G.R. No. 109362 . May 15, 1996.
CELIA A. FLORES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Celia Flores was a regular employee of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) since 1976. On February 20, 1990, she engaged in a physical brawl with a co-employee, Lamberto Jamlang, on the fourth floor of the PPSTA Administration Building in full view of other employees and visitors. Following an investigation, she was dismissed on September 3, 1990. The dismissal memorandum cited this incident as the immediate cause and also referenced her extensive record of past misconduct, including multiple disciplinary charges, a prior suspension in 1977, an investigation for slapping another employee in 1978, and a prior dismissal in 1986 which was temporarily set aside due to a strike settlement compromise.
Flores filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing the fight was not a valid ground as she did not start it, and her past infractions could not be used as she was not formally charged for them. She alleged her dismissal was due to her union activities as president. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. On appeal, the NLRC reversed, declaring the dismissal valid but awarding separation pay of one-half month’s salary per year of service. Flores’s motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of petitioner’s dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On procedural grounds, the NLRC correctly denied the motion for reconsideration as it was filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period, rendering its decision final. On substantive merits, the dismissal was valid. The brawl constituted serious misconduct as it disturbed the workplace and was witnessed by employees and visitors. The employer validly considered her long history of infractions, which demonstrated a pattern of behavior prejudicial to company interests. The Court cited analogous jurisprudence where dismissal for assault and habitual offenses was upheld as the employee’s continuance became patently inimical to the employer. The claim of dismissal due to union activities was negated by the existence of a just cause. The award of separation pay by the NLRC, though arguably improper as it rewards misconduct, was not appealed by the employer and thus could not be reviewed. The NLRC’s decision was in accordance with law and evidence.