal but modified the award, ordering RFM Corporation to pay separation pay of ₱127,660. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Eduardo M. Tomada, Sr. was valid.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals that Tomada was grossly negligent and guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court found that Tomada abandoned his assigned post at the bran grinder machine, which was a fire-prone area, and was discovered sleeping in another room during a critical incident. His absence directly led to his failure to detect and immediately address the smoldering fire, causing damage to company property. His act constituted gross negligence, which is a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court rejected the award of separation pay, citing precedent that gross negligence is a valid ground for termination without the benefit of financial assistance. The Court emphasized that length of service cannot mitigate the penalty for an act reflecting a fundamental disregard for the employer’s interests. The Court of Appeals decision was modified by disallowing the grant of separation pay.