GR 124617; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124617 ; April 28, 2000
PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTOMOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION and/or FRANCIS CHUA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSALINDA C. CORTEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation terminated the employment of private respondent Rosalinda C. Cortez, a company nurse, effective November 7, 1994. The dismissal was based on several charges: throwing a stapler at and uttering invectives against the Plant Manager; losing entrusted company cash; having a co-employee punch her time card; and failing to process ATM applications for co-employees. The company issued memoranda requiring her to explain these charges. Cortez refused to receive the first two memoranda, though they were read to her, and she submitted an explanation only for some charges. After investigation, she was dismissed for serious misconduct, gross neglect of duties, and breach of trust.
Cortez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal as valid. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that Cortez was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. The employer bears the burden of proving a valid ground for termination. The Court found the charges against Cortez insufficient to constitute just causes for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The alleged act of throwing a stapler was not substantiated by convincing evidence. The loss of the entrusted money, while a neglect of duty, was not proven to be gross and habitual. The infraction concerning the time card was a single isolated incident. The failure to promptly process the ATM applications was, at worst, simple neglect.
The Court emphasized that where a penalty less severe than dismissal would suffice, it should be imposed. The cited infractions did not rise to the level of serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect, or willful breach of trust justifying termination. The dismissal was therefore without just cause. Due process was also violated as the preventive suspension exceeded the maximum 30-day period under the law. Consequently, the award of back wages was affirmed. Due to strained relations, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was granted. Moral and exemplary damages were also awarded due to the baseless and oppressive nature of the dismissal.