GR 132805; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1999
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ROMULUS PROTACIO and DR. HERMINIO A. FABROS, respondents.
FACTS
Dr. Herminio A. Fabros, a PAL flight surgeon, was on duty from 4:00 PM to 12:00 MN at the company clinic. On February 17, 1994, at around 7:00 PM, he left the clinic for a dinner break at his nearby residence. Shortly after, an emergency call was received concerning an employee, Manuel Acosta, who suffered a heart attack. The clinic nurse, Merlino Eusebio, called Fabros to inform him. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 PM, and Eusebio, without waiting for Fabros, immediately rushed him to the hospital. Fabros returned to the clinic at approximately 7:51 PM. Acosta died the following day. PAL subsequently charged Fabros with abandonment of post and, after investigation, suspended him for three months.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether Fabros’s suspension for alleged abandonment of post was legal; and (2) Whether the award of moral damages to Fabros was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the suspension was declared illegal. The Court found no abandonment, as Fabros left only for a legitimate meal break at his nearby home, his whereabouts were known, and he promptly returned upon notification of the emergency. Citing Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor Code, the Court ruled that the normal eight-hour work period excludes meal breaks, and the law does not require employees to take meals within company premises. His act was a justified temporary absence, not an abandonment of duty.
On the second issue, the Court deleted the award of P500,000 in moral damages. The Court held that moral damages in labor cases require clear evidence of bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct by the employer. Here, PAL’s imposition of suspension, though erroneous, was based on an honest belief that a rule was violated, and Fabros was given ample opportunity to explain and defend himself. No ill will, dishonest purpose, or moral obliquity was proven. The legal presumption of good faith was not overcome. Thus, while the suspension was illegal, the attendant circumstances did not justify an award of moral damages.