G.R. No. 122178 February 25, 1999
DANILO DIMABAYAO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAND BISCUIT INC. and CHENG SUY EH, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Danilo Dimabayao was employed by private respondent Island Biscuit, Inc. on April 5, 1983. On July 30, 1992, with prior permission from his checker, he left his work station to go to the comfort room to relieve himself. Private respondent Cheng Suy Eh, the General Manager, saw him away from his station and demanded a written explanation for allegedly abandoning his work. The company policy discouraged employees from going to the comfort room during working hours for sanitary reasons. The next day, the Personnel Manager asked him to explain in writing his absence on July 17 and July 30. Petitioner verbally denied leaving on July 17 and explained that on July 30 he only went to the comfort room briefly. He did not submit a written explanation and was suspended for fifteen days. On October 20, 1992, petitioner asked a co-worker to replace him before going to the comfort room. Again, Cheng Suy Eh noticed his absence, berated him, and required another written explanation. Petitioner complied, but the company found it unsatisfactory and served him a notice of termination. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the suspension valid for disregarding the directive to submit a written explanation but declared the dismissal illegal, awarding separation pay and limited back wages due to strained relations. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, upholding the legality of the dismissal based on alleged habitual violations of company rules, including past infractions from 1990, but granted separation pay as compassion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the legality of petitioner’s dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modification. The Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s act of leaving his work station to relieve himself, done with prior permission or after arranging a replacement, did not constitute willful disobedience or gross and habitual neglect of duties under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Answering the call of nature is a human necessity over which one has no control and cannot be characterized as abandonment or a wrongful, perverse attitude. The violation, if any, was trivial and did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. The NLRC erred in considering alleged past infractions from 1990 as these were not cited in the termination letter and were mere afterthoughts. The Labor Arbiter correctly found the dismissal illegal. The Supreme Court modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by ordering petitioner’s immediate reinstatement to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, payment of full back wages from dismissal until actual reinstatement, and attorney’s fees.