GR 105819; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996
MARILYN L. BERNARDO, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. JOSE G. DE VERA, UNIVET AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., and CONRADO S. BAYLON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marilyn Bernardo, employed since 1977 and holding the position of administrative clerk, was dismissed for dishonesty on March 18, 1989. The charge stemmed from her act of inserting a request for one executive swivel chair into a Capital Appropriations Request (CAR) form intended for the purchase of two filing cabinets for her department. The CAR had been signed by her department head and approved by several officers before the insertion was discovered. Petitioner admitted the insertion but explained she acted in good faith, intending to use the remaining budget to benefit the department and, specifically, to surprise her department head with a new chair. She argued the total cost would not have exceeded the budget, the item was not hidden, and she had no intent to defraud.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner for her misconduct was proportionate to the offense committed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was too severe a penalty. The legal logic centered on the principle of proportionality in labor law, where the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The Court acknowledged that petitioner committed an act of dishonesty by making an unauthorized insertion in an official document, which constituted misconduct. However, it found mitigating circumstances: her long service of twelve years with excellent performance ratings, the lack of actual damage to the company as the budget would not have been exceeded, and the apparent motive being to curry favor rather than to gain personal material benefit. Since the offense did not involve grave misconduct warranting the ultimate penalty of termination, the dismissal was not justified. The Court modified the NLRC decision, deleting the option of reinstatement and awarding separation pay at one-half month’s pay for every year of service as an equitable relief, considering her length of service and the nature of her infraction. Claims for moral damages and attorney’s fees were denied for lack of bad faith on the part of the employer.