GR 109609; (May, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109609. May 8, 1996.
SEGUNDINO ROYO, GERMAN ROYO and CIPRIANO ROYO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, STANDARD ALCOHOL, INC., and RAMON CHUANICO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, relatives employed by Standard Alcohol Inc., were involved in a serious altercation on February 28, 1990. Segundino and German Royo assaulted a co-employee, Mario Alvarez, inside the company premises, boxing and kicking him after he admitted reporting them for alleged theft. Cipriano Royo attempted to hit Alvarez with a piece of wood. Alvarez required hospital treatment. On the same afternoon, management issued a memorandum placing petitioners under indefinite suspension effective March 1, citing commission of a crime, dishonesty, and stealing company property.
On March 5, 1990, the company sent petitioners a notice for an investigation scheduled for March 6 regarding the mauling incident. Petitioners did not attend this investigation. Consequently, they were dismissed from employment. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement, finding the indefinite suspension a virtual dismissal without due process and the misconduct not serious enough for termination.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was valid but the procedural due process was violated. On the substantive aspect, petitioners committed serious misconduct justifying dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. The mauling of a co-employee on company premises was not a private matter; it was a direct assault on company discipline and created a disturbance. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that such fighting within the workplace constitutes a valid cause for termination.
However, the employer failed to comply with the twin-notice rule and the rules on preventive suspension. The indefinite suspension memo issued on February 28 was a preventive suspension that lasted beyond the 30-day maximum period without reinstatement or pay, effectively amounting to dismissal without the requisite hearing. The subsequent investigation notice was insufficient to cure this initial defect. For this procedural violation, the employer was ordered to indemnify each petitioner P1,000. The NLRC decision was affirmed with this modification, denying separation pay but awarding other monetary benefits.