G.R. No. 130617 , August 11, 1999
MA. LIZA DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and REX BOOKSTORE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Liza de Guzman was employed by private respondent Rex Bookstore, Inc. (REX) as a cashier on April 17, 1989. On August 5, 1995, she made a double payment of P5,520.00 to a book agent instead of the correct amount of P2,760.00 for a single transaction. REX issued a memorandum on August 12, 1995, ordering her to explain within 48 hours why she should not be penalized for dereliction of duty and suspending her for thirty days pending investigation. In her explanation, De Guzman claimed the sales clerk, Emmie Idio, issued two unofficial receipts for the same transaction, which the agent presented. She asked the agent if he made two deliveries, and upon his affirmative answer, she paid the total amount. She stated she could not verify due to many customers and that it was the sales clerk’s fault. Not satisfied, REX terminated her services on September 18, 1995. De Guzman filed a complaint for illegal suspension and later amended it to include illegal dismissal and claims for thirteenth-month pay, attorney’s fees, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement with full back wages, thirteenth-month pay for 1995 and 1996, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed with modification, ordering payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but deleting the award of back wages and attorney’s fees, finding her negligent but not grossly negligent. The NLRC considered the period she was out of work as penalty. De Guzman’s partial motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the Labor Arbiter’s decision by deleting the award of back wages despite affirming the finding of illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found merit in the petition. The general rule is that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. While the NLRC correctly awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, it erred in deleting back wages. The Court held that the negligence committed by De Guzman was not gross and did not warrant the penalty of forfeiture of back wages. The error was not solely her fault; the sales clerk and the agent also contributed. The Court cited precedents where employees found guilty of simple negligence were granted back wages. Therefore, the NLRC’s deletion of back wages constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award of back wages, subject to the modification that separation pay was awarded in lieu of reinstatement.