G.R. No. 125031. January 24, 2000.
PERMEX INC. and/or JANE (JEAN) PUNZALAN, PERSONNEL MANAGER and EDGAR LIM, MANAGER, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMMANUEL FILOTEO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation dismissed private respondent Emmanuel Filoteo, a water treatment operator, for allegedly falsifying his Daily Time Record (DTR). On July 31, 1994, Filoteo was scheduled for a night shift. He logged in at 8:45 PM and, following a common practice tolerated by the company, he pre-filled his time-out as 7:00 AM the next day. Later that evening, after being informed there would be no work, he sought and obtained permission to leave at around 10:00 PM. The next day, he made a re-entry in his DTR to correct his time-out.
Filoteo was subsequently suspended and then terminated for violating company rules against falsification. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding the dismissal valid but awarding nominal damages for procedural lapses. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent Emmanuel Filoteo was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal, but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages. The Court upheld the NLRC’s factual findings, which are generally binding. On the substantive merits, the Court ruled that Filoteo’s act did not constitute willful dishonesty or serious misconduct warranting dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
The legal logic is that for an employee’s act to be a valid ground for termination, it must be willful, deliberate, or done with wrongful intent. The evidence showed that the practice of pre-filling time-out entries was customary and tolerated by management for practical reasons. Filoteo’s subsequent correction of his DTR the following day negated any fraudulent intent. His act was a mere error in judgment, not a deliberate falsification. Dismissal is too severe a penalty for such a minor infraction, considering his length of service and the absence of wrongful intent. The employer failed to prove a just or authorized cause for termination. However, moral and exemplary damages were improperly awarded as the dismissal, while illegal, was not shown to be attended by bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct.