G.R. No. 111934 April 29, 1998
JUDY PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VIRGINIA ANTIOLA, respondents.

FACTS

Virginia Antiola was employed by Judy Philippines, Inc. since January 1985 as an assorter of baby infant dresses. On November 15, 1988, she was directed by her supervisor to sort dresses pursuant to an instruction sheet. On January 4, 1989, the company, through its Personnel Manager, required Antiola to explain in writing why she should not be disciplined for erroneously assorting and packaging 2,680 dozens of infant wear. Antiola submitted a written explanation on the same day, admitting her error and asking for forgiveness. Her supervisor, Marietta Elizon, and the packer, Ester Rellesiva, were also required to explain. The company found Antiola guilty of negligence and dismissed her effective January 11, 1989. Elizon was suspended for one month for negligence through command responsibility, while Rellesiva was found innocent. The National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal on Antiola’s behalf. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal lawful due to Antiola’s negligence which caused substantial loss to the export-oriented business and holding that due process was substantially complied with. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that the negligence was not “habitual” as required by Article 282(b) of the Labor Code for dismissal, since it was Antiola’s first infraction. The NLRC ordered her reinstatement with one year backwages. Judy Philippines, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the appeal to the NLRC was filed beyond the reglementary period and that the offense constituted a just cause for dismissal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal filed by private respondent Virginia Antiola to the NLRC from the decision of the Labor Arbiter was filed within the reglementary period.
2. Assuming the appeal was timely, whether the offense committed by Antiola constituted a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of the appeal: The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was seasonably filed. Antiola received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on May 2, 1990. The tenth calendar day for filing an appeal fell on a Saturday, May 12, 1990. Following established doctrine, when the last day for perfecting an appeal falls on a Saturday, the appeal may be filed on the next working day. Antiola filed her appeal on Monday, May 14, 1990, which was within the reglementary period. The Court also noted that even if the appeal were filed late, technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed in the interest of justice.
2. On the validity of the dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was not for a just cause. The Labor Arbiter found that Antiola committed gross negligence. However, for negligence to be a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, it must be both “gross and habitual.” The records clearly showed that this was Antiola’s first infraction in her four years of employment. Therefore, the negligence was not habitual. The Court emphasized that the right to dismiss is a prerogative of management, but this must be exercised without abuse of discretion, and the penalty must be commensurate to the offense. Dismissal is too severe a penalty for a first-time offense of negligence, especially considering Antiola’s length of service, admission of error, and plea for forgiveness. The employer failed to prove that the negligence was so gross as to warrant dismissal.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition was DISMISSED. The decision of the NLRC was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Judy Philippines, Inc. was ordered to reinstate private respondent Virginia Antiola and to pay her backwages for a period of three (3) years, without qualification or deduction.