G.R. No. 167218; July 2, 2010
ERECTOR ADVERTISING SIGN GROUP, INC. and ARCH. JIMMY C. AMOROTO, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Erector Advertising Sign Group, Inc. employed Expedito Cloma as a company driver from 1996 until May 2000. The company suspended Cloma twice in May 2000: first, for three days due to unauthorized absences from May 12-15, and second, for one week for allegedly threatening and preventing workers from another division from working on May 11. When Cloma reported for work after serving these suspensions on May 25, 2000, he was barred from entering and handed a termination letter dated May 20, 2000. The letter cited his unauthorized absences, threatening behavior, and habitual tardiness as grounds for dismissal.
Cloma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid due to Cloma’s infractions and his failure to submit an explanation when directed. The NLRC reversed this decision, ruling the dismissal illegal for lack of just cause and due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that Cloma was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, holding that Cloma was illegally dismissed. The employer failed to prove by substantial evidence that Cloma’s alleged misconduct constituted willful disobedience or serious misconduct justifying dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The charges of threatening co-workers were based on an unverified letter from two employees, which Cloma specifically denied. The Court found this single, contested incident insufficient to qualify as serious misconduct, which requires a wrongful intent and a showing that the acts were of such grave character as to reflect on the employee’s moral character. Regarding the absences, the Court noted they were already penalized with suspension; using them again as a ground for termination constituted double jeopardy. Procedurally, the dismissal was defective as Cloma was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The termination letter was prepared and dated while he was still serving his suspensions, and he was not afforded a chance to contest his dismissal before it was effected. Consequently, the dismissal was declared illegal for lack of both just cause and procedural due process.