GR 62391; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62391 June 8, 1992
SAFIRO CATALAN and GERARDO SERUE, petitioners, vs. TITO F. GENILO, RICARDO C. CASTRO, CECILIO T. SENO, FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, GRAPHIC ARTS SERVICES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Safiro Catalan and Gerardo Serue were regular employees of respondent Graphic Arts Services, Inc. (GASI). On July 11, 1979, GASI filed applications for clearance to terminate their services effective July 25, 1979, citing a violation of company rules for “DRINKING IN THE COMPANY PREMISES OR COMING TO WORK UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL,” which carried the penalty of immediate dismissal. The incident stemmed from July 3, 1979, when petitioners, after their night shift, drank beer at a store outside the company compound. They later entered the company premises to eat lunch at the canteen, where they were ordered to leave by management. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered payment of half-month salary per year of service. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially dismissed petitioners’ appeal for failure to furnish a copy to the adverse party as required by procedural rules, and later denied their petition for relief/motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioners from employment for alleged violation of a company regulation is justified.
RULING
No, the dismissal is not justified. The Supreme Court found that no actual violation of the company rule occurred. Petitioners did not drink within the company premises, nor did they report for work under the influence of liquor, as they were not on duty at the time. Their entry into the compound was to eat lunch, and they complied when ordered to leave. The penalty of dismissal was too harsh for what was, at most, an isolated incident with no showing of willful disobedience, material injury to the company, or disruption of work. The NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal based on a procedural technicality, without addressing the merits, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The decision of the Labor Arbiter and the resolutions of the NLRC were set aside. Petitioners were ordered reinstated with three years of backwages.