G.R. No. 156382 ; December 18, 2008
MCDONALD’S (KATIPUNAN BRANCH) and/or MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioners, vs. MA. DULCE ALBA, respondent.

FACTS

Ma. Dulce Alba (respondent) was hired as part of the service crew of petitioner McDonald’s Katipunan Road branch on November 15, 1993. During orientation, she was provided a copy of the Crew Employee Handbook containing the meal policy, which prohibited consuming food without authority or payment, including deviation from the employee meal policy. On April 8, 1995, crew member Rizza Santiago witnessed respondent eating a piece of fried chicken inside the crew room while on duty and reported it. Respondent, in a written but unsigned letter dated April 15, 1995, admitted she took a piece of co-employee Zel’s chicken because she was hungry and had a stomach ache, acknowledging it was against company policy. Petitioner suspended respondent for five days and, after a show-cause notice and investigation, terminated her services on April 27, 1995, citing her admission and the violation of the meal policy. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found that while respondent violated the meal policy, dismissal was too harsh a penalty and ordered payment of backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC. Petitioners then filed the present petition, contending that the Labor Arbiter should have conducted a clarificatory hearing, the penalty was not excessive, and payroll sheets they submitted on appeal should have been appreciated.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Ma. Dulce Alba from her employment was valid.

RULING

No, the dismissal was not valid. The Supreme Court held that while respondent violated the company’s meal policy, such violation did not amount to serious or willful misconduct or willful disobedience justifying dismissal under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. For willful disobedience, the act must be characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and the order violated must be reasonable, lawful, known to the employee, and pertain to her duties. For serious misconduct, the act must be performed with wrongful intent. Petitioners failed to prove that respondent’s act was induced by a perverse or wrongful intent; they merely relied on her knowledge of the policy. The Court noted that respondent’s claim of stomach pains due to hunger was plausible and should have been considered in imposing a penalty. The five-day suspension already imposed was sufficient. Petitioners also failed to prove any material damage or prejudice to the company. The procedural issues raised by petitioners were unavailing; the Labor Arbiter had discretion to dispense with a hearing as the position papers and evidence were sufficient, and the tardy submission of payroll sheets on motion for reconsideration was properly disallowed. The petition was denied.