G.R. No. 125548 September 25, 1998
SOLVIC INDUSTRIAL CORP. and ANTONIO C. TAM, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DIOSDADO LAUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Diosdado Lauz was employed by petitioner Solvic Industrial Corporation in 1977 as an extruder operator. On January 17, 1994, an incident occurred where Lauz allegedly struck his foreman, Carlos Aberin, on the shoulder beside the neck with the blunt side of a bladed weapon, inflicting a minor abrasion. The incident happened outside the work premises, just opposite the company’s entrance gate. Aberin executed an affidavit and submitted a medical certificate. Lauz was preventively suspended and, after an administrative investigation where he initially denied the act but later admitted and apologized in a meeting with union officers, was terminated on February 21, 1994. Lauz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and service incentive leave pay. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering Lauz’s reinstatement without backwages, finding the penalty of dismissal too harsh. The NLRC noted the injury was not serious, the incident occurred outside work premises and did not disrupt operations, Lauz had 20 years of untainted service, and the foreman had forgiven him and withdrawn the criminal case. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement (without backwages) of private respondent Diosdado Lauz, finding that the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the NLRC Resolutions. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the penalty of dismissal was too severe for the offense committed. The act, while not condoned, was not so serious as to warrant dismissal because: (1) the injury inflicted was minor (a single strike with the blunt side of the weapon); (2) the incident occurred outside the work premises and did not disrupt company operations; (3) the victim-foreman had already forgiven Lauz and reconciled with him, withdrawing the criminal case; and (4) Lauz had 20 years of service with an unblemished record. The Court emphasized that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. It reiterated the doctrine that dismissal is warranted only for the most serious causes, and where a less punitive penalty suffices, it should be imposed. The employer’s power to dismiss must be exercised with caution due to the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The Court distinguished the case from Villeno v. NLRC, where the offense was work-related and seriously affected the employer’s business. No grave abuse of discretion was found, as the NLRC’s decision was not capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary.
