GR 100878; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992
ESTRELLITA AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), First Division, WACK WACK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB and COL. PERFECTO V. EUGENIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Estrellita Aguilar was employed for 23 years by respondent Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, lastly as an Accounting Clerk. The Club imposed a patronage fee on its members for restaurant and bar operations. Petitioner, on several occasions without the Club management’s knowledge, ordered and consumed food from the Club restaurant/bar and charged them against the patronage fees of certain Club members. Upon discovery, the Club sent her a notice of charges and conducted an investigation. During the investigation, petitioner was reminded that she was not allowed under Club rules to sign restaurant and bar bills/chits chargeable to the patronage fees of Club members. Nonetheless, she continued to do so. Consequently, she was dismissed on May 10, 1988, for violation of House Rules and for serious misconduct and breach of trust. The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages and damages. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissal valid and ordering only the payment of financial assistance.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner violated any company rules and regulations when she signed the chits for and in behalf of Club members, constituting willful disobedience and serious misconduct justifying her dismissal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that the dismissal was valid. The applicable House Rules explicitly prohibited non-members from signing chits for and in behalf of members, and only spouses and dependents were allowed to do so under specific conditions. Petitioner, a non-member, violated these rules. Her conduct constituted willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as her actions were intentional and perverse, and the rules she violated were reasonable, lawful, made known to her, and pertained to her duties. The Court agreed that her defiant attitude after being investigated left management no recourse but termination to maintain discipline. Furthermore, the Court modified the NLRC decision by deleting the award of financial assistance, holding that separation pay is not warranted in cases of valid dismissal for serious misconduct.