G.R. No. 163099 October 4, 2005
Amadeo Fishing Corporation, et al. vs. Romeo Nierra, et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Amadeo Fishing Corporation employed private respondents Romeo Nierra, Raul Naces, and Alberto Ojayas as reserved crew members. On March 9, 1998, as the respondents attempted to exit the company premises with approximately seven kilos of fish, the security guard confiscated the items for lack of a required gate pass. The respondents claimed the fish was part of their personal allowance or was personally caught. Personnel Manager Anita Ymbong issued a spot report requiring a written explanation within 24 hours, but the respondents refused to accept it, stating they could not understand English. During a subsequent dialogue, General Manager Gerry Odango accused them of theft, to which Nierra retorted, “Kamo gud, himu-a ninyo ang inyong gusting buhaton.” The petitioners subsequently terminated the respondents’ employment for gross insubordination and violation of company policy, and filed criminal charges for qualified theft.
The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ petition, upholding the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision that the dismissal of the private respondents was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just cause. The alleged acts—violation of company policy by attempting to bring out fish without a gate pass and insubordination for Nierra’s retort—did not constitute willful disobedience or serious misconduct warranting dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The respondents’ act was not attended by a wrongful or perverse attitude, and their explanation that the fish was their allowance presented a plausible defense. Nierra’s single impulsive remark, made in the heat of an accusation of theft, did not amount to the gross insubordination required for termination.
Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the twin requirements of procedural due process: notice and hearing. The “spot report” issued was in English, a language not understood by the respondents, and they were effectively denied a real opportunity to explain their side before termination. Consequently, the dismissal was declared illegal. However, applying the doctrine in Agabon v. NLRC, the Court ruled that while the dismissal was for an authorized cause, the procedural infirmity rendered it ineffectual, entitling the respondents to nominal damages in lieu of reinstatement, in addition to full backwages and other benefits from the time of dismissal until finality of the decision.