G.R. No. 123518 March 13, 1998
LILIA PASCUA, MIMI MACANLALAY, SUSAN C. DE CASTRO, VIOLETA M. SORIANO and VICTORIA L. SANTOS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Third Division) and TIONGSAN SUPER BAZAAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were employees of Henry Lao at Tiongsan Super Bazaar. On August 7, 1991, Henry Lao received information about employee theft, leading to a confrontation where eighteen salesladies admitted guilt and resigned. The remaining workers, including petitioners, were placed under watch. Specific incidents followed: (1) On August 21, 1991, Lilia Pascua was caught repairing three pairs of pants not bought at the bazaar, against company policy. She was scolded, did not report for work the next day, and requested computation of her separation pay. (2) Mimi Macanlalay was relieved from her cashier position after Henry Lao was informed by a customer that Macanlalay had been previously dismissed for dishonesty. Macanlalay subsequently resigned and received separation pay. (3) On August 24, 1991, Victoria Santos was caught charging a meter of cloth for the price of a yard. She was suspended for thirty days and never returned to work. (4) Violeta Soriano was terminated on December 11, 1991, for insubordination after a commotion ensued when she attempted to grab her daily time record from a custodian after being ordered to explain her failure to fill it up. (5) Susan De Castro refused to receive her salary on November 18, 1991, insisting on receiving more than indicated in the payroll. She was told she could find employment elsewhere if dissatisfied, and she failed to report for work the next day. Petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled they were illegally dismissed and awarded backwages and separation pay. The NLRC modified this decision, finding that Pascua and Macanlalay voluntarily resigned; that Santos and De Castro were not dismissed but were entitled to separation pay due to strained relationship; and that Soriano was dismissed for just cause.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that petitioners were not illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that where the conclusions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are conflicting, the Court may review factual findings. The employer bears the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal. A dismissal is illegal unless the employer proves both just or authorized cause and observance of due process. Acceptance of separation pay does not estop an employee from contesting the illegality of dismissal. Applying these doctrines: (1) Lilia Pascua was illegally dismissed. Her act of repairing outside pants, while a violation, did not constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal. Her immediate request for separation pay after being scolded indicated she was forced to resign, constituting constructive dismissal. (2) Mimi Macanlalay was illegally dismissed. Her transfer from cashier to saleslady based on an unverified report of prior dishonesty constituted a demotion without just cause, amounting to constructive dismissal. Her resignation was not voluntary. (3) Victoria Santos was illegally dismissed. Her single act of mischarging cloth was a simple negligence, not gross and habitual neglect. The 30-day suspension was excessive and the employer failed to prove the charge warranted dismissal. Her non-return after suspension indicated constructive dismissal. (4) Violeta Soriano was illegally dismissed. The charge of insubordination for the DTR incident was not substantiated. The employer failed to prove the order to fill the DTR was lawful, given past practice, and failed to observe due process. (5) Susan De Castro was illegally dismissed. Her refusal to accept her salary was not a valid ground for dismissal. The employer’s statement for her to find work elsewhere constituted a dismissal, and the alleged loss of trust was unsubstantiated. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, ordering payment of full backwages from dismissal until finality of the decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.